The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - How Canada Survives in the Era of Trump's America

Episode Date: March 11, 2025

From an America that is turning its back on longtime allies and towards Russia to a Europe that is quickly rearming, it's impossible not to get the sense that we are at a turning point in how the world is ordered. As German chancellor-in-waiting Freidrich Merz said: "My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that ... we can really achieve independence from the USA." But what about Canada? Our foreign policy has long been influenced by our neighbours to the south. So what do we do now? And how independent can we really become from the USA?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Renew your 2.0 TVO with more thought-provoking documentaries, insightful current affairs coverage, and fun programs and learning experiences for kids. Regular contributions from people like you help us make a difference in the lives of Ontarians of all ages. Visit tvo.me slash 2025 donate to renew your support or make a first-time donation and continue to discover your 2-point TBO. From an America that's turning its back on longtime allies and towards Russia to a Europe that is quickly re-arming, it's hard not to get the sense that we are at an historical turning point in how the world is ordered. But what does it all mean for Canada?

How should our foreign policy, long influenced by America, change amidst this upheaval? Let's ask. In Washington, DC, Janice Nye, the Bellsburg Professor of Conflict Management and the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at U of T. In Montreal, Quebec, Jennifer Welsh, professor of global governance and security and director of the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. And with us here in studio, Seva Gnitsky, associate professor of political science at U of T and author of Aftershocks, Great Powers and Domestic Reforms in the 20th Century.

Seva, it's good to see you again here. And Janice and Jennifer, real pleasure to have you both on the line from points beyond. I wanna start by reading a tweet that our friend Andrew Coyne from the Globe and Mail recently tweeted. This is from last week in which he said, "'We are living through history on fast forward.

"'The whole strategic architecture of the world "'is being reshaped in the space of a few days.'" Let's start there. Janice, do you agree with that observation? I do agree with Andrew, you see, but it is not a matter of days. This has been coming for years. Global trade is declining and the world has been regionalizing. Europeans have been investing more in Europe. Asians have been doing the same.

And we're seeing a fundamental reordering of the system that actually probably starts up to the global financial crisis. But with this president in office, it has been put on steroids. Canadians should have noticed this a long time ago. Jennifer, how do you see it? Yes, I agree that in terms of the big power shifts and regionalization that we have been seeing over the last couple of decades, some of this should not be seen as surprising. And I certainly think in terms of tariffs and industrial policy in the

U S we've seen some of this before, though not at this level. When we think about the stance of the Trump administration to international institutions, again, some of it, perhaps an exaggeration of previous positions, but we've seen some of it before. it perhaps an exaggeration of previous positions, but we've seen some of it before. What I think is more different is behavior and values. And I think in the space of a very short period, it has become much more clear to the Europeans that the U S is not essentially having their back in terms of European security.

is not essentially having their back in terms of European security. So a greater push for strategic autonomy, but also, and I think this comes more from vice president Vance than president Trump, there has been real shock at the degree to which the U S administration is questioning domestic politics in a number of places. I think particularly Vance's speech at the European Security Conference, where he was admonishing European leaders for their lack of commitment to free speech, for their domestic political choices. So I think those last two, that has been more exaggerated over the last couple of weeks, and it has really pushed some dramatic decisions.

Let me pick up on that Vance speech in Europe. And Seva, I'll read this from Germany's chancellor in waiting, Frederick Merz, to set up the question for you. Because he said this shortly after winning the recent German election on Feb. 23. He said, my absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that step by step we can

really achieve independence from the USA. I never thought I would have to say something like this but after Donald Trump's statements it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe. How significant a statement is that in your view? Well, I think we are finally entering this post-American world that so many commentators have been predicting for years. And you know, it's funny.

There have been debates for so long about how this was going to happen exactly. But I don't think anybody predicted that it would happen because the superpower is itself actively undermining its global standing, its alliances, the very system that it built. That's different. And I grew up in the USSR during Grobyshev's reform.

