Following the collapse of trade talks between Canada and the United States continentalism is apparently dead in Canada, again. It would not be the first time that the demise of North American integration has been celebrated prematurely.
In the 1911 federal election, the then-protectionist Conservatives triumphed over the Liberals and their program of conditional commercial reciprocity, which meant equal tariffs on identical goods traded with the U.S., rather than free trade.
At the time, the Toronto World proclaimed , “CONTINENTALISM IS DEAD. ELECTORS DUG ITS GRAVE,” while the Montreal Daily Star matched it with “RECIPROCITY IS REPUDIATED!” The graves of continentalism and closer relations with the U.S. were dug to great fanfare. However, like a zombie rising from the dirt, neither continentalism nor the pursuit of closer relations was really dead.
The temptation in Canada to deepen ties with the U.S. has been cyclical. Whenever the White House appears benevolent and Canadians are not thinking twice about vacationing in Florida, such a shift appears inevitable and further concessions are made. Then, when Washington becomes belligerent, cries or thoughts of “ Yankee Go Home ” proliferate.
In the current climate, with a clear pattern of dishonest, brutish behaviour from Donald Trump’s administration, continentalism is political suicide in Canada. There has not been such a spiritual and political retreat from North America in living memory. Even if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028, the residual distrust is unlikely to dissipate.
Beyond integration, calls for full-blown annexation by the U.S. have always been made by a loud, albeit unpopular, minority. In 1849, an unlikely alliance of English-speaking businessmen in Montreal joined hands with francophone republicans to support the annexation of the then-Canadian colonies. The British Empire had ended the preference for colonial goods in matters of commerce, ruining the business model of the colonies.
However, the annexationists never gained popular traction, and the 1854 Reciprocity Treaty signed between Britain and the U.S. restored stable cross-border trade, decisively withering their movement.
In 1891, Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberals banked on a program of unrestricted reciprocity with the United States. Led by sick, dying Sir John A. Macdonald, the Conservatives replied that an economic union would subordinate Canada’s sovereignty, first economically and then politically. Macdonald called Laurier’s reciprocity “veiled treason which attempts by sordid means and mercenary profit to lure our people from their allegiance.” On election day, the Conservatives thumped the Liberals.
Laurier tried again two decades later in the 1911 election, this time as the most dominant prime minister of the post-Macdonald era. His narrow reciprocity agreement focused mostly on natural products. Unfortunately for him, American politicians got excited and began publicly stating that reciprocity was the first wedge toward annexing Canada.
Once again, the Conservatives, led by Robert Borden, warned that the choice was between economic sovereignty and gradual absorption, and the voters again turned on the continentalist Liberals, ejecting them after 15 years in government.
It must be said that no party or faction has demonstrated a monopoly on defending Canadian sovereignty or pursuing friendship with Washington, as the century after 1911 proved.
By 1988, it was the Progressive Conservatives championing not mere reciprocity but full free trade with the U.S., while the Liberals fiercely opposed it. For a laundry list of reasons too long for this occasion, the parties had changed positions on North American trade at the time.
Liberal leader John Turner used language almost identical to that of Macdonald and Borden during the election, framing it as a choice for voters between independence and the surrender of Canadian sovereignty. This time, the PCs’ continentalism prevailed, only for the Liberal government that replaced them in 1993 to ratify the North American Free Trade Agreement without changing its text.
From then until last year, there was a consensus on deep or deeper economic ties with the U.S., and Canadians settled into a mostly comfortable, laid-back approach to their neighbours.
President Donald Trump has made that consensus completely untenable outside the Alberta separatist movement and the more committed free-trade ideologues on the right.
The president’s endless bait-and-switch on tariffs, along with the jabs and threats from his administration, jesting or serious, has made continentalism political suicide. That shift rescued the Liberals in the 2025 federal election, which became a competition with the Conservatives to see who could wave the Canadian flag harder. No doubt, accusations of being “crypto-American” have always been tossed around in Canadian politics, but now the label is deadly if it sticks.
Seventy-six per cent of Canadians supported the federal government walking away from the latest proposed trade deal, which would have seen Canada’s ability to trade with other countries curtailed , along with concessions in our critical-minerals sector. Those who disagree that economic integration is the first step toward full political assimilation certainly have their work cut out for them.
If a Democrat succeeds Trump in 2028, reversing some of the current tariff policies and restoring more congenial language, there will be no going back to the era of good feelings. The shock of seeing treaty obligations ripped up and market access so crassly converted into leverage cannot be forgotten.
Hoping and praying that the right candidate wins every U.S. election is a terrible strategy for the future. Nevertheless, the dual impulses of continentalism and Canadianism are likely eternal in the national psyche, in one form or another, and this will not be the last era in which they clash.
Many, including myself, have treated continental free trade as a sign of national maturity and confidence. Within Canada itself, however, our economy remains chopped up and divided by interprovincial trade barriers and provinces that are strangely divorced from each other in matters of commerce. Perhaps correcting that is the true act of national maturity, rather than making our sovereignty dependent on the Electoral College.
National Post
