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 }}
Don’t Panic: 4 Rules for Responding to Trump Threats
Amid all the geopolitical chaos, the best advice of the year: Don’t panic.
As they dined at Mar-a-Lago on a main course of tough, over-cooked tariff talk, President-elect Donald Trump suggested to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — in what the Canadians present later called a joking manner — that Canada might make a good 51st state. Naturally, people freaked out. First, Trump threatens to destroy the Canadian economy with 25% tariffs on everything, and now this? An invasion?
As the breathless coverage spilled over the international media, my colleague Gerry Butts went on Bluesky with a message: “Trump used this 51st state line all the time with Trudeau in his first term. He’s doing it to rattle Canadian cages. When someone wants you to freak out, don’t.”
It is sound advice. Don’t freak out.
Canada is no more going to become the 51st state in the next four years than California, British Columbia, and Oregon are going to break away and become Cascadia. Jokes are not policy.
So what’s up?
Trump is a zero-sum negotiator. He uses the powerful leverage he has to create “I win, you lose” deals. Threats give him a real negotiation advantage before the actual negotiations happen. That is the prerogative of the Big Dog countries, especially those run by strongmen, mercantilist leaders like Trump. Trump threats are simply the expected prelude to any deal. But what is real and what is rhetoric? And how to respond?
Invasion: Rhetoric. Dismiss.
Tariffs: Real. Discuss.
Rule One: Stick With Facts. Don’t get caught up in the torrent of tweets and taunts. Don’t give anything away until the actual negotiations start. Facts are your best friends.
Facts? Really? You might think that since Trump has ushered in the post-fact world, facts are a diminishing currency. That is a dangerous bet. For example, at the root of the 51st state jab are the much more dangerous Trump threats to slap 25% tariffs on all goods coming in from Canada and Mexico. Trump based this threat on what he says is the heavy flow of fentanyl and illegal migrants across the border.
Initially, that threat caused panic. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith immediately went into appeasement mode, telling the CBC’s Power and Politics, “It’s incumbent, I believe, on the federal government, along with all of the provinces, to work together to address those concerns if we want to be able to avoid these devastating tariffs that’ll hurt all of us.”
She’s not wrong that the Trump rhetoric needs to be addressed, which is why Trudeau immediately got on a plane and took his team for a strategic schmooze fest at Mar-a-Lago. Trump prizes personal relationships above all else, so a connection matters.
Rule Two: Don’t Take It Personally. Even though Trump has a long-standing sour relationship with Trudeau — he’s even called the Canadian PM “two-faced” — in Trumplandia, that doesn’t matter. His relationships with people change like the weather in the Rocky Mountains: If you don’t like what is happening, wait five minutes. It will change.
Trump is quick to anger and quick to forget. Can he get over his past irritations with Trudeau? Well, he got over JD Vance comparing him to … that guy who ran Germany in the war. He nominated former rival Marco Rubio, whom he used to mock as “Little Marco,” for secretary of state. Trump doesn’t hold the very grudges he creates, and the best way to get over that is to find a way to make nice, show loyalty, and suck up. That’s what the Trudeau visit was all about. Feelings first. Facts second.
That doesn’t mean giving anything away. And that’s where the facts come in. On fentanyl and border security, the reality is far different than the rhetoric. Canada is hardly a major threat to the US on either issue.
“The facts are hard to deny,” Kirsten Hillman, Canada’s whip-smart ambassador to the US, pointed out on X. “Last year, 0.6% of illegal crossings and 0.2% of fentanyl seizures by US authorities were at the northern border.”
That’s right. Only .2% of fentanyl seizures happened at the Canadian border. If you want to go deeper, check out the latest stats from the US Customs and Border Protection agency, which shows that the problem of fentanyl is largely at the Mexican border, not the Canadian one.
In fact, the CBP’s top official, Troy Miller, has an extensive interview on the US government website about fentanyl coming over the US border. Guess what? He mentions the southwest border 21 times and Mexico specifically seven times. Canada? Not a word. Canada and the northern border are not mentioned a single time. Why? It is simply not a major issue.