So obviously, the situations are very different. But it is very strange to me to, again, see a major power undertaking radical reforms that are not very well thought out that so blatantly undermine its own standing. Just to follow up, you thought the world order might deteriorate, but you didn't see the United States leading that deterioration? Is that the point? I didn't think the crisis would come from the center itself.

Everybody talks about the rise of China, but the fact that the US is actively undermining its own standing is bizarre to me. And I think we'll find out that the unipolar system is the worst system except for all the others. I think we're finding that out. That is, there are legitimate criticisms to be made of the global order that the US built. It wasn't liberal in many places. It wasn't even very orderly. But it did provide a degree of stability.

And it made smaller countries feel comfortable, at least, acquiescent. And that's gone. The US is no longer the guarantor of that order, at least for the next few years. And that means it's acting more like some kind of a landlord collecting rent from people who didn't even know they were renting from them. So he's pushing a multipolar world into being.

This is a great gift to Russia and China. You can see the jubilation in Russia now. And Trump basically seems to think that the US is the indispensable nation, and therefore can do what it wants. And if it does what think that the US is the indispensable nation and therefore can do what it wants and if it does what it wants it will grow stronger. But you know the graveyard of history is filled with indispensable nations and there's no reason the US can't join that club if it keeps going the way it does.

If there is Janice, so much consternation from Canadians, from half of Americans, from much of Europe. Why is the United States doing this? Look, that is the $64 million question here. Seva has it exactly right. The United States is clearly undermining itself over the long term. But Donald Trump and the people around him. And there is a coherent ideology by these people.

This is not as random and as erratic as it looks. They see the United States as a power that has paid the freight for too long in some of its language. That the benefits they got from the so-called liberal international order, and I agree with Salah, it wasn't always very liberal and it wasn't always very orderly, but the benefits they got, they thought, and I disagree very strongly with them, but that's what these people think, is outweighed by the costs that they have been paying. So all this language about the United States paying too much being ripped off.

There is a 19th century imperial, mercantilist view of the world, and it's among some of Trump's advisors. And this is long thought out. And the United States, in their view, will grow stronger internally, will restore its manufacturing and its dominance in the world if it invests in itself and actually pulls back from the world and doesn't let the world exploit it. That's how they understand history. Jennifer, I want to set up my next question to you by hearing from two different Trudeaus. Our 15th Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said at the National Press Club in Washington in 1969, Living next to you, the Americans, is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant.

No matter how friendly and even-tempered the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt. A famous quote from Pierre Trudeau. Let's fast forward 50 years and listen to our 23rd Prime Minister, here's Justin Trudeau, from this past week. Sheldon, the clip if you would. He has said repeatedly that what he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy. Because that'll make it easier to annex us, is the second half of

his thought. Now first of all that's never going to happen. We will never be the 51st state. But yeah, he can do damage to the Canadian economy and he started this morning. Is the elephant, Jennifer, no longer our friend? Well, that first quote about sleeping with an elephant and the reverberations, we've certainly felt it over the last couple of weeks with the absolute upending of our domestic politics as a result of what is going on in the United States. I think the approach to the tariffs, despite all of the efforts of our Canadian diplomats, of our Canadian politicians to try to avert them, shows that this is a very adversarial president with respect to our economic interests. And we need to stop assuming good intentions behind that.

I don't see outright annexation as the long run story here, but I do see attempts to try to hollow out our economy as Janice has described by moving business and wealth to the United States. I see a much more aggressive approach to our natural resources, to what we have in the ground up here that is seen as valuable to the U.S. here, but also elsewhere in the world, critical minerals. And I also see them becoming much, much stronger on defense. But I think it's above all the way in which the negotiations and the diplomacy are taking place. So to give you one example that you may not have picked up on, because there was so much going on in the last week, was the way in which Donald Trump in talking to Justin Trudeau about economic issues, slipped into the conversation that the U.S.

is not very happy on the negotiations around the Columbia River Treaty, a 60 year old treaty designed to manage our water relations. So I think it is this style, this approach to negotiation with the United States that we have to completely change our way of entering into those compared to how we did so in the context, say of a free trade arrangement in past years. Jennifer, I could just add, because Jennifer's just brought up a really important point there. It wasn't only about the Columbia River Treaty. He expressed concern about the way we share water on the Great Lakes. Just think about that. Water is something the United States really needs, as we know, given the accelerating pace of climate change.

