Alan Aubut is a retired geologist, based in Nipigon.The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) is coming up for review. Canada should be preparing for that review with discipline, facts, and a clear sense of national interest. Instead, the signs suggest that we may again walk into a major negotiation with the wrong habits: too much concern for tone, too much anxiety about offence, and too little focus on leverage.That is the real danger. The United States (US) will negotiate for itself. Mexico will negotiate for itself. Canada must do the same. Geography cannot be wished away. Our largest trading relationship is with the US because roads, rails, pipelines, supply chains, language, proximity, and history all point in that direction. We can talk about diversification, and some diversification is sensible, but no speech will move Canada across the Atlantic or Pacific.The problem is not only economic. It is cultural. Canada’s leadership class has grown too comfortable treating emotional display as a substitute for seriousness. That is where the modern discussion of “woke” politics becomes relevant. People such as Helen Andrews and Jordan Peterson have described woke culture as part of the feminization of modern society. That word will bother some readers, but the point is worth considering carefully rather than emotionally rejecting it.By feminization, I mean a cultural shift in which traits more commonly associated with the feminine side of human life are elevated into governing principles: empathy, sensitivity to tone, aversion to direct conflict, and the desire to make people feel included or affirmed. Those traits have value. Families need them. Children need them. Communities need them. A society without empathy becomes hard and cruel. But traits that are valuable in one setting can be harmful in another.Politics, diplomacy, and trade negotiations are not the proper arenas for emotional management. They are arenas for judgment. A negotiator must hear blunt words without flinching, detect provocation without swallowing it, and separate tone from substance. When emotions dominate, bad decisions follow. Sometimes those decisions cannot be reversed..When I was a child, the saying was simple, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” That was not a claim that words have no effect. Of course, words can sting. The lesson was that offence should not be allowed to govern judgment. It taught children not to surrender their minds every time someone insulted them. That discipline has largely disappeared from public life. Too many people now speak as if words are injuries, disagreement is hatred, and bluntness is violence.That weakness matters when dealing with President Donald Trump. Whether one likes him or dislikes him is irrelevant. Feelings about Trump do not change the negotiating table. He wrote The Art of the Deal, but one does not need to have read the book to see the public method. He opens with a large, often over-the-top demand. He provokes an emotional response. He then signals that a deal is possible. He keeps alive the possibility that he will walk away. If the other side reacts emotionally to the opening move, it is already playing his game.That does not mean Trump is always right, wise, or fair. It means his method must be understood without emotional fog. A Canadian negotiator who is offended by his words is already wasting energy. The correct question is not whether the words were rude. The correct question is what he wants, what leverage he has, what leverage Canada has, and what Canada is prepared to trade.This is where Canada has become weak. Justin Trudeau was the clearest example of politics built around image, tone, emotional symbolism, and public virtue. His governing style treated feeling as if it were the same thing as being governed well. Mark Carney has a different manner, but he comes from the same institutional world that treats global approval and elite respectability as measures of success. That is dangerous when the issue is Canada’s economic position.This is not about excluding women from politics or claiming that men are automatically better negotiators. That would be nonsense. Margaret Thatcher was not called the Iron Lady because she lacked resolve. Many women can negotiate with discipline. Many men are vain, sentimental, reckless, or weak. The relevant question is whether the person at the table is governed by facts or by feelings..The intelligence quotient (IQ) discussion helps illustrate the broader point that men and women are not identical populations. The usual argument, including one often made by Jordan Peterson, is not that women are less intelligent. The average measured intelligence of men and women is broadly similar. The argument is about distribution and variability, with men more represented at both extremes. In plain language, there are more exceptionally capable men and more exceptionally foolish men. That matters only because it reinforces a basic reality that ideology tries to flatten: biological differences exist, and those differences affect temperament, behaviour, and social roles.Acknowledging that does not insult women. It recognizes that men and women have different strengths, different tendencies, and different weaknesses. Emotional awareness is not a defect. It is essential in its proper place. The error is allowing emotional response to dominate decisions that require cold assessment. A family may need comfort first. A country facing a trade negotiation needs facts first.Canada cannot afford emotional politics in the CUSMA review. More than 70% of Canadian merchandise exports still go to the US. That is not a side issue. It is the central fact. A country that depends so heavily on one market must approach that market with preparation and nerve. Complaining about the American tone will not move a single railcar, mill product, mine output, manufactured part, or truckload of goods.Softwood lumber is one area where Canada could shift from complaint to strategy. For decades, the US has challenged Canada’s lumber system on the grounds that provincial Crown timber arrangements, stumpage charges, and related policies do not operate like a normal free market. Canada has often treated those complaints as mere protectionism. Some of that is true. American lumber interests are not neutral. They are defending their own position. But that does not mean Canada’s system is beyond criticism.In much of Canada, forest companies operate under tenure systems that give them access to large areas of Crown timber. They pay stumpage. They work within provincial rules on replanting, roads, and harvesting. Government policy shapes the cost structure in ways that differ from private timber systems in the US. Canada can defend that structure if it wants, but it should not pretend the structure is invisible to others..A better Canadian strategy would be to arrive with reforms of our own. One option would be to move more directly toward competitive timber auctions. Provinces could identify suitable harvest blocks and allow qualified bidders to compete for access. The highest qualified bidder would win. Environmental rules, indigenous rights, local employment, forest renewal, and long-term mill supply would still matter. But a transparent auction model would make it harder for the US to argue that Canadian lumber is priced through a hidden subsidy rather than market competition.That is the sort of move Canada should bring to the table: concrete reform, clear demands, and a willingness to trade concessions only for concessions of equal value. Friendship language has its place. Shared values have their place. Rules-based trade has its place. None of those phrases replaces leverage.CUSMA should therefore be treated as an opportunity, not merely a threat. Canada can use the review to rebuild parts of its own economy on firmer ground. That means accepting continental reality, strengthening domestic competitiveness, and refusing to treat the US as either a parent to be appeased or a villain to be denounced. It is our neighbour, our largest customer, and our most important trading partner. That relationship requires clear eyes, not hurt feelings.Canada needs strategic adults at the table. Words may sting, but they are not broken bones. A country that cannot tolerate blunt words from a foreign president is not ready to negotiate with him. The CUSMA review will not reward emotional performance. It will reward leverage, preparation, discipline, and the ability to put Canadian interests first.Alan Aubut is a retired geologist, based in Nipigon.