Rule Three: Know What Actually Needs Work. On the other hand, illegal migration is a real issue, both internationally and domestically. There is a key section along the US-Canadian border called the Swanton Sector (which covers parts of New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire), and illegal immigration rates there have spiked according to stats from the CBP. But how bad is it? 23,000 arrests were made at the northern border between October 2023 and September 2024. That is up from 10,000 in 2023. Compared to Mexico, where over 47,000 arrests were made in November of this year alone, it’s a trickle (700 were arrested in November in Canada). Still, politically it is an issue Canadians will have to deal with if they want to avoid tariff punishments. Doing nothing is not an option.
Illegal migration is now driving election outcomes in France, Ireland, Germany, and many other places, so this ain’t a surprise. But proportionality matters, and the facts that prove that point can get lost in the storm of threats. It is critical this doesn’t happen.
Rule 4: Follow the Money. There is a high probability that a tariff-driven trade war — or skirmish — is coming very soon, and the facts here will be crucial. After all, high tariffs will hurt the very people Trump represents — namely, American workers. High US tariffs on Canadian goods will raise prices for US consumers and make life for them more miserable. That is a political loss for Trump.
Over 34 US states rely on Canada as their major trading partner, so expect state governors to pressure the White House to ease up on the tariff talk so as not to jeopardize the bilateral trading relationship that sees over US$2.7 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border each day.
To protect that, Canadian leaders will have to think hard about decoupling their trade relationship with Mexico, especially when the new US-Mexico-Canada trade deal gets renegotiated in 2026. The politics of the southern border have always cross-infected the northern one, but if the infection threatens to be economically fatal, there will be a change. The famed three amigos might be reduced to two.
But that is not for right now. Trade deals are not made on social media; they are negotiated face to face, when genuine swaps and deals can happen. Better to build relationships now over dinner, and serve up facts for dessert.
And don’t panic.
It hasn’t even started yet.
Graphic Truth: De massive problem with “de minimis” packages
Supporters of the current threshold say it streamlines trade, particularly in a world in which e-commerce is soaring. But critics point out that the US threshold is way higher than anyone else’s, and that foreign exporters often exploit that to evade import duties and inspections.
Chinese e-commerce exporters in particular use de minimis rules to skirt US tariffs, while drug cartels ship fentanyl to the US in a similar way. Someone even tried to import a helicopter from Venezuela by breaking it up into small packages labeled as “personal effects.”
The Biden administration recently cracked down on Chinese exporters’ abuse of de minimis thresholds, and the incoming Trump administration is certain to hit this issue even harder.
Here’s a snapshot of how the US threshold compares globally, along with a look at the massive rise in de minimis shipments to the US over the past 10 years.
Trump picks Trudeau critics for Cabinet
President Donald Trump’s credulity-straining Cabinet picks (Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard, for example) are getting all the attention, but anyone interested in the relationship between Canada and the United States will want to know that two of his lower-profile nominees are no fans of the Canadian prime minister.
Trump’s next national security advisor, Rep. Michael Waltz, has a long track record of critical public comments about Justin Trudeau, suggesting he is weak on China and that Canadians should get rid of him.
Waltz represents Florida’s 6th District in the House of Representatives, which includes Daytona Beach, a frequent destination for Canadian sunseekers, which may explain his interest in Canadian politics.
In May, Waltz shared a post from Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre: “This guy is going to send Trudeau packing in 2025 (finally) and start digging Canada out of the progressive mess it’s in.”
Waltz’s dim view of the Trudeau government may strain security cooperation between the two countries, but Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, is more likely to be front and center at the conflict point.
Homan, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, will be in charge of implementing Trump’s plan to deport millions of undocumented foreigners. Homan is from West Carthage, NY, just south of the northern border, which he sees as a threat because of irregular crossings.
On Monday, he told a local TV station there that he intends to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get into the United States, promising to arrest any who try.
“We’re gonna lock you up,” he said. “So more agents, we’ll end catch and release, and President Trump will need to work with Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau and say, ‘look, you need to enforce the immigration laws you have because this is a gateway to the US.’”
Homan is not a Trudeau fan. “Find a better man,” he said in February. “He’s terrible."
Trump’s chosen deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, meanwhile, has called Canada “increasingly authoritarian and despotic” and referred to the PM as “far-left Trudeau.”
