Nothing riles Canadians up quite like a good fight with our neighbours to the south. This observation applied long before Donald Trump returned to the White House or our latest trade squabbles erupted. Defending one's nation is a noble instinct, but misdirecting that energy produces performative acrimony that threatens our most critical economic relationship. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent remarks about modelling scenarios for an American invasion border on political theatre. While military planners routinely assess tail-risk scenarios, weaponizing them as public talking points is absurd. America last posed a genuine threat during the War of 1812. Even during the inter-war period (1918–1939), the Pentagon's "War Plan Red" was merely a contingency plan for a war against the British Empire. For much of our early history, Canada defined itself against the United States. Confederation in 1867 occurred largely because colonies feared a victorious Union army might turn north once the Civil War ended. Eventually, both nations built the most integrated continental economy in human history. Yet even as existential threats faded, Canadians clung to an underlying anti-Americanism — often rooted in moral superiority and a desperate desire to emphasize our differences. Consider Rick Mercer’s Talking to Americans sketches. Stripped of any nostalgic value, those segments displayed a soft bigotry we would never tolerate toward any other nation. Our media and cultural institutions continue to reward this reflex, treating routinely minor policy gaps as profound moral divides. .One could argue that when the adjective “American style” really begins to lose its sting in our discourse, we are overcoming our most long-lasting and socially accepted bigotry. In 2008, I reviewed American Myths: What Canadians Think They Know About the United States. The authors warned against the "narcissism of small differences" that defines our outlook, demonstrating how routinely we exaggerate policy differences. Politicians eagerly exploit this hysteria to whip up domestic political support, much like the 1988 free trade election campaign when critics claimed a trade deal would destroy Canadian sovereignty. Our current trade dispute offers a prime opportunity to abandon this juvenile posture. As American Myths noted, unthinking hostility prevents us from influencing American policy or adopting its best economic practices. Yet Ottawa remains reliant on the old anti-American playbook. The government’s decision to increase Canada's NATO defence contributions stands out as the single pragmatic exception. What has upping the ante achieved? It has further alienated a $30 trillion economy. While market diversification builds negotiating leverage, staging showy pivots toward China and the European Union while thumbing our nose at our primary partner makes little sense. All those MOUs with countries we barely trade with go well beyond responsible economic risk management. .In an era of rising global protectionism, posturing against Washington only invites targeted tariffs on critical Canadian exports like steel, aluminum, and automobiles. Many analysts correctly noted that Carney’s Davos speech about embracing our inner middle-power child did not justify his party’s bump in the polls or its wild support amongst the urban-based punditry. The jobs of so many Canadians in our integrated economy were not worth that self-indulgent gamble. The structural realities of North American trade remain immutable. The US economy is roughly $10 trillion larger than either the European Union's or China's. Minimal transport costs and shared supply chains make deeper ties with the US our only rational strategy. Courting Beijing — a regime operating illegal "police stations" in Canada and interfering in our elections — is deeply troubling, even as a strategic counterweight. When the dust settles, Canada should negotiate an expanded free trade agreement that is modelled on the early European common market and covers items like labour mobility, mutual recognition of trade and professional qualifications, and common pricing. The most logical course is a common currency in a common market, but that can come in time. Both countries would need to overcome significant entrenched interests on both sides of the border, as well as the nationalistic fervour that the original free trade agreement inspired, magnified a hundredfold. This involves Canada overcoming its anti-American political identity and America finally accepting that Canada matters to it. American trade claims are hypocritical, but Canada should still dismantle domestic protections like supply management. Scrapping agricultural cartels would lower grocery bills for working families at home while removing Washington’s favourite talking point in bilateral trade disputes. Rebuilding relations matters far more than placating entrenched domestic interest groups. This diplomatic spiral benefits neither nation. Canada will only secure its economic future when we outgrow reactive nationalism and adopt a mature vision for North America.Joseph Quesnel is a policy commentator based in Nova Scotia.
