Trump is holding our economy hostage. Here is what Carney cannot give up to the U.S. during trade talks

But as Canada-U.S. talks heat up again, and reports fly about what Prime Minister Mark Carney may or may not be willing to give up for tariff relief, he needs to stick to his position — one that he’s mostly, if not totally, consistently maintained since taking office — that no deal is better than a bad deal.

What’s a good (or at least not bad) deal, under the circumstances? It’s one that leaves tariff-afflicted Canadian industries in significantly better shape than currently, doesn’t majorly sacrifice the interests of other Canadian industries in the process, and doesn’t weaken the position of Canadian negotiators whenever Trump next decides to take our economy hostage and they have to return to the table again.

That means it’s one in which any concessions to Trump meet at least these three criteria, which Canadians should be keeping in mind if and when they’re trying to judge any deal that’s reached:

They bring real relief from Trump’s existing tariffs, not just his threatened ones.

Trump’s threat to impose yet more tariffs on Canada as of next week — whopping 50 per cent ones, on a curious cross-section of Canadian products — has been the impetus for the recent intensification of talks.

But that doesn’t mean we should be giving up much in return for him dropping that plan.

For nearly a year and a half, the biggest imperative for Canada has been getting Trump to pull back the tariffs he’s already imposed on our automotive, steel, aluminum and forestry sectors, all of which are imperiling those industries’ futures.

Any meaningful Canadian concessions have to be off the table until there’s reciprocal movement on those existing tariffs. And if not a full elimination of those levies, which Trump seems unwilling to consider, it has to be enough of a reduction to really alleviate the threat.

Exactly what would qualify as enough relief is hard to quantify and varies by industry. But in the auto sector, for instance, the rate at which assembled vehicles are currently tariffed (probably about 12 per cent, once exemptions are factored in) has to be cut more than in half for making those cars in Ontario to remain financially viable in the long run.

Settling for marginal reductions instead, combined with abandoning notional tariffs Trump may not implement regardless, wouldn’t be much of a victory — just a reward to him for moving the goalposts.

They’re mostly temporary, just like peace will probably be.

Even if there is real relief, we know by now it won’t be permanent. It would only be a matter of time before Trump’s next threat of new tariffs, and there would still need to be further negotiations around the future of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.

So Canada has to try to avoid giving up anything that fundamentally alters the way our economy functions, can’t be restored, or gives our negotiators significantly fewer cards to play next time around.

Ideally, concessions will largely involve tit-for-tat removal of retaliatory policies, like counter-tariffs on U.S. auto and steel imports or lifting prohibitions on American booze (if the premiers who imposed the latter are convinced the deal is good enough).

Maybe they also include modest gives on irritants like dairy quotas. Or agreement to cooperate on things in our economic interest anyway, like mineral exports.

What they can’t involve is, for instance, an actual overhaul of our supply management system — which, whatever its downside, is too important to our agricultural industry and food supply to be used as a bargaining chip now.

The same goes for ceding our ability to set our own technology policies, in deference to U.S. tech giants, with further concessions along the lines of last year’s ill-advised abandonment of Canada’s digital services tax. Nothing we can get from an untrustworthy negotiating partner is worth sacrificing our sovereignty for.

They don’t restrict our ability to advance other trade relationships — China included.

Speaking of sovereignty, Trump would undoubtedly like Canada to remain as dependent on the U.S. as possible — which is a good reason for Carney not to waver in trying to decrease that reliance.

Carney can’t afford, for example, to make assurances of increased purchases of military equipment from the U.S., in ways that impede the defence-industrial relationships Canada is developing with Europe.

And, although it might be welcomed by some hawks at home, he also can’t afford to back down on defrosting relations with China, including around modestly opening Canada to Chinese EVs, which Trump has occasionally invoked apropos his tariff threats.

That’s a relationship Canada should pursue with caution, for the sake of its own industrial interests and security. But it has to be on our own terms.

When one of the world’s few economic superpowers has proved itself unreliable and frequently hostile, we can’t allow it to dictate how we interact with the others, just for the sake of a fleeting reprieve.