Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks to reporters, announcing he intends to step down as Liberal Party leader, from his Rideau Cottage residence in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on Jan. 6, 2025.
Trudeau steps down, and a leadership race kicks off
On Monday morning, Jan. 6, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau addressed reporters on the stairs of Rideau Cottage, his official residence in Ottawa, to announce his resignation. He began by stating that “Parliament has been paralyzed for months. This morning, I advised the governor general that we need a new session of Parliament. The House is prorogued until March 24.”
This means that instead of returning on Jan. 27, as previously scheduled, the Canadian legislature will not sit for another two months. This prevents the opposition from presenting a non-confidence motion to topple the government, as it had threatened to do.
“I intend to resign as party leader and prime minister after the party selects its next leader in a robust, competitive nationwide process,” Trudeau explained. “Last night, I asked the president of the Liberal Party to begin that process.”
The move obliges Trudeau’s party to hold a rapid-fire leadership race to choose a new leader – the winner of which will face voters in an election that must be held no later than Oct. 20, 2025. This makes it difficult for the party to bring in outside candidates and instead favors current cabinet members, whom Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre wasted no time attacking.
What Poilievre really wants is an immediate election. His party is currently ahead by 25% in the polls, and he has every interest in going to voters before the Liberals have the chance to improve their fortunes.
Trudeau, meanwhile, blamed caucus infighting for his decision. “If I continue to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option in the next election.” At the time of his resignation, 59% of Liberal Party supporters, as well as three of his four national caucuses, said he should resign. He also threw shade at former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, saying that he had hoped she would take on one of “the most important files in my government” but that “she chose otherwise.”
We’ll be watching to see which candidates arise as possible contenders to replace Trudeau in the weeks ahead. Possible names include Freeland, cabinet colleagues Dominic LeBlanc, Francois-Philippe Champagne, and Mélanie Joly, as well as former Bank of Canada and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and former BC Premier Christy Clark.Six issues that will shape US-Canada relations in 2025
In December, Justin Trudeauwarned that dealing with President-elect Donald Trump would be “a little more challenging” than last time around.
With Trump threatening massive tariffs that would hit Canada hard, taking aim at the country’s anemic defense spending, criticizing its border policy, eyeing its fresh water, and more, 2025 will indeed be a rocky time for US-Canada relations. But Trudeau might not be around for much of it. Down in the polls and facing calls from a majority of his caucus to resign, Trudeau is mulling his future and could resign any day.
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievreis heavily favored to win the upcoming federal election, which would make Trump his challenge – a challenge Canadians, in fact, prefer the Conservative leader take on over his Liberal opponent.
Whoever leads Canada in the months to come, these are the top US-Canada issues they’ll be focused on:
1. Trade and tariffs
Trade between the US and Canada is worth over $900 billion a year, so the exchange of goods and services will be a top issue regardless of who’s in office. But Trump’s threat to levy a 25% tariff on imports has taken it to another level. The tariffs would raise prices in the US and hit Canadian industry, particularly the energy, automotive, and manufacturing sectors, with added costs. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce predicts the tariffs, and Canadian retaliation, would cost Canada roughly CA$78 billion – 2.6% of its GDP – a year and lead to recession. Canadian exports to the US would plummet, says the Chamber, with a predicted 60% drop in the mining and quarrying industries, 39% in m0tor vehicles, and 27% in metals – which would be costly for both countries. Ontario, the country’s most populous province and home to its auto sector, would be hit especially hard – which is why Premier Doug Ford is threatening to stop energy exports to the US if Trump proceeds with his plan.
The economic harm to Canada would be exacerbated by the fact that Ottawa would likely respond with its own retaliatory duties. The Trudeau government is working to secure an exemption from the policy for Canada but hasn’t managed to yet. But energy experts say they expect the tariffs won’t apply to Canadian oil either way.
Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group’s global macro-geopolitics practice, says Trump’s tariff threat is real but also part of the incoming president’s strategy. He’s trying to gain concessions on issues of concern, including border security and the (very limited) flow of fentanyl from north to south, and the US trade deficit with Canada ahead of the looming renegotiation of the USMCA.
Thompson notes that Canada is in a weak bargaining position given that it’s utterly dependent on its trade relationship with the US, “and for that reason, doesn’t have a lot of cards to play.” He also expects that even if Canada does secure an exemption on tariffs, Trump will be prepared to threaten them again in the future as leverage in any given negotiation.