Just for everyone to understand we have a treaty that governs water sharing but any any state that borders the Great Lakes can drain beyond its quota if there is not willingness to cooperate. So when I read that report in the New York Times that was a flashing red light for me. Well I hate to be a bigger downer but it's not just the water and it's not just the Columbia River and it's not just the 51st state nonsense and it's not just about crushing our economy but last week the New York Times reported that on the talks or in the talks rather between

Trudeau and Trump this came forward. He told, between Trudeau and Trump, this came forward. He told Mr. Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary. He offered no further explanation. While Mr. Trump's remarks could all be bluster or a negotiating tactic to pressure Canada into concessions on trade or border security, the Canadian side no longer believes that to be so. Sava, I mean, the approach,

do we take these remarks at face value, or do we think this is just negotiating tactics? Yeah, so Trudeau was worried about elephants' accidental twitches, and now the elephant is up and stomping around very consciously, which is much worse. And I think Canada should treat these threats of annexation as kind of signals of a deeper shift in US strategy, in US policy.

Even if literal annexation is improbable at this point, it signals a shift to transactional zero-sum relationship. And again, that's not going anywhere for the next few years. So the danger is not necessarily invasion, but sort of a creeping chaos and creeping erosion of Canadian sovereignty as the US continues to disregard Canadian interests

and Canadian economics, Canadian diplomacy. And as you played in the clip just now, Trudeau basically said that Trump wants to soften up the Canadian economy in order to make it easier to annex. Even if you think annexation is unlikely, that's a very dangerous short-term strategy for Canada that they should be worried about.

And it's not even clear exactly why Trump is so antagonistic towards Trudeau. He has a personal dislike for him. Well, there's at least that, for sure. At least that. And in which case, maybe that's a good thing, because with Trudeau leaving, Trump can take credit for it. I'm sure he will, and maybe it'll calm him down.

But if it's a structural issue, as I suspect, then it's not going anywhere. I've studied Russia for a long time, and we ask questions about Putin for a long time. Does he actually mean what he says? Is he crazy enough to do that? And now we're kind of starting to ask the same questions with Trump, which is a very dangerous sign,

and hopefully doesn't mean that things are going the same way. I suspect many people watching this right now saw some of the Liberal Leadership Convention from Ottawa last night. And there were a couple of things. Well, Jean Chrétien gave a terrific speech in which he said, this is something we've never seen. This is something Canadians don't understand,

the way that we're being treated by the Trump administration right now. And the outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, this is a nation defining moment. Democracy is not a given. Freedom is not a given. Even Canada is not a given. I mean, Jennifer, when you hear these kinds of statements, can you believe her ears? Well, it's pretty dramatic and that our leaders in that sense rhetorically are rising to the moment of the great change that we've been discussing. And I think if I could add something to the portrayal we've all been giving of the United States, I think what's important to remember is that Mr. Trump wants to operate in a club of very great powers.

This is why the overtures to Russia, the re-engagement with Russia, which is causing such consternation in Europe, you know, why are you reaching out to a strong man? And I think on the flip side of that is the lack of respect for those who are perceived to be smaller and weak. And I think he wants to very much operate not just in the 19th century sense of imperialism, but in a way in which he uses US power very coercively, very overtly. So when our prime minister says, you know, Canada is not a given, our borders are not a given, it's really a rallying cry to stand up for those things we value and

believe in and to make sure that in this world in which Trump wants to deal with the strong, that we are strong, that we demonstrate the costs of what he is proposing. Janice, we've seen for a long time Trump has a particular affection for, I almost want to say fellow authoritarian leaders, but let's just say authoritarian leaders. I would say fellow. If he likes the great power so much, I mean Russia, Russia's economy is less than Texas's economy.

