OPINION: Who Is the Bully, Canada or the United States?
Canada has protectionist policies of its own, but tariffs, annexation threats and economic coercion reveal which country is using its power to intimidate the other. By Weekly Voice Editorial Staff …
Canada has protectionist policies of its own, but tariffs, annexation threats and economic coercion reveal which country is using its power to intimidate the other. By Weekly Voice Editorial Staff- Advertisement -Donald Trump has repeatedly portrayed Canada as the aggressor in the deteriorating relationship between our two countries. According to the American president, Canada has taken advantage of the United States, treated American businesses unfairly and behaved like a bully during trade negotiations. It is an extraordinary accusation coming from the leader of the most powerful country in the world. - Advertisement -Canada is a nation of approximately 41 million people living beside an economic, military and political superpower of more than 340 million. The United States has an economy more than ten times the size of Canada’s, controls access to Canada’s most important export market and possesses the ability to disrupt entire Canadian industries with the signing of a presidential order. That imbalance does not automatically make the United States a bully. Power alone is not bullying. The question is how that power is being used. Canada is certainly not innocent when it comes to protectionism. Our supply management system restricts imports of American dairy, poultry and eggs. Tariffs on products entering above established quotas can exceed 200 per cent. Provincial liquor boards have long been accused of limiting access for American wine, beer and spirits. Washington has also raised legitimate concerns about Buy Canadian procurement policies, agricultural regulations, digital policies and Canada’s handling of intellectual property rights. These policies deserve debate. Canada should be prepared to defend them, reform them where necessary and recognize that American farmers and businesses are entitled to seek fair access to the Canadian market. But protectionism is not the same as bullying. Bullying begins when a stronger country uses disproportionate threats, economic punishment and humiliation to force a smaller country into submission. Under that definition, the evidence points overwhelmingly south of the border. In January 2025, Trump was asked whether he would use military force to make Canada part of the United States. He ruled out military action but openly suggested using “economic force. ” He repeatedly promoted the idea of turning Canada into the 51st state and dismissed the international border as though Canadian sovereignty were an inconvenience that could be erased through financial pressure. That was not a negotiation over milk quotas. It was the leader of the United States threatening to use economic pain to absorb an allied democracy. Since then, Washington has imposed tariffs affecting Canadian steel, aluminum, automobiles, auto parts, lumber and other products. These measures have threatened Canadian jobs, interrupted integrated supply chains and forced Ottawa to create multibillion dollar support programs for affected industries. American businesses that rely on Canadian materials have also faced higher costs. The pressure intensified on July 1, 2026, when the Trump administration refused to extend the Canada United States Mexico Agreement in its current form. CUSMA has not immediately expired. It remains operational for another decade, but it will now be reviewed every year unless Canada, the United States and Mexico agree on changes. That decision creates exactly the kind of prolonged uncertainty businesses fear. Companies considering a new factory in Ontario, Michigan, Quebec or Mexico must now ask whether the rules governing North American trade could change every year. Investment decisions may be delayed, redirected or cancelled because nobody knows what concessions Washington will demand next. The irony is difficult to ignore. CUSMA was negotiated by Trump’s first administration and was once celebrated by Trump as a historic improvement over the North American Free Trade Agreement. The United States is now destabilizing the agreement it designed because Canada and Mexico have not delivered the economic outcomes Trump expected. Washington frequently points to its trade deficit with Canada as evidence that the relationship is unfair. The United States recorded a US$48. 3 billion goods deficit with Canada in 2025. But much of that deficit comes from American purchases of Canadian oil. A trade deficit is not proof that one country has cheated another. When an American refinery buys Canadian crude, it receives valuable energy in return. The transaction happens because Canadian oil is nearby, dependable and particularly suitable for many American refineries. Canada supplied approximately 60 per cent of American crude oil imports in 2023. Canadian crude represented roughly one quarter of all oil processed by American refineries. The United States could attempt to replace it, but replacement supplies would often have to travel farther, cost more or require changes to existing refinery operations. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the United States does not need anything Canada produces. The facts say otherwise. The United States needs Canadian oil, aluminum, uranium, potash, lumber, electricity, critical minerals and automotive components. Canada, in turn, needs American investment, technology, manufactured goods and access to the world’s largest consumer market. Nearly C$3. 