“This is not a one-and-done,” Thompson says. “I think this is a mode of operations that will repeat several times for the next four years over a variety of issues.”
2. A (metaphorical?) border wall
Trump has made border security central to his tariff threat, arguing that the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants across the border poses a public safety threat to the US. Canada is already developing a border security plan to respond to Trump’s concerns. It’s also scrambling to prepare for a possible rise in asylum claims – which will exacerbate the current backlog – and irregular border crossings if Trump goes ahead with his plan for mass deportations.
Canada was already revising its immigration policy before Trump won, but it may introduce further restrictions – and continue to toughen its rhetoric – in the coming months. After Trump’s win, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said “not everyone is welcome” to go to Canada, emphasizing that his government was ready to work with the Trump administration on border security. At the same time, Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly said Canada was sticking to its new immigration plan, which would see fewer newcomers admitted to the country.
The Trudeau government reduced its immigration targets in October and cut the number of international students it welcomes. Its border security plan includes CA$1.3 billion in spending around five pillars that include a commitment to “detecting and disrupting the fentanyl trade” and “minimizing unnecessary border volumes,” including an end to flagpoling – or allowing temporary residents to leave the country (typically to the US) and return immediately to access immigration services at the border. But that may not be enough.
Thompson says leaders of the current government are “overestimating their ability to manage what is coming.” He notes future demands from Trump could include “tighter screening of regular immigrants into Canada. That means that much like with tariffs, the Canadian government may end up managing cascading demands from Trump, so no single promise or plan will likely be sufficient to placate the incoming US president.
3. Defense spending and securing the Arctic
US administrations, including Biden’s, have pressured Canada to increase its defense spending and hit NATO’s 2% of GDP target for years. In April, the Trudeau government outlined a plan to boost spending, focused in large part on building armed forces capacity in the Arctic. The new initiatives total roughly CA$81 billion over two decades and will push the country toward 1.76% of GDP by 2030. In December, the government announced a further adjustment to its Arctic presence, which will include more air and naval equipment, and a renewed cooperation strategy in the region with the US in the face of Russian and Chinese regional interests.
So far, Trump administration officials and other Republicans seem unimpressed with Canada’s defense plan. Former Trump ambassador to Canada, Kelly Craft, said the country could “do better.” That means spending more – and faster – especially since Trump has reportedly considered asking NATO allies to spend a whopping 5% of GDP on defense spending. He’s also threatened to leave countries that fail to spend more to fend for themselves against foreign aggression.
Philippe Lagassé, associate professor and Barton Chair at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, says Canada could raise military spending by increasing pay, boosting operations expenditures, and contracting more for services. He says procurement of military hardware would take longer. But in the face of financial constraints, such new spending would require raising taxes, growing the deficit, cutting other programs, or some combination of the three – which could prove a challenge for the current government or its eventual replacement.
Arctic defense may prove to be a smoother issue. “The US has been trying to get Canada to do more in the region for a while,” Lagassé says, “and we've responded to that. I don’t see that as a point of tension.”
“If anything,” he adds, “the US will be glad if we just get our act together because their sovereignty considerations up there are less than ours, and they have capabilities up there that we don’t, but they do want us to actually get our act together around it.”
So, while Canada may feel the pressure on defense spending – and may need to come up with a faster, heftier plan to placate Trump, it can always point to progress in the Arctic and is likely to do so.
4. Water, water everywhere?
In September, Trump floated an idea to solve California’s drought problems: import water from British Columbia. As Trump put it, the province has “a very large faucet” that, once turned, could supply drought-stricken US states with fresh water. Experts point out that Canada doesn’t, in fact, have water to spare, and Canada can’t just turn on a “faucet” to divert water to the US.
The water Trump referred to, coming from the Columbia River, is already spoken for, in part through an existing treaty between the US and Canada – the Columbia River Treaty, which sets out rules governing flood controls, dams, and hydroelectric power generation.
That arrangement is in the process of being modernized to account for new developments, including climate change. The Biden administration and the Trudeau government recently reached an agreement in principle after years of work that began during the first Trump administration. But this time around, should Trump decide to maintain an interest in water flows north to south, the terms of the treaty could – like free trade – come back up for negotiation, with the faucet on the table.
