The Current - Former U.S. congresswoman wants to “fix” Canada/US relationship

Episode Date: May 8, 2026

Former Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman is the newly-appointed co-chair of a Commission for the Second Century of Canada-U.S. relations, an attempt to revive the bilateral relationship between the two countries. While she believes it can eventually be repaired, she says she's "heartbroken" about the way things have disintegrated under President Donald Trump, and believes Prime Minister Mark Carney is navigating the rupture "adroitly."

This week on two blocks from the White House, we're talking about a Supreme Court decision that could have a big impact on American elections. The decision narrows, some argue guts the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and it's expected to lead to a major redrawing of electoral maps. Join me, Paul Hunter, and my fellow Washington correspondence, Katie Simpson and Willie Lowry, as we break down U.S. politics from a Canadian perspective. Find and follow two blocks from the White House, wherever you get your podcasts, and watch us on YouTube. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. Things were not looking good when Donald Trump first started talking about making Canada the 51st state. And as his presidency has gone on, there have been more and more signs that that old, comfortable Canada-U.S.

Relationship is over. Rhetoric has been particularly heated of late. Take last month when Rick Switzer, the Deputy U.S. trade representative, had this to say about Prime Minister Mark Carney. I would argue there's not a grown-up in Canada in charge there. You don't go out of your way to antagonize the leader of the country that you are absolutely existentially tied to. It's just political malpractice. Meanwhile, Mark Carney's approach has been to play a long game in trade negotiations with the U.S.

while looking to strengthen relations with other countries. Our strategic imperative is to build these sovereign capabilities with the most trusted partners, and that creates enormous opportunities for partnership between Canada and Europe. It's my strong personal view that as the international order will be rebuilt, but it will be rebuilt out of Europe. And so in the midst of all this tension, is there a more constructive way forward for the Canada-U.S. relationship? Well, my next guest certainly hopes so.

Jane Harmon has just been named one of the two co-chairs of a new initiative, the Commission for the Second Century of Canada-U.S. relations. She is a former nine-term congresswoman from California, former top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who most recently served as chair of the National Defense Strategy Commission. She's also the author of Insanity Defense, why our failure to confront hard national security problems makes us less safe.

She's in Boston. Jane Harmon, good morning. Good morning to you. Good to have you here on the program. Tell me about why you wanted to get involved in this commission. Well, I love Canada. I grew up in Los Angeles and never, thought that we wouldn't be best friends with Canada. And I remember vividly as the top Democrat

on the House Intelligence Committee on 9-11 when Canada opened its airspace to 33,000 passengers who were stranded because U.S. airspace had been closed. Of course Canada would do that. That's just the Canada that I know and love. And so what will you be doing with this commission to try and repair that relationship. The mandate of it is to develop long-term forward-looking strategic agenda for bilateral cooperation at a time of heightened economic uncertainty, geopolitical tension, and shifting trade dynamics. What does that mean in terms of what you'll actually be doing? Well, the title is the second century, U.S. Canada, the second century, point being that we've had 100 years of being best friends until the last 17 months or shorter than that. And we need to

have the next 98 years being best friends. So we will come up with strategies to repair what's broken. And let me say, as an American, former member of Congress, former president and CEO of the Wilson Center, which had a major Canada program headed by Chris Sands, who's very involved in this project, in any rate, let me say is all of those things that I don't share the view of this administration about Canada. and I still think Canada must be our best friend. And by the way, I give them credit for USMCA, the U.S. Canada and Mexico agreement, and would be horrified if in the next months it becomes unraveled. How would you describe the state of the relationship between our two countries right now?

Rupured, to quote your prime minister. And it makes absolutely no sense that this has happened. Absolutely no sense to me. Do you understand why Canadians are so angry? I mean, there are many Canadians who are not traveling. to the United States. They might go down to California. They love California. I love California. We aren't traveling down there in numbers that we used to anymore. Do you understand that? Yeah, and you're not importing our wine. That's a big hit to the California economy.

But of course I understand that. I was in Western Canada when Premier Ford showed that ad of Ronald Reagan talking about why tariffs are bad. And that seems to have jump started this bad relationship with Canada, and not that our president wasn't already talking about the 51st state, which I thought was a gratuitous insults. But anyway, it was breathtaking to see the reaction of the Canadians there. And I am so sad about this. When you take a look at the Republican administration that's in the White House right now, how much room do you see practically, honestly, for bilateral cooperation? Well, to quote President Zelensky of Ukraine, we have to work on it. But do you think the president and his team are at all interested in working on it right now?

