Prime Minister Carney recently said that “like Mexico, Canada remains open to deeper integration, including options for Fortress North America in (certain) sectors.” He added that “offers are on the table,” though he did not specify what they were.

Even with a review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) on the horizon, Carney is surely aware that it’s politically risky to advocate for closer ties with the United States when the country under President Donald Trump is considered a threat to Canadian sovereignty.

There is historical precedent for Canadian politicians to face backlash after calling for deeper integration with the U.S.

In the 1988 federal election, critics argued that the Canada-U.S. free-trade deal negotiated under Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government could make Canada the 51st state. The government lost 34 seats, while parties opposing the deal gained 56.

In 2005, Paul Martin Jr.’s minority Liberal government reversed its intention to join the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence program in the midst of widespread opposition from voters and the Liberal caucus.

In 2010, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government worried about reaction to a proposed Canada-U.S. “shared vision” of a Canada-U.S. security perimeter. It developed a communications strategy to defend itself against criticism that it would “spark worries about eroding sovereignty and privacy rights.”

Favourable environment

So why would Carney take such a risk?

Political conditions are favourable. His primary opponent, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, criticizes the prime minister for not moving fast enough to tighten ties with the U.S. The NDP, so influential in past debates, has only five MPs.

This creates space for Carney. He is seen more as a crisis manager than a politician........

© The Conversation