Structurally, without using China, Canada cannot comply with the USMCA without abandoning their net-zero carbon program
In the December 2024 meeting between Trudeau and Trump, the issue of NATO compliance was part of a larger discussion around trade imbalances, non-tariff barriers, intellectual property conflicts and legislative hurdles that Canada uses as a crutch to retain economic benefit without reciprocity.
Prime Minister Trudeau argued in Mar-a-Lago that Canada could not change all the points of conflict, drop their non-tariff barriers, comply with NATO demands and simultaneously get into total alignment with the USMCA trade compact (CUSMA to Canada), because their climate policies and legislated carbon payment system did not support or match the heavy industrial processing capabilities of both the United States and Mexico.
This factually correct and honest admission by Trudeau, an admission he would never say to his own constituents in Canada, triggered President Trump to respond with the 51st state, notation. Essentially, Trump saying, if you cannot be a hemispheric partner with equal capabilities; and if you need to retain structural economic dependency; then you, Canada, should just become a 51st state of the USA.
Think about the reality of the Canadian position. Structurally, without using China, Canada cannot comply with the USMCA without abandoning their net-zero carbon program. This requires legislative change and a complete 180° reversal in the climate-change mindset of the Canadian people. That is very unlikely to happen.
If Canada cannot factually align with the U.S. and Mexico, then how does Canada expect to retain a trilateral trade agreement?