Russia's not a great power in the sense that it once was. So why so much sucking up to Russia? There is just enormous speculation about the grounds for Trump's affinity to Putin. It's been going on for nine years. We don't really have a good answer to that question, but it's real. And we have seen Trump crush Zelensky, frankly, treat him with absolute disdain. And he claims that he is doing so to get a ceasefire, but nevertheless that deal is clearly going to be made with only token consideration of Zelensky. We're about to see a similar pattern in the Middle East, which people are not paying attention

to, but it's exactly the same pattern. You reach over the head of the so-called small locals. So Jennifer's point is correct. He has disdain for the small and the weak. The real question for a country like Canada, and you know, this weekend there was a map circulating, which is, it's hard to tell if it was a meme or it was a clever Twitter, in which the border between Canada and the United States was redrawn and Southern Ontario was part of the United States.

That map is not valid and doesn't come from anybody inside the Trump administration. But it raises an interesting question. What does it mean to be strong? Frankly, there was no conceivable expenditure by Canada on defense that could deter the United States if the United States were ever determined to do this? And that's, I think, an important frame for Canadians. Yes, we can diversify.

Yes, we can reinvest in defense because we needed to do that for 20 disastrous years, if not more, when we haven't. But we have to also be realistic about what all those investments do. The United States is ten times our size. We need to understand it. Zelensky needed to understand it and so do all of China's neighbors. If Trump thinks strength equals having nuclear weapons, which I suspect Seva, he does, does Canada need to reacquire nuclear capability? Well, a nuclear weapon is really the only credible defense against a powerful foe, as other countries around the world

have been finding out for a long time. And look, I think a credible deterrent is necessary not because Canada can actually defend itself. I think Janice is right. The US is too powerful. But I think, especially for Trump, sovereignty is easier to respect when it's backed up by force, and especially military force or economic force.

So even if Canada cannot build up a credible deterrent, I think building up its military and its cyber and intelligence capabilities, these are kind of things that enhance its sovereignty by at least sending a message to people like Trump that this is a serious country that takes itself seriously and will not be pushed around. I think that's really the only short-term solution that Canada has, and that means investments in things like the military, but that by itself is not going to be enough. Jennifer, you want to build on that?

If he's trying to crush our economy for the purposes of eventually annexing Canada as a 51st state, what can we actually do about that? Well, I will answer that in a minute, but I just want to extend this conversation about nuclear weapons because one of the comments made at the start was how much of a self-defeating aspect to Trump's behavior we should be seeing in all of this. We need to look at this whole discussion around nuclear weapons as one that is highly destabilizing. We have Poland talking about acquiring a nuclear weapon. We have the possibility if deterrence fails on the

Korean peninsula that South Korea will acquire a weapon and Japan has quietly made clear that if that happens for regional reasons it will move to acquire a weapon. So all of this is incredibly destabilizing. We have Emmanuel Macron talking about extending the French deterrent. So this is another layer of instability that really moves so far away from 75 years of extended deterrence by the United States. And so what, coming back to your question, is a Canada to do? I think, you know, Janice has said it very well. There's no way that in the short or even medium term, we can build up the kind of military force that would express strength in the United States.

But I do think we need to take a page out of what is happening in Europe. It has been dramatic, the changes they have made, including through legislative changes, a $150 billion fund now being set up in the European Commission, a waiving of deficit rules in Germany, even discussion around the creation of a European Rearmament Bank. These are really bold decisions. We can say they should have come earlier, but they're a signal to Canada of just the kind of change in foreign policy

We need to be thinking about here as we go forward alone, but also with our allies Well in which case Janice do we do what the Europeans are talking about now, which is essentially go our own way Assume that we are in a in a world where America is no longer our best friend In fact, they may be an adversary and we've got to just change the way we do business America is no longer our best friend. In fact, they may be an adversary, and we've got to just change the way we do business. You know, I certainly think we have to assume that America, the United States, is not our best friend as long as there's president in his office. But let's be careful not to conflate this administration with Americans, right?

