Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has accused the Liberal government of deepening Canada’s economic dependence on the United States. However, this perspective overlooks the complexity of the situation, as political scientists highlight a longstanding trend toward continental economic integration that has been ongoing for nearly four decades. Poilievre’s criticisms, notably during the federal election campaign, framed the Trudeau era as a “lost Liberal decade” characterized by economic stagnation. He blamed the previous government’s inability to advance resource projects for leading to a scenario where Canadian energy is sold to the U.S. at discounted rates, resulting in lost investment opportunities for Canada.
This narrative of dependence is misleading, according to experts like Blayne Haggart, a political science professor at Brock University. Haggart notes that the movement toward economic integration with the U.S. has been a “bipartisan project” since the late 1980s, initiated by Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s push for a free-trade agreement with the U.S. This agreement laid the groundwork for the Canada-U.S. trade relationship and, with Mexico’s inclusion later on, shaped the foundation of trade among the three nations under various government administrations.
Academic insights from Greg Anderson, a political science professor at the University of Alberta, lend further credence to Poilievre’s critique regarding the Liberal government’s struggle to facilitate economic growth. He observes that over recent years, Canada has faced difficulties in infrastructure projects and expanding its economy in light of U.S. policies, notably during Donald Trump’s presidency, which included tariffs on Canadian goods. The resulting deterioration of relations has led to a renewed interest in fostering a self-sufficient Canadian economy, particularly with the need for effective intra-country resource distribution.
Both the Conservative and Liberal parties have made promises to enhance trade-enabling infrastructure to connect resources across Canada, prompting a shift in public sentiment toward building these essential projects. Anderson highlights this newfound interest, attributing it to a growing realization of the challenges posed by an unstable relationship with the U.S. He notes that there has been a significant change in public attitudes towards investment in homegrown growth, yet underlines a sense of hindsight in this shift.
Haggart further examines the Trudeau government’s response to increasing pressures from the U.S., particularly after Trump’s election in 2016. While admitting some shortcomings on the government’s part for not addressing these warning signs adequately, he points out that there was little proactive discourse from Conservative voices about the need to reduce economic dependence on the U.S. market during that time. This critique raises questions about the collective political awareness that exists regarding Canada’s economic vulnerabilities.
The challenge of diversifying trade and reducing reliance on the U.S. is more daunting than anticipated, with Canadian resources spanning various regions still favoring American markets for export. Anderson emphasizes that the U.S. market’s pull is significant and that dismantling interprovincial trade barriers has been an ongoing struggle for decades. Haggart notes that addressing these economic dependencies will require substantial investments and hard choices, raising concerns about what Canadians might need to consider as they venture into this uncertain economic future.
