That was the message from a panel of experts assembled by law firm Fasken for its Sept. 27 seminar, “The Impact on Canada of the Upcoming U.S. Elections: Change is in the Air.” Speakers noted that the linkages between the two nations’ economies are extensive, with deeply linked supply chains and trading relationships.
Former Canadian ambassador to the United States Raymond Chrétien pointed out that roughly 77 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S. market and the border is crossed by more than 300,000 people every day.
“For us, the stakes are high — this multifaceted, totally asymmetrical relationship we have with U.S. is by far the most important thing for us,” he said. “It affects everything we do. Our standard of living, our quality of life depends very much upon our trading relationship.”
Laura Dawson, executive director of the Future Borders Coalition, said no matter who wins the election Canada is “not in a good place.”
“There has been a real evolution in attitudes toward trade, and the one thing that the far left and the far right agree on is neither of them like trade agreements very much,” she said. “And so, when you have a growing consensus among Americans that I love business, but I hate trade, it is problematic for Canada.”
Dawson said the 1980s-era Canada-U.S. free trade agreement — and the subsequent 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — wasn’t just about lowering tariff barriers but also restructuring Canada’s economy to develop integrated trade.
“So, for example, Canada makes the pipes, and the U.S. makes the pumps, and together, they have a functioning water wastewater system,” she said. “But if you disaggregate that, it’s like the end of the Soviet Union, where you’ve got Bulgaria left with a bunch of tractor seats and Kazakhstan left with the tractor wheels — you can’t take that omelet apart and turn it back into individual eggs.”
But when the U.S. consensus moves away from integrated trade and trade agreements, it leaves Canada in a very vulnerable position, said Dawson.
“To the extent that the Americans think of us at all, they think of Canada in a very positive way, but they don’t have an association between those really lovely neighbours up north and their day-to-day, economic livelihood, their security, the existential elements that really make it possible to live better, more prosperous lives in the U.S.,” she said. “So, one of the challenges that we have as Canadians is getting that message across to the United States.”
Participants noted some of the key stressors on the trade relationship, most notably protectionism by both candidates. For example, Trump has said he is interested in imposing a 10 per cent across-the-board tariff on all imports to the United States — and Harris, while not beating the trade drum as loudly as her opponent, has also exhibited protectionist tendencies, such as promising to use the 2026 review process under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) to address concerns in the automobile sector.
Clifford Sosnow, the chair of Fasken’s international trade and investment group, classified the agreement as a “perpetual negotiating machine,” thanks to its requirements for a review every six years and a sunset clause allowing it to expire 16 years after it comes into force unless renewed by the parties.
“Donald Trump has said it’s the worst agreement in the world, and Vice-President Harris was only one of 10 senators to vote against it because she said it doesn’t protect workers or have high-quality environmental provisions,” he said. “So, just being this very pleasant, benign neighbour is not going to help us in the coming challenges of the election, where both candidates dislike trade agreements. I think the review is going to be a very difficult, challenging process.”
Sarah Gingrich, partner and co-leader of Fasken’s capital markets and mergers & acquisitions group, said there is going to be an “America-first” environment from both Trump and Harris “and it’s going to be up to us to figure out how we’re going to navigate that.”
“You have to compare and contrast candidates that have sort of similar thought processes on protectionism,” she said. “We have to look for the opportunities, and we have to understand what the costs are. And I think we’re going to have to react quickly, which we’re not known for in Canada.”
But the participants noted that not everything was doom and gloom, emphasizing the need for Canada to emphasize the importance of the cross-border relationship to U.S. policymakers and business leaders. Chrétien applauded the approach taken by the Trudeau government where cabinet ministers are being dispatched to key centres in the United States.
“And this Team Canada approach should be made permanent,” he said. “In the years to come, we’ll have to involve state governors, provincial premiers, senior business people and academics.”
But both candidates, so far, have refused to be pressed on how they would govern and what their precise policies would be, said Chrétien.
“They focused more on character issues and throwing insults at each other,” he said. “In the end, it’ll be up to the Americans themselves to decide which of Trump or Harris should lead them. And in the four years to come, we Canadians will deal with whoever is elected.”
The U.S. presidential election takes place on Nov. 5. The new president will be sworn in on Jan. 20.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Ian Burns at Ian.Burns@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5906.