No, but I think that there are facts. I mean, let's imagine there are facts, not just anger, that might change his mind about why we need a close, let's just start with something I know something about, the defense and intelligence relationship with Canada. Canada is a member of the five eyes. That is a collaborative intelligence relationship among the U.S., Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. If we don't share intelligence, I certainly worry that the U.S. mainland is very vulnerable because we are completely adjacent to Canada and some of the threats we can think about, let's imagine coming from Russia, China, etc., could easily cross the Canadian mainland into the U.S. land. So we need to know what's happening. We have the Northern Command, which is structured to think about the two countries as contiguous, not one country, but contiguous in land space.

And so I think it is extremely short-sighted to imagine that we're going to have a total rupture. You have a huge and diverse country, and obviously there is not one American strain of thought. But how do you think regular Americans are thinking about Canada? I think they're fine with Canada right now. I think most of them aren't thinking about it, but I would bet that elected officials who are up for re-election this year, the ones whose states are contiguous with Canada, especially the ones that make cars cross-border manufacturing, is the way we make most of the cars, or many of the cars manufactured in the U.S., would be furious about this and not want this rupture. And that's regardless of the cars.

party because there's a huge number of jobs involved in all this. And so I, you know, I just, for the life of me, think that this set of positions by the current administration is extremely short-sighted and short changes what the U.S. gets out of being best friends with Canada. Do you have any sense as to what the motivation is? I think a lot of people in this country are trying to figure this as well. We have been neighbors and close friends to your point for a very long time. And the president has picked fights with all, any number of nations around the world, but seems to have singled out Canada quite a bit. What is going on? What is this about, do you think? Well, to my surprise, he who campaigned on this theory of America first, which I took to mean

a more or less isolationist agenda, started out by saying, we need Panama, we need Canada, we need Greenland, we need this, that, and what? I guess we need to regime change in Venezuela, which we have not accomplished. We need regime change in Cuba. All of these things, contrary to what was his initial claim of his beliefs. And I remember seeing a map somewhere of the U.S. flag across basically the whole Western hemisphere. And I don't know where it comes from, and it doesn't make any sense to me.

and Canada, of course, is not the 51st state and should not be. That's insulting to Canada. And Greenland should not be part of the United States. It's part of Denmark, a member of NATO, and we are members of NATO, and we must respect each other's sovereignty. This week on two blocks from the White House, we're talking about a Supreme Court decision that could have a big impact on American elections. The decision narrows, some argue guts the Voting Rights Act of 1965,

and it's expected to lead to a major redrawing of electoral maps. Join me, Paul Hunter, and my fellow Washington correspondence, Katie Simpson and Willie Lowry, as we break down U.S. politics from a Canadian perspective. Find and follow two blocks from the White House, wherever you get your podcasts, and watch us on YouTube. There are a lot of people who worry about the 51st state. It wasn't just rhetoric, that we have freshwater, we have minerals, we have resources, and when the U.S. President says, you know, we need those,

and we can turn Canada into the 51st state. There are a lot of Canadians who took that very seriously. Did you? I felt the impact of it, not just on Canadians, but Americans like me, do I think it will happen? No. Was I surprised that he kept it up for a while? Yes. He hasn't talked about it in a while.

I don't think it's his top target. Most people think Greenland still is. And again, there is no reason to pick a fight with Greenland and it will fight back. And Europe is offended by this too. What sort of leverage do you think Canada holds right now in trying to convince the Trump administration to make a deal on trade? We heard his deputy trade representative, Rick Switzer, talking about political malpractice when it comes to our prime minister. What cards do we hold do you think in this country? Well, talk, I mean, his comment was about immature.