The Canadians are bracing for the impact of Trump, beefing up surveillance aimed at preventing crossings in the other direction. The likely result is a more heavily policed frontier, which could slow the trade that both sides rely on.
Graphic Truth: Trump tariffs could cook Canada
It’s not yet clear how he will follow through with that threat – mainstream economists have warned of its inflationary effects – but the president-elect and top advisers, including his former trade chiefRobert Lighthizer, are working hard on it as Trump prepares to take office in January.
What effect would a blanket tariff have on Canada, whose economy is tightly integrated with the US? Brace yourself. A recent report by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimated that a permanent 10% US tariff on Canada would cause US imports to fall by 10%, and knock as much as 5% off of Canada’s GDP.
Here’s a look at just how dependent Canada’s economy is on the US, and the key export categories.
Trudeau’s former right-hand man thinks Trump 2.0 ‘will be harder’
When Donald Trump shocked the world by getting himself elected in 2016, Gerald Butts was the principal secretary to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He was also a key member of the Canadian team that managed the tumultuous but ultimately successful negotiation of the USMCA, sitting across the table from Trump, Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, and Robert Lighthizer. He is now vice chairman and a senior advisor at Eurasia Group, which is the parent company of GZERO Media.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
You were in the Office of the Prime Minister the last time Trump was elected. How is this different?
Butts: On the positive side, it’s not as much of a shock. The most salient fact of the first Trump presidency was that it happened. So everybody had to have a plan for it happening again. That’s the upside. The downside is you’re going to be dealing with a much more emboldened Trump who’s got a broader electoral mandate and whose ambitions on the economy are much more comprehensive than they were the first go-round. He campaigned in 2016 basically saying to the Great Lakes blue-collar worker that he was going to bring their jobs back from Mexico, the jobs that the Clintons sold to Mexico. And this time he’s got a much more ambitious agenda. It’s rebalancing global trade and a mass deportation plan that will make labor more expensive in the United States.
If you add those two things together, along with probably increased defense spending on an already large deficit, it’s hard to see how those things don’t cause inflation.
It seems odd that inflation is what eroded Biden’s brand, but Trump’s two key promises are both inflationary.
They don’t see it that way, of course. I think that that’s the conventional economic view. And I do think that what will inevitably be an inflated defense budget beyond the PBO’s 3% estimate is also going to be part of this, part of the inflationary pressure that Trump brings to bear.
As policymakers have learned over the past couple of years, because most of them had never had to deal with it before, inflation is a government killer. It’s the grim reaper for incumbents, and it’s mowed down governments of all political stripes all over the world.
Speaking of which, the Trudeau government generally gets good marks for handling Trump the first time, which you had something to do with. A lot of people are worried that it’s going to be a little harder this time, in part because of the relationship between the president and the prime minister. Do you think that that’s important?
Its importance is overblown. I think you’re right that it will be harder. I think that has more to do with the relative political standing of the government and the time of the mandate. If you’re dealing with Trump at the end of your first year, when you’re in the 40s in the polls, with almost a 50% approval rating, that’s one thing, because those two things add up to political capital that you have to invest.
If you’re dealing with it in year 10, when you don’t enjoy those polling numbers, that means you have less political capital to invest. And by definition, Trump is a problem that requires political capital to solve.
They have a very difficult task ahead of them, don’t they?
They really do. I never like to tell my former colleagues how to do their job, because the truth is, when you don’t have all the information they have, it’s hard to make judicious calls. Only they know how prepared they are to deal with undocumented people showing up at a Canadian border point. I don’t know that. Unless you do, it’s hard to say how you would deal with that issue either in the public or in bilateral negotiations with the Trump administration.
I do think that’s potentially the biggest problem they’re going to have to deal with because I wouldn’t say the cross-partisan consensus on immigration in Canada is gone, but it has been weakened by recent events.
On trade, what’s the best guess on whether Trump is going to exempt Canada from a new tariff policy?
I think if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, then he will only grant exemptions in return for something. The question is, what can the government offer that he wants that will get that exemption? And I have no idea.
Cross-border trade is high frequency and very large. We’d feel the impact of tariffs sooner, and they’d cover more of our economy than any country except maybe Mexico.
