Canada’s Frustration is More Than Just a Policy Disagreement

Pete Hoekstra, the US Ambassador to Ottawa, has made it clear that tariffs are here to stay, and Canadians should just accept this new reality. His blunt words have sparked frustration in many quarters, with some questioning whether he truly understands why Canadians are so upset.

One key reason for Canadian ire is the devastating impact of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, which have led to job losses and declining exports. This isn’t just about economic numbers; it’s also a question of national dignity. Canada has long prided itself on its reputation as a fair trading partner, and Trump’s tariffs have eroded that image.

Hoekstra’s response – essentially, “tough luck” – raises questions about his ability to empathize with Canadian concerns. His statement that US tariffs are uniformly applied to everyone in the world is technically true but misses the point. Canadians don’t feel singled out by these tariffs; they feel betrayed by their closest ally and trading partner.

The controversy over American booze being pulled from Canadian liquor store shelves has also been a sore point. Hoekstra’s description of this as “unfair” and a “clear indicator of how 11 provinces [and territories] feel about trade with the United States” suggests he thinks Canadians are just being petty. But this is more than a dispute over free booze; it’s about Canada’s sovereignty and its right to decide what products can be sold within its borders.

Hoekstra seems to conflate cause and effect in his remarks, suggesting that he may not fully grasp the dynamics at play. He claims the removal of American liquor from Canadian shelves was “a clearly retaliatory effort by Canada” but then denies that resuming sales would lead to a loosening of tariffs.

Some of Hoekstra’s comments also suggest a lack of understanding about how trade negotiations work. He says, for example, “We’ve got to do certain things that protect America, and we’re doing this.” But what Canadians hear is that their country is being taken advantage of by its largest trading partner. This isn’t just a matter of US policy; it’s also about Canada’s ability to stand up for itself in trade negotiations.

One possible explanation for Hoekstra’s tone-deaf response is that he genuinely believes the two countries are operating from different economic realities. He notes, for instance, how Mexico has “aggressively” addressed Washington’s list of trade irritants and suggests that this is why Claudia Sheinbaum’s government has a date to start formal negotiations with Washington while Canada does not.

However, Ottawa believes it has made significant concessions to the Trump administration by dropping most of its counter-tariffs and abandoning its digital services tax last July. The question now is whether these concessions have been enough to satisfy US demands for greater access to the Canadian market.

Hoekstra’s comments on defence spending are a welcome respite from his trade policy commentary, but even here there’s a whiff of disconnect. He praises Canada for finally meeting its NATO defence spending target of two percent of its GDP and notes that this is a “clear indicator” of the country’s commitment to collective defence. However, he also expresses disappointment that Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne’s budget plan doesn’t include details on how Canada will meet the new target of five percent by 2035.

Hoekstra’s words have sparked frustration and dismay in many quarters, not just because of their tone but also because they seem to reflect a genuine misunderstanding about why Canadians are so upset. As ambassador, his role is not only to defend American interests but also to understand the perspectives and concerns of Canada. If he can’t do that, then perhaps it’s time for him to re-examine his approach.

The tension between the two countries won’t be resolved overnight, and some hard decisions will need to be made on both sides. But what’s clear is that Hoekstra’s attitude – one of bluster and dismissal rather than empathy and understanding – isn’t going to help bridge the gap.