We have many friends inside the United States. It's important to remember that. Steve, the larger issue is, and again to be very blunt here, Canada faces unique challenges. We are the next door neighbor of the United States, the Europeans are not. The United States, to defend its own sovereignty against attacks, one of the obvious ways an attack could come against the United States is what we call over the top, which means over our territory. We can't forget the United States needs us.

And when President Trump gets any kind of advice from whoever is his chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They will tell him that the United States needs Canada to cooperate. So there are limits to the disruption that Trump can inflict on us. And it's very important for Canada to recognize the assets it has in this relationship. It is not all one sided. That is not true for Europe, but it is true for Canada and that's why I don't want to put us in that basket.

Savvy, you know the great quote, I think Rahm Emanuel said it most recently, I guess, you never let a good crisis go to waste. We are clearly in the midst of a foreign affairs crisis in this country. If we don't want to let it go to waste, how do we use this opportunity to either reassert different principles that we have around the world or change our relationship with the United States?

Well, to be optimistic for a second, if I could, that's probably not a good idea at this point. But this could be a nation defining moment for Canada, where it sets the new rules not just for its foreign policy orientation, but for its national identity. It's been in this long term relationship, and now the relationship is on the rocks. But there are other fish in the sea,

and Canada is an attractive partner. So it should develop those relationships further. I think all it can do at this point is keep negotiating and try finding new partners. And hopefully, when the next president comes in, this will give an opportunity to reset the relationship. We'll see. It is interesting, Jennifer, that if you look

at polls across the country, the one good thing Trump has done is he's united Canadians as almost never before, certainly not since Expo 67. Can I recall a time when Canadians were more bullish about being Canadian? Even in Quebec, where you are right now, there is a sense of strong love for Canada, the likes of which is perhaps a bit atypical for Quebec. What are you seeing there? Yes, I think you're right that there is a degree to which support for sovereignty is declining in this province.

There's a sense of solidarity. And you know, we saw former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien last night saying, we owe a debt of thanks to Trump for that. Perhaps we should give him the Order of Canada, which was a joke, of course. But it is true that this has been galvanizing. I think what's so important though, is that we sustain this level of solidarity when it gets tough, because it is going to get tough. And as we look at these aspects of our foreign policy, you know, Janice mentioned the

Arctic. We released an Arctic foreign policy recently, we are going to have to look at that again. We are going to need to dig deep in our pockets for defence spending, we are going to need to support businesses. And Canadians have to be brought along, but they also have to keep this level of solidarity. That is not going to be easy when it starts to hurt. And so I think, you know, this conversation we're having now is only the start of a very long process. Yes, four years will pass, but it's a long four years. And when I look at what's coming next, I've been watching JD Vance.

He's a young man. He may rise in the Republican Party. Yes, we may have a different party in government, but the point is we don't know. We can't assume what will come next. And so I think Canadians need to buckle up for a period of instability and really keep that solidarity strong. Well, I hate to tell you, I don't know that JD Vance is going to get a chance because I'm not sure Donald Trump is going anywhere.

I think he may try again. Janice, how do we take advantage of this moment to make it work for us? Look, I think it's really important that we get very practical. We need to increase defense spending by orders of multiples, particularly in the Arctic. That is the top of the world. And we are so badly underinvested. We don't have a year-round facility in our Arctic. And the United States has been asking us for years to do this. We have to do it, we have to do it now, and we have to do it at orders of magnitude greater than Canadians have thought about doing it, frankly. That's the first and most important thing. You know, the second big thing is we have to take down the inter-provincial trade

barriers that exist in this country, and we have to do it with a sense of urgency. And boy, it's that hard, Steve. As you know, there are constituencies in each province that are going to scream bloody murder. Too bad. Too bad. The next prime minister needs to put the provincial premiers in a room and negotiate the end of this because if we did that, we would grow our economy by the amount that Trump has thus far put tariffs on it.

