The Reciprocity of Resentment Hurting US - Canada Relations
Acknowledge and move on to start healing bilateral relations
Underlying recent tensions in the United States and Canada is a widespread awareness of being let down by the other side. This disappointment is powerful, but it is also mutual to a degree that is not recognized.
Acknowledgement of this reciprocal grievance and an expression of regret by both sides is an important step in improving US-Canada relations.
That’s No Defense!
The longstanding US complaint about low Canadian defense spending became more visible to Americans after the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales. That was when Canada joined its allies in pledging to work toward spending two percent of GDP on defense. Yes, the two percent target was arbitrary to some extent, but it became a benchmark and as more of NATO’s European members began to reach it – largely in response to Russia rather than the United States after Putin seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine – Canada’s laggard status stood out and the American public noticed.
Former US Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman once observed that the Canadian approach to problems is to negotiate while the United States prefers to litigate. Once Stephen Harper committed Canada to two percent in Wales and Justin Trudeau repeated the commitment in Vilnius at the 2023 NATO Summit meeting the two percent target became an a priori issue for Washington in discussions with Ottawa. Or, to use another Latin phrase, two percent became a sine quae non condition for improving relations particularly with the litigious Trump administration.
Setting Trump to one side, why were ordinary Americans so upset over Canadian defense spending? I think it comes from the understanding that the United States has to pick up the slack particularly when it comes to continental defense. Or, to put it more directly, the US taxpayer has to pay more for national security when Canada’s taxpayers can enjoy protection along with universal health care and other public goods that Americans wish they had. The United States is the burden-bearer of last resort.
A Bridge Too Far
Even before September 11, 2001, there were calls for a higher capacity crossing between Detroit and Windsor. The Ambassador Bridge was built in 1927 and its two lanes in each direction carried more value in trade than the United States conducted with all Western Europe and Japan combined. A tunnel for cars and buses and a separate rail tunnel alleviated the pressure on the Ambassador Bridge to an extent, but access to the bridge from the Canadian side required navigating a dozen traffic lights on the often-gridlocked Huron Church Road.
After 9/11, the economic need was met by a national security urgency. The federal governments, the State of Michigan, and the Province of Ontario agreed to split the cost of a new bridge equally and the cities and counties (Detroit and Wayne County, Windsor and Essex County) agreed to expedite permitting approvals and work with communities affected by a new crossing and construction impacts.
The private owner of the Ambassador Bridge, Manuel “Matty” Maroun, was bitterly opposed to competition from a bridge that was government-funded while his bridge was not. He lobbied Michigan legislators not to fund the bridge project, petitioned for a statewide referendum on funding for the new bridge that was held in 2012, and bought ads on radio and television against the new bridge.
Maroun’s campaign succeeded: the Michigan legislature refused to fund the state’s share of the bridge costs.
Later, the Barack Obama administration failed to secure congressional funding for the US Customs plaza where inspections and screening would talk place. The Trump administration did come through with some funding in 2020, but the Canadian federal government covered the Michigan share and the cost of the US Customs plaza and plans to recoup the additional costs via future bridge tolls.
Canada claims that it is funding 100 percent of the bridge costs including land acquisition for the project in Michigan. Canadian taxpayers are covering the costs and will be repaid by toll revenues, in effect “bridge financing” the project that will benefit both countries for which the Americans agreed to be equal partners.
Revealed Preferences
What we pay for reveals what we think matters, and what democratically elected governments pay for reflects the public’s priorities in each country. The United States will pay for national security, and Canada will pay for improved market access to the United States. Yet public sentiment, and in these two cases, public resentment accrues from a feeling that the other side is not paying its fair share or not fulfilling its promises.
The new Gordie Howe International Bridge is expected to open in early 2026, and pending the Canadian federal budget that will come on November 4, Canada should be spending two percent of GDP on defense by then. That is a coincidence: these two cases are not directly linked nor have Washington and Ottawa ever suggested that there is a quid pro quo relationship on these projects.
Nevertheless, there remains a festering feeling of injustice among Canadians and Americans that could be alleviated next Spring if President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney see and take up the opportunity.
The first step is public expressions of gratitude linked to each grievance where each country has fallen short. There does not need to be a mea culpa, just a thank you.
From Trump, who will almost certainly attend the grand opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, a thank you to Canada for financing the bridge and ensuring that the project was finished after 25 years of efforts on both sides of the border would go a long way with Canadians. Even when Trump is critical of Canadian policies, he is quick to say that he loves the Canadian people and so thanking them at the bridge dedication would be a classy touch consistent with his views.
From Carney, it would be a grace note to acknowledge that the United States has kept Canadians safe at home and abroad especially since 9/11 with US military casualties along the way: a price in blood that outweighs the fiscal outlays in importance. As Canada reaches the two percent target, with more defense spending to come to meet the 2025 Hague NATO Summit commitment to reach five percent of GDP on defense and defense adjacent capabilities, thanking Americans instead of blaming them for making his government cut spending on domestic priorities would set the tone for future debates about national security and border security, too.
They Started It!
Anticipating an objection, the recognition that Americans and Canadians feel let down by each other is not an argument for moral equivalence. The two cases are not the same. But there are myriad examples of social media debates in which Americans and Canadians engage in “whataboutism” deflecting criticism by insisting that the other side is just as bad or worse. As parents of feuding kids will often say, it does not matter who started it, just stop it.
The polarizing figure of Donald Trump as he is seen by Canadians and the unknown figure of Mark Carney as he is unseen by most Americans are not the cause of public grievances over spending on defense and the bridge nor are recent comments by either side. The origins of each side’s disappointment with the other have been eroding goodwill among the public for years.
Likewise, the reciprocity of resentments contributing to the pessimism about US-Canada relations is not caused by Trump or Carney, making it easier to express gratitude and acknowledge past failings because blame lies with prior leaders. So, Trump and Carney should acknowledge the hurt and move on to bolster public support for the hard work ahead to improve bilateral relations.