Words Have Meaning

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

My window from the Cardus office, on the edge of the escarpment in Hamilton, offers a view of Lake Ontario. Editorial Fact Check – when the first draft of this editorial was prepared, this was accurate. However, an Executive Order signed by the American President on Thursday afternoon orders that the appropriate label for this body of water is now Lake America.

It all does seem a bit silly and over-the-top, doesn’t it? The president preening that the insult to the United States of Canada refusing to sign the deal meant it was “time to teach Canada you can’t do this anymore.”

What was the “this” to which Trump was referring? Multiple references were made to Canada and China being the only countries to respond to President Trump’s tariffs with counter-tariffs. Trump has taken the position that his 2024 election gives him unilateral authority to implement his tariff policy, even in violation of trade agreements, and that countries which resist are somehow disrespecting the United States and its president. He thinks Canada is engaged in “nasty behaviour” when we respond to his illegal tariffs with our own counter-tariffs. 

My main point today is about the significance of language and the responsibility of all of us—citizens, followers, and leaders alike—to recognize that stripping words of their meaning comes with a cost. Given the context of trade talks, the temptation is to think of this in political or economic terms. “Listen to what they mean and not what they actually say” is the advice many have provided regarding the president’s rhetoric. Perhaps, but there is something deeper at stake.

The ability to use words and communicate meaning belongs to humanity as part of our bearing the image of God. Misleading statements, political spin, and outright deception have been part of the human experience since the Fall, but casually normalizing erratic rhetoric—including in diplomatic relationships—has consequences greater than whether Canada and the United States reach a new trade deal.

Don’t misunderstand. It’s not as if misleading and unhelpful rhetoric was invented this week. I even understand the catharsis that follows a failed attempt at an agreement and that some of this week’s rhetoric may be rationalized as the necessary “getting it out of our system” required before turning the page. Public opinion seems overwhelmingly one-sided in its frustration, and part of leadership is expressing the public mood—assuring citizens that our leaders “get it.” Is this just an unpleasant step necessary to make the larger journey of finding a stable Canada-United States relationship?

That being said, I found the “war” language less than helpful. When asked if the tariff increases—both the original and retaliatory—meant that Canada was at war with the United States, Prime Minister Carney responded, “You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked.”

We are living at a time in which there are a record number of armed conflicts between states; almost 700 people lose their lives in these battles on a typical day. The trade arrangements between Canada and the United States are significant, with potentially industry-altering implications for thousands of workers. But, if words have meaning, this is a significant disruption in our trade and diplomatic relationship, not really a war in the proper sense of the word. Part of preserving language means keeping it proportional to context.

Without rehashing ground thoroughly covered previously, we need to remind ourselves that the context for last week’s negotiations is a blatant disregard for truth and commitment. A binding 2018 USMCA (or CUSMA) agreement, signed by President Trump, defines the trading relationship between our countries. It contains provisions for changing its terms. President Trump has disregarded those provisions. Instead, for the past year he has imposed tariffs on countries including Canada on dubious legal grounds, using American economic clout to unilaterally change trading relationships and the terms of what were understood to be binding agreements.

So, when Trump chided Canada that “it’s time to teach Canada you can’t do this anymore,” the “this” he seems to be talking about is Canada’s refusal to acquiesce to his unilateral decision to break an American commitment and voluntarily sign onto a new arrangement.

There may be political rationalizations and extraneous circumstances, variously interpreted depending on political preference, but an objective reading of the facts cannot dismiss that the premise of these negotiations was the unilateral breaking of a legally binding commitment. Dress it up however you want—“Canada did not live up to every detail of the agreement,” “circumstances have changed,” “he had a mandate from the people”—but if we go back to Sunday School basics, the entire tariff and counter-tariff process is premised on the ninth commandment not applying to this situation.

I am not suggesting that the debate about who is to blame for the break-up of the talks, how things morphed from an apparent agreement on August 18 to Canada walking out on August 21, and the political spin of the past week, has truth on one side and deception on the other. There are evident contradictions in the stories being spun, and all sides are engaged in their share of double-speak.