5. Critical minerals. It’s in the name
The US and Canada share several other areas of cooperation and competition, but one is of immediate interest that could incentivize working together. Both countries are spending big on critical mineral development, including co-investments in a development in Yukon.
Critical minerals are central to cellular phones, the electric vehicle industry – in which both the US and Canada are investing heavily – and national defense. So whatever other tensions shape US-Canada relations, cooperation on critical minerals will remain a shared goal, especially as the two countries look to rival Chinese and Russian interests in related sectors.
6. Setting limits on Big Tech
Both countries are also taking on big tech giants, such as Google, through anti-monopoly investigations lawsuits. Still, the US is pushing Canada to drop its 3% digital services tax on big tech companies, including Google’s parent company Alphabet. The Biden administration requested a dispute resolution process for the tax, claiming it unfairly targets big US tech firms. The Trump administration is likely to press the issue, too, which may leave the policy as a pawn in one set of negotiations – say, over tariffs – or another.
Does Canada have any leverage to rely on? Canada has some cards to play against Trump, but it’s not clear who’ll be playing them. The Trudeau government, down roughly 25 points in the polls, is not long for this world – and Trudeau himself may resign any day. The country is due for an election by the fall, but it could come much earlier.
Regardless of who’s in power, however, they’ll likely deploy the playbook from the last time Canada had to manage its relationship with Trump. That means working contacts in states, particularly border states in which the Republicans have an interest in winning or currently govern and contacts in Washington. Then, they work the message about Canadian, and shared, interests up to Trump. There’s also the threats of retaliatory tariffs and halting certain trade, like Ford’s threat to cut off energy to border states.
Together, pulling these levers may yield some results, but Canada is in for tough negotiations and is unlikely to emerge from them unscathed.
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks at the federal Liberal caucus holiday party, the day after Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland unexpectedly resigned, in Ottawa, Ontario, on Dec. 17, 2024.
Chances of Trudeau staying as PM drop quickly
After Finance Minister Chrystia Freelandresigned in mid-December, Trudeau was said to be considering quitting. Since then, his Atlantic and Quebec caucuses – groups of members of Parliament from regions or provinces – have said he should go, which means the majority of Liberal members of Parliament are calling on him to quit. Trudeau’s former principal secretary – and Eurasia Group vice chairman – Gerald Buttsthinks Trudeau is less likely to stay on after the Freeland departure as his grip on power loosens.
“Mr. Trudeau was unlikely to lead the Liberal Party into the next election and is now much less likely to do so,” he writes. “That election will probably come sooner rather than later, and the odds of it producing a Conservative majority government are materially greater than they were before the events of 16 December.”
Before Christmas, Trudeau canceled all of his year-end press interviews save for one with comedian Mark Critch. A few days later, Trudeau was mocked and harassed while on vacation skiing in British Columbia.
The Liberals are down roughly 20 points in the polls, and the Conservatives are preparing a vote of non-confidence against the government through a committee backdoor trick by way of the standing committee on public accounts, which they control. The New Democratic Party has said it will vote non-confidence but hasn’t specified whether it’ll vote with the Conservatives if they proceed with their current plan, or wait to come up with their own. Whatever happens next, the days of Trudeau’s government appear to be numbered.Canada accused of being an unreliable ally in the Middle East
Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly told the United Nations General Assembly on Monday that Ottawa supports the creation of a Palestinian state and will officially recognize such an entity “at the time most conducive to building a lasting peace and not necessarily as the last step of a negotiated process.”
For more than 70 years, Canada and the United States have been in lockstep on policy in the Middle East. But Canada has been indicating for some time that it is preparing to join countries like Spain, Norway, and Ireland in unilaterally recognizing Palestinian statehood.
Despite pressures from within the Democratic caucus, that is not the position of the Biden administration. President Joe Biden has said he believes a Palestinian state should be realized through direct negotiations between the parties, not through unilateral recognition.
An early 20th-century Canadian cabinet minister, Sir Clifford Sifton, once said the main business of Canadian foreign policy is to remain friendly with the Americans while preserving the country’s self-respect.
That friendship has been tested in recent times.
Last December, Canada voted in favor of a cease-fire in Gaza that did not condemn, or even mention, Hamas. The US voted against the resolution.
