Canada and Trump II: We Don’t Need a Minister of American Relations

As published by Policy Magazine

As part of the Trudeau government’s preparation for a second Trump administration, the idea of a minister dedicated to Canada’s relationship with the United States has reportedly been discussed.

The motivation is based on the fact that, with a return to the less predictable economic and trade terms of Trump’s last presidency and amid increased American protectionism more broadly, Canada may be at risk of losing its coveted market access; an existential threat to our economy. Appointing a cabinet-level official whose entire focus would be managing relations with our superpower neighbour could be seen a way to ensure that we keep this top of mind, not just during election cycles.

Sounds good, right? Wrong, and here’s why:

First, the move would add a fourth minister to the already cluttered Department of Global Affairs Canada, which already has a foreign affairs minister, minister of trade and  a minister of international development. In addition to the increased bureaucracy, another minister would add to the silos that already plague the department. In fact, as part of its revitalization initiative, the ministry has recently addressed its compartmentalization by amalgamating key branches. Creating a new minister position would run counter to this important streamlining and would impede coherence.

Second, imagine the American secretary of state dealing with not one, but two Canadian cabinet counterparts. This would be unavoidable because so much of Canada’s foreign policy is imbued with our relations with our superpower neighbor. In other words, yes, our bilateral relationship with the U.S. is our no. 1 priority, but it has to be finessed within a complex geopolitical landscape.  And the secretary of state would simply not appreciate the extra time needed to check with two counterparts on moves at the UN, for example.

Third, our engagement with the U.S. is extremely multifaceted, impacting the work of most Canadian ministries. For example, our ministers responsible for defense, immigration, transportation, environment and climate constantly interact with their American counterparts. Adding another duplicative layer to this intense and fast-paced choreography could be counterproductive. Whose words are the definitive ones on any issue? Even nuanced differences could send mixed signals.

And importantly, who has the power to implement decisions? Line ministries do, not a minister without the delegated powers to deliver on agreements.

Imagine the American secretary of state dealing with not one, but two Canadian cabinet counterparts.

Fourth, if one of the objectives is having someone dedicated to travelling and engaging intensively with American leadership at all levels, a minister is not an efficient choice. They have legislative, departmental and riding distractions. In addition, the title does not resonate outside D.C.. I remember having to explain what a cabinet minister does to governors in my territory when I was consul general in Atlanta.

Also, ministerial churn is like a revolving door. The U.S. is a vast country with regional dynamics that take time to master. Relationships that are developed over long periods and across the political spectrum in a quiet, nonpartisan way are far more consequential. That work is better left to the Canadian ambassador, whose title and role are respected and recognized, supported by a network of strong and savvy consuls generals who reside in-country, and who understand their region. If they are good, they spend all their time investing in those relationships at a personal level; often listening more than talking,  reporting back on early trends when it is easier to have impact.  But for that, Ottawa has to listen to what it hears. I know from experience that this is not always the case.

In fact, an additional minister roving the U.S. would not only be duplicative, it would also undercut the crucial diplomatic role of the ambassador. There are only so many interlocutors we can throw at senators, representatives and governors.  I have seen them politely take such meetings as a favour to the consul or embassy staff. The better approach is sustained engagement by the same senior diplomat, with the help of stakeholders like business leaders who have a stake in their district or state.

Fifth, I worry about the signal this would send to the Americans.  They already know how important they are to us. There would be a whiff of desperation in such a move. We are already navigating an asymmetrical relationship. We do not need to highlight this weakness and project our insecurity. As such, it would only make sense to do this if they appointed a cabinet counterpart,  which the Americans will not do.

Lastly, we do not need a dedicated minister to have policy coherence at the cabinet table on our relationship with the United States. It is the role of the prime minister to align our whole-of-government approach. That responsibility cannot be delegated. Leadership resides at the top. That, our American friends understand.