6 billion in goods and services crossed the border every day in 2024. This is not charity from one country to another. It is one of the most integrated and mutually beneficial trading relationships in the world. The Trump administration’s use of fentanyl to justify economic pressure against Canada is even more difficult to defend. Canada must prevent every possible quantity of fentanyl from crossing the border. The drug has destroyed families and communities in both countries, and Canadian authorities have a responsibility to pursue traffickers, precursor chemicals and illegal laboratories. However, the available border statistics do not support portraying Canada as a major source of the fentanyl entering the United States. From 2022 through 2025, almost 71,000 pounds of fentanyl were seized along the American southern border, compared with approximately 134 pounds in northern border regions. Canada also committed C$1. 3 billion to border security, appointed a fentanyl czar and expanded cooperation between law enforcement agencies. Using a comparatively small northern border problem to threaten the broader Canadian economy is not a proportionate response. It is economic leverage searching for a justification. Canada has responded with pressure of its own. Ottawa maintains counter tariffs on American steel, aluminum and automobiles. Provinces removed American alcohol from government controlled stores. Ontario briefly imposed a surcharge on electricity exported to several American states. These actions caused real consequences. United States spirits exports to Canada fell sharply in 2025 after provinces removed American products from their shelves. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States attributed a significant portion of the decline to trade friction and the loss of access to the Canadian market. But the sequence matters. Canada’s actions were largely retaliatory. They followed American tariffs, economic threats and attacks on Canadian sovereignty. Canada did not wake up one morning and attempt to destroy American industries. It responded after Washington demonstrated that polite objections alone would not protect Canadian workers. The history of the relationship also contains examples of American pressure overwhelming Canadian industries. When Bombardier developed the C Series passenger jet, Boeing accused the Canadian company of selling aircraft below fair value. The United States proposed combined duties of approximately 292 per cent. The United States International Trade Commission eventually determined that the American aircraft industry had not been materially injured or threatened by the Canadian planes. By then, Bombardier was already under severe financial pressure and the aircraft program had been transferred to Airbus. The successful jet survives today as the Airbus A220 rather than as a Canadian controlled commercial aircraft program. It would be inaccurate to blame the entire outcome on Washington, but American trade action unquestionably intensified the pressure on one of Canada’s greatest industrial achievements. The softwood lumber dispute offers another example. For decades, the United States has accused Canadian lumber producers of receiving unfair benefits because much of Canada’s forest land is publicly owned. Canada has repeatedly challenged American duties through trade panels and legal proceedings, yet the dispute continues to return in new forms. Canadian producers face years of uncertainty even when Canada wins important parts of its case. Canadians have now begun responding with their wallets. Canadian travel to the United States declined dramatically during 2025. Reuters reported that Canadian visits fell by approximately 22 per cent, representing about four million fewer trips. Hotels, restaurants, tourist attractions and border communities have felt the loss of visitors from what had been America’s largest international tourism market. This is not necessarily evidence of hatred toward Americans. It is evidence that Canadians understand they have economic power of their own. Individual decisions to vacation in Canada, purchase Canadian products or avoid American alcohol may appear insignificant, but millions of individual choices create meaningful consequences. There is also an important distinction between the American people and the American administration. American workers, farmers, manufacturers, distillers and tourism operators did not create this confrontation. Many are being harmed by the same tariffs and political instability hurting Canadians. Families and businesses on both sides of the border have spent generations building relationships that should not be destroyed to satisfy one president’s desire for permanent confrontation. Canada should not become reflexively anti American. The United States remains our closest neighbour, our most important economic partner and an essential ally. Canadians share families, businesses, culture, security responsibilities and centuries of history with Americans. But friendship cannot require submission. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is right to continue engaging Washington, pursuing negotiations and working to preserve North American trade. Canada should remain calm, pragmatic and open to reasonable reforms. It should also diversify its international trade, strengthen domestic industry and reduce the vulnerability created by sending such a large share of Canadian exports to a single country. Dialogue is not weakness. Compromise is not surrender. But Canada cannot accept a relationship in which every disagreement is followed by another tariff, another threat or another suggestion that the country should cease to exist. So, who is the bully?Canada protects dairy farmers, operates provincial liquor monopolies and retaliates when attacked. Those policies can be criticized. They can even be described as unfair. But Canada has not threatened to annex the United States. Canada has not attempted to erase the border. Canada has not suggested using economic force to end American sovereignty. Canada has not placed the future of an entire continental trade agreement in doubt to force its larger neighbour into submission. The United States currently holds the larger economic weapon, and the Trump administration has repeatedly chosen to use it. Canada may sometimes be difficult. Canada may sometimes be protectionist. Canada may occasionally be wrong. But in this confrontation, Canada is not the bully.