Traditionally in Canada, all governments are afraid — because of the strength of our dairy lobby — to do much about the supply-managed dairy industry. (Canada’s politically powerful dairy farmers have long exerted political pressure to protect their industry from American imports.) In this situation, do you think that that’s the kind of thing the politicians may have to think about in a new way?
That’s definitely possible. I mean, my view is if you’re going to take that kind of risk, get some bigger economic reward for it. We’ve been simultaneously having this conversation yet again about Canadian productivity. And one of the big problems with Canadian productivity is that our firms and sectors like digital services face no competition. So the companies are big, bloated bureaucracies that deliver some of the most expensive services in the world. I’d be tempted to use the crisis presented by the Trump administration to fix some things about the structure of the Canadian economy that badly need fixing.
On the energy transition, all of these big bets on battery plants in the United States are legislated tax credits that Trump cannot get rid of, but the whole managed auto manufacturing sector is losing an enthusiastic ally for EVs in Biden. What does that do to the enormous subsidies Trudeau and Champagne have put on the table for EV manufacturers?
I think that may be literally a trillion-dollar question. That’s going to be a super-challenging file to manage with Trump. It’s coming at a time where the global industry is electrifying, and that process is being led by the Chinese. The Americans think the proper response to that is to create large tariffs that will keep the Chinese out of the American market because they’re kind of running the 1970s playbook. I think the response from the Chinese is going to be: “We don’t need to be in the American market. China is twice the size of the United States auto market, and we’ll take the rest of the world while you guys double down on inferior technology that the rest of the world is turning away from.”
It’s a very complicated situation. They’re already losing out to Chinese and Korean producers, and this could just accelerate that process.
So I’d be very worried if I were working on this part of industrial policy in North America because the companies have a weaker hand to deal with than the government seems to think they do.
And for Canada, there’s an extra challenge in that the Canadian economy is so integrated with the American economy that it may not be possible to set a different course.
That’s right. It may be that the American automotive market, like the American economy itself, is so large that subnational economies like California and New York — which together are larger than Canada — can keep going the way they’ve been going, and the Canadian industry basically follows them. But I think that’s challenging. It’s super challenging for a small but important producer like Canada, especially on the parts side.
Let’s close with a little optimism. What do you see as an upside of this election for Canada?
I think it’s the persistent structural problems in the Canadian economy that are not going to be solved in the absence of a crisis. Maybe Trump is the crisis that the Canadian economy needs to solve those problems.
Port strike puts trade at risk – and Liberals in awkward position
The economic costs of the deadlock will add up quickly. Roughly US$800 million in goods pass through the West Coast ports every day, including a fifth of cross-border US-Canada trade. Past port strikes have snarled exchange, gummed up supply chains, and frustrated businesses and consumers alike. This one threatens to do the same.
The strike puts the governing Liberals in an awkward position. The government wants to keep commerce flowing but is hesitant to step in and force a resolution, perhaps with legislation ordering workers back to work. The New Democratic Party, on whom the Liberals rely to remain in power, is against circumventing the collective bargaining process, which means the port strike isn’t the only showdown to watch.
For now, Labour Minister Steve MacKinnon is urging the parties to strike a deal at the bargaining table and says federal mediators are “on site, ready to assist the parties.”Second annual US-Canada Summit focuses on security and trade
Toronto was the place to be this Tuesday for the second annual US-Canada Summit, co-hosted by Eurasia Group and BMO. The event featured a cross-border who’s who of speakers, including former Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson, Under Secretary for Policy at the US Department of Homeland Security Robert Silvers, Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, and Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy. Canadian political heavyweights included the premiers of Ontario and Saskatchewan, Doug Ford and Scott Moe, as well as federal cabinet ministers Mélanie Joly and Anita Anand. UN Climate Envoy and former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney gave the closing keynote, and both the US and Canadian Ambassadors, David Cohen and Kirsten Hillman, shared the stage. A full list of speakers can be viewedhere.
This year’s themes were the economy and security north and south of the 49th parallel. A major focus was the shift from global to regional blocs in international trade. While Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer reassured the crowd that “Globalization is not falling apart. We are not heading to a Cold War here,” the Chairman of Cynosure Group and former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Randal Quarles took a more skeptical view. “If you’re a 55-year-old furniture maker from Hickory, North Carolina, globalization is never going to be better for you,” he said. The hollowing out of the working class and its impact on politics featured prominently, from the possibility of a second Trump administration to the recent right-wing victories in European Parliamentary elections.
