If the Americans were surprised Canada walked away, they don’t know their history

By Steve Paikin and Dan Dunsky, Contributors, The Toronto Star

Dan Dunsky was Executive Producer of The Agenda with Steve Paikin from 2006 to 2015.

Assuming Jamieson Greer, Howard Lutnick, Pete Hoekstra and the rest of the American negotiating team had done their homework, last Friday’s decision by Prime Minister Mark Carney to walk away from trade talks at the eleventh hour should not have come as a surprise.

From their close reading of renowned authors Margaret Atwood and Northrop Frye, they would know that Canadian resolve doesn’t spring from an all-consuming appetite for triumph, but rather from a survival instinct that’s been honed over centuries. They would certainly know that American demands over cultural sovereignty and French language protections would push all Canadians into a defensive crouch and not a “cut-our-losses” stance. They would also understand Carney’s actions as representing a very Canadian act of endurance and self-preservation, as opposed to accepting a bad deal, which would have called into question the very existence of Canada as an independent nation.

From their deep study of the Canadian response to the 1990’s debt crisis, they would certainly have learned that, when needed, Canadians are prepared to accept short-term pain for long(er) term gain, and that Canadians possess a capacity for collective self-sacrifice, if such sacrifice protects our sovereignty and long-term institutional order.

They would also have learned that Canadians tend to reward and not punish Canadian leaders who take hard stands in the face of existential threats.

Given their knowledge of Canadian politics, they would surely have known that process often precedes outcomes in our system of government, sometimes to our detriment. We both remember former Ontario finance minister Janet Ecker once telling us that the biggest difference between her time in the private and public sectors was that the private sector only cares about outcomes. Conversely, the public sector was constantly on the lookout for the most defensible process, so no one could complain after the fact that things weren’t fair. Being treated fairly is a big deal in Canada.

Beyond all this, they surely would be aware of the lessons that our two most heroic figures who fought cancer provide.

American cyclist Lance Armstrong did not just survive cancer; he returned to dominate one of the most gruelling athletic events on earth, winning seven consecutive Le Tour de France. He built an empire, wrote bestselling memoirs, aggressively protected his personal brand, and weaponized his story to bulldoze critics and teammates alike. Armstrong’s public persona was engineered to portray cancer as a minor setback that he thoroughly vanquished. Admission of weakness was seen as failure, which ultimately fuelled his habits of secrecy, illegal performance-enhancing drugs, relentless deceit and throwing his teammates under the bus, all of which led to his fall.

On the other hand, our Terry Fox never won a race — but that was never his goal. His heroism lay precisely in his refusal to stop running until his body gave out — once again, a testament to Canadian endurance. He did not turn himself into a brand. He rejected commercial endorsements, and refused to accept money for himself. When he stepped off the road in Thunder Bay, Ontario, he didn’t leave behind an empire; he left behind an annual, decentralized run where there are no winners, no prizes and no official times. There are only wonderful stories of people coming together for a cause greater than themselves, and collectively raising millions of dollars for the battle against cancer. Terry’s vulnerability was not a flaw in the story — it was the story.

Of course these traits don’t reveal everything about Canadians, nor are they always helpful. In fact, sometimes these and other deeply conservative cultural traits fail Canadians, as when we are too risk-averse. (We also won’t get into the bad Canadian habit of our all-too-often sanctimonious moralizing.) But, then again, America’s radical nature — and its hubris — has sometimes failed that country’s citizens as well.

These traits we have listed help define us and they are the bare minimum that anyone dealing with us should know. And it’s not like we haven’t been here before. Nearly four decades ago, as Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s government entered into free trade talks with President Ronald Reagan’s administration, our chief negotiator Simon Reisman also picked up his binders and went home, rather than acquiesce to unacceptable American demands.

Being such astute students of history and negotiation, Greer, Lutnick et al clearly should not be surprised at where we now find ourselves.

Except they probably are.