On a recent flight from Toronto to Florida, we were delayed on the tarmac because of de‑icing. Later, when I mentioned the delay to American business associates, a few paused. “ICE stopped your flight?”
In Canada, ice means weather. Hockey. Winter logistics. In parts of the United States right now, ICE means immigration enforcement. Border tension. Identity politics.
Same word. Completely different national preoccupation.
That contrast captures something deeper about this moment. Canada is debating infrastructure, trade diversification, and economic leverage. The United States is wrestling with sovereignty rhetoric and border enforcement. Yet our economies remain deeply integrated.
Which raises a more serious question:
What does a middle power actually do in a moment like this?
Because middle power strategy is not about speeches.
It is about leverage.
From Davos to Munich, we’ve heard very large words.
“Rupture.” “End of the rules-based order.” “America First.” “Civilizational renewal.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney has described this moment as a rupture in the global order. European leaders warn of systemic breakdown. American officials speak in increasingly transactional terms. China positions itself as a defender of multilateral stability.
The rhetoric is dramatic.
But speeches do not alter balance sheets. Infrastructure does.
In recent conversations on The Brian Crombie Radio Hour, with political strategist Rick Anderson, former deputy minister Drew Fagan, investor Murray Simser, and American executive Stephanie Stewart, a consistent theme emerged: sovereignty is not a slogan. It is execution.
Canada must avoid two equal and opposite errors:
Appeasement without leverage. Rhetorical rupture without capacity.
Appeasement without leverage occurs when middle powers flatter the hegemon, competing to offer concessions in hopes of preserving access. When asymmetry is treated as something to soothe rather than manage. That is not sovereignty. It is subordination disguised as diplomacy.
But rhetorical rupture without capacity is equally dangerous — declaring the old order dead, announcing strategic pivots, promising industrial transformation — without first building the muscle to sustain it.
Sovereignty is not declared.
It is funded. It is built. It is executed.
Consider the arithmetic.
Tariffs cost households money. Estimates suggest American families are absorbing hundreds — sometimes over a thousand dollars annually — in higher costs as trade volatility filters through supply chains.
That is not ideology. That is math.
Sixty percent of U.S. crude oil imports come from Canada. Canadian electricity powers American cities. Manufacturing supply chains cross the border daily.
You cannot unwind that integration overnight without imposing domestic pain.
That interdependence is leverage.
Not because Canada is loud. But because Canada is embedded.
Integration creates interdependence. Interdependence, properly understood, creates negotiating strength.
But leverage only works if it is credible.
If Canada wants strategic autonomy, it must diversify realistically.
Energy corridors. Pipeline approvals. LNG export capacity. Arctic infrastructure. Indigenous equity participation. Internal trade liberalization.
These are not applause lines. They are decade‑long commitments.
If Canada wants to position itself as an energy superpower — clean and conventional — approvals must be predictable. Capital must feel secure. Projects must be completed.
Europe wants alternatives. Japan wants reliability. The Indo‑Pacific wants energy security. The United States still depends on continental stability.
That is leverage.
But leverage is not bravado. It is the ability to endure friction.
Reducing export concentration over time is leverage. Raising defence spending credibly is leverage. Fixing interprovincial trade barriers is leverage. Streamlining housing approvals to restore economic dynamism is leverage.
Middle power strategy is not about announcing rupture.
It is about reducing vulnerability.
History offers perspective.
Canada has faced U.S. pressure before. We navigated tariff battles in the 19th century. We negotiated free trade in moments of acute anxiety.
As Drew Fagan reminded me, asymmetry has always defined the relationship — but it has never rendered Canada powerless.
What feels different today is volatility.
Volatility erodes trust. When trust erodes, allies hedge.
That is not anti‑Americanism. It is risk management.
If policy becomes unpredictable, prudent countries diversify — not out of hostility, but necessity.
There is another uncomfortable truth:
International applause is not leverage.
Standing ovations do not renegotiate trade agreements. Conference panels do not finance pipelines. Media praise does not meet NATO thresholds.
Operational follow‑through does.
And that requires discipline at home.
Are we willing to approve controversial infrastructure? Are we willing to spend more on defence? Are we willing to streamline regulatory systems so capital moves decisively? Are we willing to address fiscal pressures before markets impose discipline?
Middle power strategy requires internal capacity before external assertion.
Right now, the global debate is loud.
Some leaders soothe the hegemon. Some declare rupture. Some redefine civilizational identity. Some quietly occupy institutional space.
The real test is not who speaks best.
It is who builds best.
Who builds energy corridors. Who builds diversified trade relationships. Who builds credible defence capability. Who builds institutional stability.
Speeches trend for 24 hours. Infrastructure shapes decades.
Canada does not need to declare itself a great power.
It needs to behave like a disciplined one.
Define red lines. Build capacity. Reduce vulnerability. Increase optionality.
The narrow path between appeasement without leverage and rupture without capacity is strategy.
Strategy begins with measurement:
How exposed are we to tariffs? How quickly can we diversify exports? How much domestic capital can we mobilize? Where are our genuine competitive advantages? What friction can we absorb?
Those are leverage questions.
Not rhetorical questions. Not moral declarations. Leverage questions.
On that Toronto runway, ice was a logistical inconvenience. In parts of the United States, ICE is a political flashpoint.
Different national anxieties. Different pressures.
But beneath the headlines, one fact remains:
Canada and the United States are structurally intertwined.
That integration is not weakness.
It is strength — if managed intelligently.
In volatile times, countries do not endure because they deliver the sharpest speech. They endure because they build the strongest foundations.
Middle powers survive not by being the loudest voice in the room. They survive by being the most grounded.
By hedging without panicking. By diversifying without grandstanding. By building quietly while others posture loudly.
Leverage — not applause — shapes outcomes in the long run.
That is the work ahead.