Geopolitical tensions were also on the menu. Speakers touched on the wars in Ukraine and Israel, with Joly underscoring that US President Joe Biden’s proposal is “fundamental” to resolving the latter conflict. China loomed large in the conversation, with Silvers discussing how the US Department of Homeland Security is securing America’s ports by engaging Japanese firm Mitsui to replace Chinese cranes currently dominating port infrastructure. Ford emphasized that “China has the nickel market cornered. You know where the last safe haven is? Here in Ontario.” The Ontario premier concluded his presentation in his trademark style by giving the crowd his phone number (and no, we’re not going to publish it here).
Several speakers emphasized the need for energy security, including securing the supply chain for critical minerals necessary to build EVs. According to Dunleavy, as the world order shifts from a globalist to a regionalist perspective, North America can prosper by securing both its domestic supply and transformation. Moe emphasized that “If we get our energy security, we’ll have our food security, we’ll have our national security. But it starts with energy security.”
Finally, speakers discussed the post-COVID employment landscape and the impact of AI. Jonas Prising, chairman and CEO of ManpowerGroup, said that remote work is here to stay for the world’s knowledge workers. Eurasia Group released a new survey, which found that when asked about job automation, 17% of respondents believe almost all or most of their work could be done by machines, 28% say some of it, and 31% think not very much or almost none. The remaining 24% reported that they do not have a job.
Carney concluded the conference by underscoring the need for an inclusive economy and the importance of a growth mindset, particularly in Canada. “We need to build an economy for all Canadians. We can’t redistribute what we don’t have. We have less to spend because we’ve become less productive.”
Keeping the trains running on time was GZERO Publisher Evan Solomon, who served as event MC while Eurasia Group Advisors Gerald Butts and John Baird and Director Shari Freidman moderated several panels. And in true Canadian form, hockey was a running theme for the day, starting with BMO CEO Darryl White citing the Gordie Howe Bridge as a testament to the strength of the Canada-US trade relationship, and finishing up with Carney wishing the Oilers good luck in the Stanley Cup finals. Based on the way they played last night, they’ll be needing it.
Should Canada give three F’s?
You’re leaving your role as president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce after 17 years, which has been a transformative time. What is the biggest economic challenge facing Canada's trade with the US?
Perrin: The politics of trade has undergone a sea change in the US under the last two presidents. Previous presidents, from Ronald Reagan on, viewed America's interactions in the global economy as an opportunity to foster American prosperity, and they saw an integrated North American economy as a source of strength. More recently, however, US politicians have started to turn inward, increasingly viewing their country as a victim, and not as the primary beneficiary of international engagement. This change has led them to increasingly align themselves with domestic protectionists who want to build economic walls along the US border.
Unfortunately, this turn inward has coincided with a complacency here in Canada about our most important bilateral relationship. Even the best of friends can't afford to take each other for granted, or they will soon drift apart.
As Canada's relationship with the US has moved from being strategic to being transactional, American leaders are increasingly looking at each issue as a standalone, and they are making their decisions, not on what is in America's long-term best interest, but on where they can find immediate political advantage at home.
We need to rebuild that strategic relationship. It's vital for Canada to be seen as bringing solutions to the major problems confronting the United States, as opposed to simply pleading to be exempted from the latest punitive measure. We need to demonstrate, both in Washington and far away from it that Canada should be treated not as a problem, but as a partner.
Perrin Beatty, outgoing president and CEO of Canadian Chamber of Commerce. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
You recently said: “Canada is increasingly being viewed by our partners in the region as a well-meaning but unserious player on the international stage." In what ways has Canada become an "unserious player," and what needs to happen to change that reputation?