For two decades, Canada has voted against UN resolutions that it felt unfairly sought to isolate Israel. Yet in May, it abstained on one that proposed to upgrade Palestine’s rights at the UN to a level short of full membership. Again, the US was one of only nine countries that voted against it.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has criticized his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to a future two-state solution – a frustration shared by the Biden administration. But Canada has gone a step further by saying that the peace process cannot indefinitely delay the creation of a Palestinian state.
Tensions were heightened in August when Joly announced new restrictions on the sale of defense equipment to Israel, suspending 30 export permits and blocking a deal to sell Quebec-made munitions to the US that were intended for Israel.
The move drew the ire of Netanyahu, who said it was unfortunate Joly took the steps she did as anti-Israel riots were taking place in Canadian cities.
It also attracted the attention of Sen. James Risch, the ranking member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. “It is disappointing to see our allies make domestic political decisions intended to hamstring our shared ally, Israel,” he wrote on X.
Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst at Eurasia Group, and a former policy analyst at Canada’s Global Affairs department, said Risch’s comments reflect a “habitual disappointment” about Canadian foreign policy in Washington.
“By now, expectations are so low that it is hard to be disappointed by anything. People have come to the conclusion that Canadian foreign policy is about grandstanding and domestic politics, rather than national interests,” he said.
Risch was one of 23 bipartisan senators who wrote to Trudeau before the prime minister traveled to Washington for NATO’s summit in July saying they were “concerned and profoundly disappointed that Canada’s most recent (military spending) projection indicated it will not reach the 2 percent commitment this decade.”
At the summit, Canada’s ambassador in Washington, Kristen Hillman, said there remains “a strong recognition that Canada is a steadfast ally in all aspects.” But that rosy view was not reflected in the comments made by US policymakers. House Speaker Mike Johnson described Canada’s promise to get to 1.76% of GDP on defense spending by 2030 as “shameful.” “Talk about riding on American coattails,” he said.
Even Biden’s extremely discreet ambassador in Ottawa, David Cohen, referred to Canada as “the outlier” in the alliance.
Eurasia Group’s Thompson agreed with Risch’s assessment that domestic politics are at the root of a shift in foreign policy that moves away from traditional support for Israel and does not view security spending as a priority.
He said the debate in the ruling Liberal Party is similar to the one playing out in the Democratic Party in the US – but is at a more advanced stage because it has the blessing of the leader, Trudeau.
He noted the base of support for the Liberals has moved from ridings with large Jewish populations in Toronto and Montreal to ridings with large Muslim populations in the suburbs of both big cities. Trudeau has tried to walk a fine line between both communities, often failing to please either of them.
His Liberals are trailing the Conservatives by around 20 points in most polls, and the opposition party leader, Pierre Poilievre, is pushing for a general election.
The Liberals are relying on the support of the left-leaning New Democratic Party and separatist Bloc Québecois to keep them in power. Both of those parties are highly critical of Israel and strongly supportive of a Palestinian state.
A debate in the Canadian House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on the recognition of a Palestinian state last week reflected the realignment of foreign policy. The committee voted in favor of a short study, after which a recommendation to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state will likely be made to the government. The Liberals on the committee voted alongside the NDP and the Bloc, arguing that for a two-state solution, you need two states.
The Conservative foreign affairs critic, Michael Chong, said that unilateral recognition would break with the long-standing position of the successive Canadian governments and would isolate Canada from its allies, including the US.
“To veer from that path rewards violence and authoritarianism,” he said.
The committee vote has not yet drawn a response from Washington.
That does not surprise Derek Burney, a veteran Canadian diplomat who served as Ottawa’s ambassador in Washington from 1989 to 1993.
He said Canada’s view has become inconsequential to its allies. “I’ve never seen a time when we were more irrelevant than we are now. We are nowhere on the global scene. We are nowhere in Washington because we have nothing to contribute or to support what the Americans are trying to do,” he said.
“Nobody knows what we stand for, or stand against. We don’t count. It’s a sad fact of life.”
Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney reacts to a standing ovation at the Canadian Club in Ottawa, Canada, on Sept. 14, 2007.
Mulroney’s passing sparks an outpouring of grief in Canada and US
Americans don’t pay much attention to Canadian politics for the simple reason that they are a less exciting version of what is going on in the US – with added snow.