behavior. I'll just leave that. What cards? You have lots of cards. And you're using them adroitly. And I think your prime minister is using them adroitly. You can trade with others. You can trade with Europe. You can trade with Asia. He's traveling the world. You can't, it seems to me, rebuild a world structure where the U.S. is no longer the indispensable partner. I'm not recommending that. I want the U.S. to be the indispensable partner, but I do remember when Madeline Albright, a dear friend of mine who was our Secretary of State and held other senior roles, would say that. I would say, no, Madeline, we're not the indispensable country. We're the indispensable partner. And I think we throw away or offend partners and allies at our peril. And one of

the things this National Commission on National Defense Strategy that I chaired recommended was that the U.S. needs to use all elements of national power. That is obviously hard power, plus connections between what we're producing there and our technology base, which Ukraine proves is essential to win the next wars, plus connections to our soft power. That's our diplomacy and our various kinds of aid program, plus our connections to partners and allies. And that's all elements of national power. And that's how the U.S. will remain strong for the future. Shortchanging partners and allies is, to me, a lose-lose situation. Can I just ask you about one of those cards that it seems like we hold? You mentioned California wine. There's a lot of

great Chardonnay and Pinot Noir that comes out of California, and you will not find it on many of the liquor store shelves across this country. And that seems to have irritated And worse, many American officials, including the U.S. Ambassador to Canada. Why do you think that issue has hit hard? Well, I'm pleased to hear that Pete Hoxter, who happens to have been a friend of mine in Congress, he was the chair of the Intel Committee for a while when I was ranking member, is worried about California wine, so far as I know, he's not from California. But it is something that all Americans are proud of that we produce great wine,

as does France. And I think it's painful to see what's happening. You know, I don't blame Canada. I'm worried that the next step could be, as I mentioned, cross-border manufacturing for cars, which will be extremely painful. I gather that at least for the moment, we're actually doing well with oil and gas pipelines. I remember being opposed to some of them as a member of Congress. full disclosure. But I also think that in the current situation, it is very important that we make sure that both countries have adequate fuel. Let me just ask you a few things about security. You raised this earlier in national security. How much does the United States really need Canada when it comes to national security? Big time. We manufacture some defense assets together, like the F-35. As I mentioned, Northern Command is a strong. structure across Canada to protect both countries. It's based in the United States.

The new threats from the Arctic, which now has an ocean, who knew, because of climate change, which is a thing. You can't say it's phony. The threats from the Arctic, there are also opportunities from the Arctic, but the threats to our borders are shared threats. And, oh, by the way, the Canadian U.S. border has, in the past. been not the way the Mexican U.S. border was, but a source of some bad stuff and bad people coming into the U.S.

You mentioned the F-35, and Mark Carney is still trying to figure out whether Canada will go ahead with the purchase of the F-35 fighter jets from the U.S. The U.S. ambassador to Canada has said that if Canada backs out of that deal, it could put the NORAD partnership at risk. Why should Canadians trust the United States? and go ahead with that deal. Well, I'm not surprised that he's saying that. I think it would be really dangerous to end the NORAD partnership.

I also think that as someone who represented the Aerospace Center of California, that shared interest in U.S. aerospace products and Canadian aerospace products is in our mutual national security interest. And our defense industrial basis in the U.S. is anemic at the moment. And we have used up a lot of what our stockpiles are in Iran, which I think is a misguided venture for the United States. And we need Canada and Canadian innovation and Canadian manufacture to shore up both U.S. and Canadian stockpiles. But I guess why should Canada trust the United States? States. Well, okay, that's fair. You asked me that. Short term, question mark. Longer term, I hope we will

trust each other more. Our relationship as best friends has always been based on trust. And I, why should any country trust the U.S. at the moment? And we see that the trust is receding. And we see not only Canada, but other countries which relied on the U.S. looking for additional partners. And that's my point about the U.S. sadly losing its ability to be a leader for good in the world. Let me ask you just finally this. We will be neighbors forever because of geography. But how long do you think it will take to rebuild that trust between Canada and the United States? On a political level, but also on a very personal level for Canadians and Americans?

Well, I think the reflexes are still there. this second century commission is going to do everything we can to help rebuild. We will report in 2027. That's not so long from now. And there still is a huge amount of affection between our countries. I think the average American, as I said, is surely not mad at Canada and isn't even noticing what's going on. and that's unfortunate. But I think that restoring this relationship will be easier, I hope, than restoring some of the other relationships that are afraid because of some of the policies of this administration.

We need the world. America needs the world. America has helped shape this world. It is a world where, as far as I'm concerned, our strongest weapon is our values, or was our values. And it breaks my heart to think that we're squandering, our strongest weapon. I hope we have the chance to talk again.

In the meantime, I'm really glad to have the opportunity to speak with you this morning. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Jane Harmon is co-chair of the Commission for the Second Century of Canada-U.S. relation. She's a former nine-term congresswoman from California, former top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. You've been listening to the current podcast. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon.

For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca. podcasts.