Perrin: Unfortunately, we have come to see ourselves as a moral superpower whose job is to tell everyone else what they are doing wrong. And we expect them to be grateful to us for it. Too often, we are driven more by a desire for good feelings than for good results. In contrast, other countries are both faster-moving and more engaged in the issues their interlocutors consider most important. The consequence is that, where the US and other countries used to ask, “How do we get the Canadians involved?” their question is now, “Should we inform the Canadians?” The fact that we learned about the AUKUS agreement at the same time as everyone else is just one example.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine two years ago should have been seen by Canada as world-changing, and our response should have been both meaningful and swift, with us marshaling what we have to offer in defense of the democracies. For example, Canada has an abundance of the “three F’s” – food, fuel, and fertilizer – and critical minerals that are essential to global stability. What we lack is the infrastructure, the vision, and the will to bring them to global markets to give countries an alternative to sending dollars to despots. This could be Canada's moment, but only if we are prepared to seize it.
You were a former defense minister under Mr. Mulroney, so you know about dealing with a dangerous world. But now, everyone is looking at the impact of the US election. Are we headed into a period of instability, conflict, and the dismantling of both trade and defense alliances that have been built since World War II?
Perrin: The problems we face, from global poverty to pandemics to wars to global climate change, all require an effective, coordinated international response. Instead of that, we are witnessing countries turning inward on themselves, as well as the increasing ineffectiveness of global institutions like the UN, the World Trade Organization, and the WHO in actually resolving issues that go to our very survival.
When I was privileged to be in government, there was a sense that, when the leaders of the G7 – leaders who included Reagan, Thatcher, Mitterrand, Kohl, and Mulroney – came together, problems would be resolved. Today, when international meetings take place, you get the feeling that our problems are bigger than our leaders. In fairness, the world is a much more complex and dangerous place today, but that's precisely why we need leaders whose vision, determination, and morality are up to the challenge. As your question suggests, we're at a crossroads that will determine whether we will be able to maintain the institutions and strategies that have guaranteed democracy, peace, and prosperity since the Second World War. The stakes have never been higher.
AI is both a transformative opportunity and a destabilizing threat. What is your view of how will impact business?
Perrin: Like businesses the world over, Canadian businesses will be transformed either for the better or for the worse by AI. AI, like the nuclear genie, can't be put back into the bottle. Our challenge is first to understand it, then to decide how to mitigate its potential bad effects, and then to determine how to unleash its positive aspects. In this instance, the technology is developing at a pace that far outstrips our capacity to understand it and manage it well. However, calls to initiate some sort of a standstill until we have thought these things through are naïve and unworkable; all that would happen is that the unscrupulous players would widen their lead.
The challenge for Canadian policymakers is how to successfully work with others on coordinated policies that limit the dangerous aspects of AI without denying its benefits to our industry and our society.
If there is a second Trump Presidency, what should Canada expect from the 2026 review/renegotiation of USMCA trade deal?
Perrin: Many Canadians expected that when Joe Biden became president, he would reverse the Trump protectionist measures. However, that assumption overlooked the fact that, in the past, Republicans were more in favor of free trade, while Democrats were more protectionist. In fact, the Biden administration has actually deepened some of the protectionist policies initiated by Donald Trump.
The danger is that the election will be a contest between two candidates trying to demonstrate who is more protectionist. Canadians must respect the right of US voters to determine their own government, just as we would insist on the Americans respecting our rights, but we need to demonstrate that it is in Americans' self-interest to foster a stronger relationship with their closest neighbor and best friend. And we must do that, not by special pleading, but by coming up with solutions to problems.
Finally, what is the best-case scenario for the US-Canada relationship in terms of economic prosperity and security? Is there a way to slalom through the protectionism, AI disruptions, political polarization, climate challenges, and conflicts and see a time of increased joint prosperity?
Perrin: The best-case scenario is that we restore a strategic partnership with the world's greatest superpower. We've let the relationship slide for too long, and it won't be easy to regain that position. But I believe it can be done if we muster the vision and the will to make it happen.
Last thing: You worked for Brian Mulroney, who recently passed away. He was the architect of the North American Free Trade Agreement and worked closely with Ronald Reagan. What lesson can today’s leaders learn from that time?
Perrin: As Canadians commemorate Brian Mulroney, our leaders should ask what they can learn from Canada's last great transformative prime minister. Brian Mulroney understood that governments don't create jobs and prosperity, businesses do. He also knew that the best way to solve problems was not to shut people out but to bring them in.
It's impossible to say exactly what policies a different government would follow, but what we do know is that our economy and our country are under severe strain today. The leader history will remember best will be the one who brings people together again in what remains the most fortunate country on the face of the globe.