However, the passing of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney at the age of 84 has prompted a flood of glowing obituary articles in many American media outlets. Politico’s headline referred to Canada losing its “Washington Whisperer” – a man who gave eulogies for not one, but two former US presidents – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
In 2004, at Reagan’s state funeral, Mulroney said the late president possessed a “rare and prized gift called leadership.” At Bush’s funeral in 2018, he said every head of government who dealt with the former president knew they were dealing with “a gentleman, a genuine leader, one who was distinguished, resolute and brave.”
Canada’s 18th prime minister spent much of his time in office strengthening the ties with the US, efforts that culminated in the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement (which later broadened to include Mexico as the North American Free Trade Agreement).
Mulroney became a valued friend of Reagan, with the two men of Irish heritage singing “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling” with their wives at a 1985 meeting in Quebec City, which became known as “the Shamrock Summit.”
Mulroney’s popularity did not always prosper domestically because of his friendships. He was succeeded by Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who was once caught on a hot microphone telling Belgium’s prime minister that he liked to stand up to the Americans: “It’s popular … people like it, but you have to be careful because they’re our friends.”
Mulroney had no truck with such posturing and would reap the rewards of his close relationships by being able to speak frankly to his US counterparts at crucial moments.
During free trade negotiations, the clock was ticking down on a deadline, with Canada’s red line issue – an independent dispute resolution mechanism – still unresolved. Mulroney called Reagan and asked how the US had been able to strike a nuclear arms reduction deal with the Soviets yet could not get a free trade deal with their best friend over the line. Reagan subsequently instructed his negotiating team that the dispute resolution mechanism had to be included.
When George H.W. Bush politely told Mulroney that the Europeans were tired of Canada speaking up on the future of Europe, Mulroney’s notes of the call revealed he told Bush: “Tell the Europeans we’re not renting our seat in Europe. Tell them to go to the graveyards in France, Italy, and Belgium. We’ve paid for our seat.” Bush was so moved by the response he referred to it in his memoir.
After he introduced a national sales tax in 1991, Mulroney’s approval rating plummeted. “Popularity is bad for you. I try to avoid it like the plague, and I’ve been reasonably successful,” he joked.
Yet, his political opponents kept the tax in place, and it now yields a tenth of all revenues.
Former President George W. Bush issued his own tribute to Mulroney last week, saying he was “a great man … smart, charming, funny and kind.”
Anthony Wilson-Smith covered Mulroney for many years as a reporter and wrote a touching tribute in Canada’s Policy magazine. “Mulroney was most beloved and trusted by those who knew him best,” he said, feelings that reflected his regular acts of “quiet kindness.”
Mulroney will be laid to rest in Montreal on March 23, and it is expected that some senior American public figures will attend.
He was a consequential, transformative leader, as the outpouring of appreciation on both sides of the border shows.
Bracing for blizzards – soon a thing of the past?
The highlight of winter in frosty Ottawa – one of the world’s coldest national capitals – is the annual opening of the Rideau Canal Skateway, when the waterway at the heart of the city is transformed overnight into the world’s largest rink. Every year since 1970, when it first opened, thousands of hardy skaters have glided to and fro on it, stopping for hot chocolate and deep-fried treats on the ice.
Every year, that is, except 2023. Last year, for the first time in five decades, the canal did not freeze hard enough for skating to be safe, delivering a blow to the tourism industry and depriving frostbitten citizens of a chance to enjoy their city when they otherwise would be huddled indoors against the bitter cold.
With a dangerous storm hammering the Northeast United States and Eastern Canada, and a blizzard hitting the Northwest, this week, readers may not be pining for more opportunities to shovel snow or slog through slush, but winters are getting warmer, which has disturbing and unpredictable implications for agriculture, water security, public safety, and winter sports.
A world with less snow
This year, Ottawans hope that a looming cold snap will last long enough to get the skate sharpeners busy, but it’s no guarantee. The Rideau Canal needs a foot of ice to be safe, and that only happens if the city is well below the freezing mark for a week or two.
“It’s probably not going to happen,” says Gerald Butts, vice chairman of Eurasia Group, who lives in Ottawa and looks forward to skating on the canal every year. “It takes a week at minus 10 degrees [Celsius], and that’s not in sight.”
While not every city has a symbol of climate change running through its downtown, many other places are also having to adjust to a world with less snow and ice. Last year was the first year that Charlotte, NC, had no snow, while New York City only got 2.3 inches, a record low. And a stronger-than-usual El Niño – a naturally occurring upwelling of warm water in the Pacific – has disturbed normal weather patterns this year, leaving ski hills bare in British Columbia and the Sierra Nevada.
