In a trade war, it must be clear why we fight

Open this photo in gallery:

Prime Minister Mark Carney has made it clear that Canada is fighting a war, albeit one waged on an economic battlefield, after trade talks with the United States collapsed and the Trump administration slapped a new set of tariffs on Canadian exports.

“You’re at war when you get attacked,” he told reporters on Aug. 22, the day after those talks ended. “We got attacked.”

Canada’s counteroffensive starts on Tuesday, with the rollout of retaliatory tariffs. There is no doubt that there will be casualties from the U.S. tariffs, and Canadian retaliation. The entire country will sacrifice some prosperity, though some will be hit harder than others. Some Canadians will lose their jobs; some will lose their businesses.

Six charts that explain Canada’s incoming countertariffs on U.S. goods

So, if there is to be a trade war, if that pain is to be borne, Canadians deserve to know exactly why we are fighting. Mr. Carney has provided some information. The U.S. proposals he has described (in the broadest of terms) would constitute an unacceptable and fatal compromise of Canadian sovereignty, both in domestic policy making, on language and in international trade negotiations with other countries. But details matter, and those details are lacking, on three key issues.

The pencil clause

Mr. Carney has talked about how the Trump administration has, in its time in office, left the impression that its signature is “written in pencil.” At a Thursday press conference in Thunder Bay, Ont., he was more specific, telling reporters that American negotiators had not only failed to provide assurances that the deal would stick but had proposed inserting language to the opposite effect. That alone would be reason enough to scuttle a deal: why make concessions if the other side of the deal can be unilaterally revoked? What exactly did the U.S. negotiating team propose?

The French language

Ottawa has said that the protection of the French language is a red line in trade negotiations. In that, the Liberals are simply stating reality. Any deal that gave the Trump administration a say over Canada’s language policy would create a political firestorm in Quebec, at the very least. U.S. media have reported that the Trump administration did not make any explicit demand about French language protections. What exactly did the U.S. negotiating team propose?

A U.S. veto over trade deals

The 2018 renegotiated continental trade pact, the USMCA, contained an unusual clause that constrained the ability of the signatories to negotiate free-trade agreements with non-market economies. The text did not name any country, but China was the obvious focus of the clause. Despite the limitations, that clause in the USMCA does not in fact prohibit Canada, Mexico or the United States in signing trade deals with a non-market economy. It does require disclosure of certain information, and allows the other two countries to terminate their trade agreement on six months’ notice.

What Ottawa has described in the the most recent trade talks sounds much different, with the United States demanding a veto over agreements that Canada might strike with other countries. That would not be limited to non-market economies, according to the government. And it is seemingly a prohibition and a one-way street; Canada would not be granted the same say over U.S. deals.

Any trade deal – indeed any treaty – involves some ceding of national sovereignty in that it constrains future actions. But the kind of provision described by the Carney government would go far beyond that typical crimping of the edges of sovereignty, instead erasing Canada’s ability to conduct its own international trade policy. No Canadian government would or should accept any such measure. Yet, the Trump administration has disputed the government’s account. What exactly did the U.S. negotiating team propose?

Trade talks remain frozen as Canadian countertariffs set for Tuesday

The Carney government needs to provide a specific answer in all three cases. We are very much inclined to believe Ottawa’s description of events. What the Carney government describes is completely consistent with the actions and rhetoric of the Trump administration, with the lengthy history of prevarication from the President and his officials. Disclosure of the details of U.S. proposals would limit the ability of U.S. officials to misrepresent what transpired.

But the most important reason for disclosure is the duty that the federal government owes to Canadians. If we are to fight a war, we should know why we are fighting.