And thirdly, we need to start building east-west links. They're not economic. It was easier to go north-south. We all understand that. But we have to build things which we have not been able to do in this country. The pace at which we do things is frankly, lethal in the world in which we're living in now. And we have to figure out how to get stuff done. Leave out the ideology. We need to get stuff done in this country in a way that we once used to be able to do and are no longer able.

I'm frankly out of patience. Seva, if America is at the throats of its formerly closest allies, many of whom are in NATO. Is this the end of NATO? Well, it's certainly suggesting a transformation of NATO. What happens to NATO if the US leaves? Will it remain in some form?

I think European security infrastructure will have to be created no matter what, with Ukraine in it. Now, whether or not Trump is ready to take this drastic step, it's not clear. Things change very quickly. But the overall trend is definitely a separation of the US from Europe. And that means a decline in NATO's capabilities.

And hopefully, we'll see Europeans, as they have, take charge of this and create their own security infrastructure that doesn't rely so much on the US. Because there is no going back. Even if we get the most pro-Atlanticist president in the next four years, that thought that it could all go away in a second will always be in the back of the Europeans' minds. That's not going anywhere. Well, that's it, Jennifer. How exactly do we plan for a future where we have Trump now, but before that we

had Biden, who had a very different way of doing things, and before that we had Trump, and before that we had Obama, and before that we had Bush? The U.S. seems to whipsaw between extremes every four or eight years. How do we make it in that kind of a world? Well, as we started out this conversation by saying, there has been a big structural shift anyway, a change in the power configuration globally that has been happening for 30 years.

US leadership has also been changing over the last 30 years in terms of real commitment to some of the institutions that the Western Alliance was relying on. It is not as if the Trump administration has been completely different in this respect. What's different is the behavior. And I think what's different, and Seba was hinting at that, is the psychological element. Institutions rest on more than their formal rules.

They also rest on the beliefs of leaders that they're going to hold. So in a sense, Trump doesn't even have to formally withdraw from NATO. He can just begin to indicate that the US guarantee might not be credible. And so I think for us, we can't engage in wishful thinking. We don't know what will come next in terms of the next leader in the White House post-Trump. We have to live with the world as it is and what it could be. And I think what this last couple of weeks has shown everyone is that you can't assume. You have to deal with decisions as they are actually playing out.

And so we can't assume that we'll be returning to an order that we like best and that we thrive in. We have to get ready for an order that is changing regardless. Janice, in our last 30 seconds here, maybe I could get you to follow up on that. Wither NATO in this kind of world? Look, NATO's already damaged, Steve. Trump doesn't have to do anything more than he's already done.

He's crippled NATO because it's not clear that the United States would honor Article 5, which is the commitment to self-defense if it were invoked. Although he was asked that directly the other day. Trump was, and he did say, yes, I do believe in Article 5. Yeah, that was the day he said that. What will he say next week? Right? Exactly.

And that's the question that everybody is asking. And that's underlying the structural shift that we're talking about. You know, this, in a sense, is what opens the possibility of nuclear proliferation. Because when smaller countries are insecure, you know, France is saying we will extend our nuclear umbrella to all of Europe. Well, that second strike nuclear umbrella, just so that everybody understands, is for quite old submarines. That is the sum total

of the second strike capability that France has. So Europe is going to reorganize itself. It has to. We have to invest. We have no choice. Yes, some of our allies are obvious targets of collaboration, but Canada stands alone, uniquely exposed, along with Mexico, because we are the next door neighbors to this United States. And we have to deeply understand that and shift the way we spend the resources we had.

In ways that Canadians probably genuinely don't want to do, but we will have no choice. I want to thank the three of you for coming onto our program tonight and helping us make some sense of a completely nonsensical world right now. Janis Stein from the Munk School, Jennifer Welsh from the Max Bell School, Savagunitsky University of Toronto. Thanks so much you three. Thank you. Thank you Steve. Thank you.