The tip of the iceberg
These are not the exception, so much as the (new) rule – a rule that only becomes clear by looking at the aggregate. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the snowpack diminished at 93% of the American sites the agency tracks between 1955 and 2022. Canadian data shows the same — less snow in most places over the decades – and while there is huge variability, this is playing out around the world.
A major Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, study published this week in “Nature,” found that natural variability has masked the impact of emissions on the snowpack, and warned that continued temperature increases are all but certain, leading to “widespread and accelerating snow losses,” with worrying implications for water security.
Wilderness snowpack is a source of spring runoff, filling wild rivers, wetlands, and lakes. When temperatures rise and precipitation falls as rain instead, the natural balance that sustains ecosystems is disrupted. Municipal reservoirs get low. Farmland gets parched. Wild fish hatcheries get disrupted. Forests get torched by wildfires. Ski hills get abandoned.
The resulting water insecurity can impact everything from our food supply and health to the global economy. And as for those ski resorts? Sure, some can make snow or sell visitors on “all-weather activities,” but they can’t all survive on the fake stuff alone.
Finding the base case
Scientists are working hard to track the variability and predict outcomes for ecosystems and communities, both by collecting better data and by figuring out what to do with it, using AI, for instance. The Canadian Space Agency is working on a satellite that would use radar to measure snow across the whole northern hemisphere.
But “a model is only as good as the base case you put into it,” says Butts. “And a huge part of the problem that we have in everything from weather predictions to crop forecasts to market predictions is, who knows what the base case is anymore? Because what was normal for most of the time we've been measuring these things is no longer normal.”
That may help us figure out what is happening, but the key to reversing the dangerous and unpredictable process is cutting the fossil fuel emissions that are causing climate change.
Snow and ice act as natural reflectors, bouncing sunlight off the surface of the planet. When they melt, the earth absorbs more sunshine, accelerating warming effects, which has scientists fearful about runaway warming, as wildfires increase and burning forests and peat bogs release vast stores of carbon.
Affordability: The political challenge remains
The governments of both President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are pushing policies to reduce emissions, but around the world, governments are finding it hard to convince voters to pick up the tab for those policies.
In Canada, the UK, and Germany, governments have had to backtrack on measures that put pressure on households struggling with a rising cost of living, says Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group's Global Macro-Geopolitics practice.
“When you ask people, do you want to do something to mitigate climate change and accelerate transition to clean energy, people generally say yes. But then if you attach a cost to it, support for those measures becomes very soft. And that's where the politics kicks in.”
The politics tells us that everyone, including skaters in Ottawa, will have to think harder about adapting to a world where there is less snow and ice.
Logos of mobile apps, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix displayed on a screen.
Canada averts a Google news block, US bills in the works
The act, which is modeled on Australian legislation, led Google to threaten to de-index news from its search engine. In protest of the law, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, blocked links to Canadian news in the country on both platforms. It’s currently holding out on a deal as Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge tries to get the company back to the bargaining table.
The Online News Act kerfuffle is a symptom of a bigger issue: the power of governments to regulate large tech firms – a fight that is playing out in Canada, the US, and around the world. California is considering a law similar to Australia's and Canada’s. The bill passed the Assembly but is now on hold in the state senate until 2024. In March, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Sens. Mike Lee and Amy Klobuchar, introduced a similar bill in the Senate, casting it as an anti-trust, pro-competition measure. Meta has made similar threats to pull news in response to the US push to mirror the Australian and Canadian laws.
Tech giants are resisting attempts to extract funds from them to support news media, a tactic that is part of a broader strategy to oppose regulation. But the Australian and Canadian successes may encourage California, the US Congress, and other states to move forward with similar efforts. The coming months will be a test of whether governments are able – and willing – to regulate these powerful companies. All eyes should be on the progress, or not, of the California and Congressional bills along with Canada’s negotiations with Meta since these cases will help decide the future of tech regulation itself.
Canadian Liberals cry “Trump”… at their peril
Less than a year out from the US presidential election, concerns about Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House now include warnings of a possible slip into dictatorship. Last weekend, in the Washington Post, Robert Kagan wrote of a “clear path to dictatorship in the United States,” one that is “getting shorter every day.” Liz Cheney, a former Republican member of Congress and potential 2024 third-party presidential contender, echoed the concern, warning that the country is “sleepwalking into dictatorship.”