There should be political accountability. Conservatives are calling for greater transparency—they are the official opposition, and that is their job. The Prime Minister’s lack of transparency and misleading comments regarding the recent Gordie Howe International Bridge agreement raise suspicion, and rightly so. The media similarly has a job to do digging into the background, although I agree with those who suggest it is probably not in Canada’s long-term interest to publicly release verifiable texts of draft agreements. The internal Canadian political machinery should do its work.

But in external diplomacy and negotiations between two sovereign states, we must consider not only the technical details but also the other country's reliability and character. Last week I opined regarding the Canada-US trade imbroglio that “an agreement becomes only as durable as the goodwill between the people who sign it.” I referenced Thomas Hobbes’ theories of humanity’s “nasty” state of nature to set up my presumption that even if the tentative deal would be signed, “it would not be that long before new circumstances will challenge their stability and negotiators will have to hammer out new agreements to take their place.” This was a judgement of the current set of values that is guiding the behaviour of the United States administration.

Prime Minister Carney made the same point in last Saturday’s address to the nation: “America has changed....We recognized that sometimes its signature was written in pencil.”

This is not a default anti-Americanism. Back on July 4th, I used this space to wish Americans a happy 250th, noting my appreciation for what America represents and cautioning against allowing present challenges to cloud our vision. “The story of America's first two hundred and fifty years is, on balance, one of a remarkable force for good in the world.”

But if we are honest about its virtues, we also need to call out its contradictions. The present behaviour of the American administration is preoccupied with power and winning, prepared to compromise the very values it professes to uphold. America's greatness has never rested primarily in wealth or military power. It has rested in convictions about the dignity of the human person, the limits of political authority, and the responsibilities accompanying freedom. 

So where to from here? How to deal with an administration that is proving to be an unreliable partner, more interested in “teaching us lessons” than achieving a mutually beneficial deal between allies?

I am reminded of former Prime Minister Harper’s advice when President Trump first began reframing the Canada-US relationship shortly after being elected. He noted that the language being used by American leaders toward Canada was “not the words of a friend, partner and ally.”

Economic realities will bring both countries back to a bargaining table. It is in both countries' self-interest to do so, and eventually politics will get the parties talking again. In the meantime, my advice to Canadian leaders is fewer words and more action. Our present challenge with the United States is not ultimately trade but respect. How do we build that respect?

We do what is in our control.

There has been rhetoric about major projects, interprovincial free trade, competitiveness, diversifying trade beyond the United States, and major defence investments. But I have a quibble: rhetoric and doing are not the same thing. The rhetoric has often not been accompanied by action. Let’s start by keeping our own word internally, fast-tracking projects and showing ourselves and those watching that Canada is a proud nation with values worth defending.

Paul Wells invoked George Orwell’s 1984 in his Substack this week, recalling an environment in which “the party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.” I find it hard to interpret President Trump’s “We need to teach Canada a lesson” as anything other than Orwellian.

Wells acknowledges that the full truth of what happened at last week’s negotiating table cannot be verified. In that context, we are inclined to believe the story told by the partisan with whom we most identify. Fair enough.

But at some point, there is something deeper at stake.

To quote Wells: “Two and two are still four, and we get to say so. That is worth a fight.”

When asked if the United States added new conditions at the last minute, President Trump told CNN’s Jim Sciutto, “That sounds like me.” Sciutto pressed, “So you don’t deny it?” Trump replied, “No, no, I don’t deny anything.”

I cannot help but conclude that the issue runs a bit deeper than the words on a legal agreement. It has to do with what the words sovereignty and self-respect actually mean. And that means that, whether we like it or not, we may find out experientially what the word sacrifice actually means.

I don’t like pain or sacrifice any more than the next guy, but if we are to take President Trump at his word and what really was at stake last week was Canada “learning the lesson” that when the president of the United States says two plus two equals five, Canada should just sign on, I am thankful that we walked away. 

I write this overlooking a lake which I know as Lake Ontario even though official U.S. policy says it is Lake America. I also know Canada is less than perfect, and hypocrisy exists in many of its positions. But there are also some boundaries.

If making sacrifices is what is required for us to hold to those boundaries, count me as a Canadian prepared to learn the meaning of sovereignty and sacrifice. 

WHAT I’M READING

Should Chaplains Pray?