Meanwhile, north of the border, a desperate Liberal Party and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, way down in the polls, are doing their best to paint their main rival, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, as a MAGA North incarnation of Trump, with everything that implies. As Politico reports, Trump’s influence over Canadian politics is significant, a potential “wild card” for Trudeau and a force that will shape the country’s next election, which is due by the fall of 2025 – but could come sooner.
MAGA-fying Poilievre
The Liberals have been working to tie Poilievre to Trump for months. They tested online attack ads ahead of an anti-Poilievre campaign back in November, and Trudeau claimed Poilievre was following Trump’s lead in abandoning Ukraine.
The logic of a Trump-Poilievre connection is simple. Trump is viewed poorly in Canada. The Liberals are drawing on Poilievre’s conservatism and faux-populism to cast him as a norm-busting, phony anti-elite politician hellbent on waging culture wars, demeaning the press, and attacking the country’s core institutions, such as the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
So far, efforts to MAGA-fy Poilievre appear to be failing. The Conservatives are comfortably ahead in the polls by double digits, including two recent surveys – one by Abacus Data and one by Nanos Research – that found them ahead by nearly 20 points.
The Liberals are more than eight years into government and showing their age. And while they managed to come back from polling deficits ahead of the 2019 and 2021 elections – and retain government, despite winning fewer votes than the Conservatives – so far Poilievre has proven a stronger leader than either Andrew Scheer or Erin O’Toole, who led the Conservatives in the last two outings. Poilievre has better control over his caucus than his predecessors. His messaging and focus is on economic issues, particularly the housing crisis, and that resonates with Canadians.
Trump vs. Trudeau, Take Two
Americans worried about Trump 2.0 believe they are staring down a real threat to the republic. As CNN’s Stephen Collinson wrote earlier this week, Trump’s “increasingly unapologetic anti-democratic rhetoric” seems likely to foreshadow a threat to the country’s constitution and its checks and balances. There are fears he will stack appointments with cronies and ignore limits on presidential powers while finding willing accomplices in Congress and state legislatures. Will the man who refused to accept the 2020 election outcome accept 2024’s results if he loses? And, if he wins, will he leave quietly in 2028?
If Trump wins, the US might not be the only country in trouble. Trudeau may face Trump’s wrath – especially after being used as a punching bag ahead of the Canadian election. In 2020, John Bolton detailed how much Trump dislikes Trudeau, an account that rings true in light of how rocky the relationship between the two leaders was. Those years included awkward bilateral meetings, summit showdowns, rebukes over policy decisions including Canadian military spending, and an acrimonious renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. There is little chance the relationship will improve if Trump wins in 2024, and voters are taking note.
An October poll by Abacus Data found that Canadians believe Poilievre would better manage Trump than Trudeau – 37% to 28%. The polling firm’s CEO David Colletto explained to the Toronto Star that a Trump win would not necessarily boost Trudeau’s reelection chances, as Liberals seem to believe. He noted that respondents see Poilievre and Trump as sharing certain conservative affinities and perspectives. In this way, at least, Poilievre’s alleged proximity to Trump for them is seen as a potential asset.
What’s next?
Americans must consider what a Trump 2024 win would mean. Graeme Thompson, senior analyst at Eurasia Group, warns that observers may be discounting the possibility of it hurting US democracy.
“I think people are underestimating – as they did in 2016 – the odds that Trump wins the next election and the potentially dire consequences for the US republic that could entail,” he says. “The campaign itself is going to be brutal, and there’s a good chance that the losing side rejects the outcome, regardless of who wins.”
Canada must also prepare for a Trump win, and the Liberals will be doing so while trying to use the former president and the MAGA crowd as an anti-Poilievre cudgel – a strategy that may not even work. While Thompson reminds us that Canada is great at managing its relationship with its southern neighbor, “it will need that skill more than ever if it faces a second Trump presidency.” Moreover, the governing party might wish to rethink its strategy.
“If the Liberals are still in power,” he says “they would be smart to de-personalize the relationship as much as possible – that’s to say, make it transactional and interest-based, especially given the bad vibes between Trump and Trudeau.”
Unless something changes, given the current polling data, the Liberals, despite their best efforts, might not be around long enough to take that advice.