Roundtable: what future for the 49th Parallel?

Stéphane Beaulac: I’m inclined to put this into a broader context. What stands out from an international law perspective since the rise of Trump 2.0 is the idea that international law is more of a suggestion than a norm.

This is evident in many ways, including Trump's approach to U.S. domestic law: he disregards and disrespects court decisions. If he does that internally, then it’s even more likely that, on the international stage, Americans feel even less bound by the law.

Already, in his campaign for re-election,Trump insisted he was not constrained by free-trade agreements—agreements he himself renegotiated and claimed were the best ever signed. Now, he acts as if they don’t exist at all.

More specifically, regarding the Canada-U.S. border, let’s not forget that the treaty leading to the creation of the International Boundary Commission in 1908 has rarely been questioned. For over a century, there has been virtually no dispute, except for minor issues—off the coast of Maine, for example, or in Alaska. No one, to my knowledge, has seriously challenged it.

That said, a treaty is just a treaty. Treaties are only as strong as the paper they’re written on. And that’s precisely what is being tested right now.

By referring to this "artificially drawn line," President Trump wants to cavalierly dismiss the reality of the border, much like he dismisses other agreements and discredits international institutions like the International Criminal Court.

In other words, there is a powerful underlying movement to return the United States to an era when the rule of the strongest prevails: Gulliver will not be tied down by any treaty or international custom; this giant will be free to occupy and exploit whatever he wants. As the saying goes, might is right. When you have power, no one can stop you.

David Grondin: The first thing to recognize is the distinction between what the president and his team say, and how the rest of the American political class and the general public perceive it.

On the topic of annexation, since World War II there have been hundreds of bilateral treaties ensuring uninterrupted cooperation between our two countries. Perhaps the best argument against forced annexation or an invasion—like the one we experienced in 1812—is the deep military integration between Canada and the United States.

For instance, at NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Canadian military personnel serve under American command in a binational structure—and vice versa for the Canadian region in Winnipeg. Over the past two decades, Canada has participated in most U.S. military interventions.

However, as Stéphane pointed out, the most significant shift right now is Trump’s attempt to redefine executive power in the U.S. He is actively testing the limits of the American federal system. The U.S. is currently experiencing a constitutional crisis. Trump benefits from an opposition—the Democrats and the media—that is disorganized and caught off guard. Moreover, against this push for unchecked executive power, the judiciary itself is struggling to act as a counterbalance.

This is what we are witnessing. The system is being tested. There is an assertion of dictatorial power, where the executive branch refuses to be challenged, contests every possible judicial ruling, and politicizes the judiciary itself—while Trump claims that any judge opposing him is politically biased! We will see how far this goes.

From a Canadian perspective, regarding economic integration and relations between our businesses and populations, everything is moving against the trends of the past 30 years—since the first free trade agreements between Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney. We are in reactive mode. So many changes have happened so quickly; we’ll have to see how resilient the system is in responding.

Stéphane Beaulac: There's a dramatic shift happening—absolutely monumental—in Canada’s military realignment away from our immediate neighbor and toward Europe. It’s huge! The new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, immediately traveled to Europe to discuss this.

As we approach the election, I believe the strained relations between Canada and the U.S. will become a major campaign issue—not just the president’s daily outbursts, but the broader implications.

David Grondin: One positive outcome of Trump’s approach toward Canada is that it has forced us to reconsider our alliances. For a long time, we’ve been viewed as a freeloader, benefiting from our privileged relationship with the U.S. for security and defence.

Now we have the opportunity to diversify and strengthen our ties elsewhere, particularly with the European Union. In a way, that's the  silver lining to an otherwise unfortunate situation: in the end, reducing our dependence on the U.S. is beneficial.

During the election, Carney will capitalize on a resurgence of Canadian nationalism—even in Quebec—against the U.S., which will work in his favour. Ironically, Trump may end up satisfied with this posture, as he always finds ways to present himself as a winner. In six months, if things stabilize, he may even claim victory in the situation with Canada. We’ll see.

Karine Côté-Boucher: For my part, I agree with emerging sociological and economic anthropology analyses showing a shift towards mercantilist policies on both sides of the border. This significantly affects how borders are controlled and perceived in relation to our main trading partner.

We are reorganizing how we administer our border. Over the past 25 years, our perception of it has evolved—from a simple passageway for trade to a checkpoint of national security. Our border agents are now trained accordingly.

However, if we want them to return to being economic regulators rather than law enforcement officers, a major mindset shift will be required. Border priorities will shift from policing the trafficking of fentanyl and migrants to regulating trade.

Stéphane Beaulac: Indeed, this is also a major challenge in Europe,  post-Brexit. At the borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, or between the UK and continental Europe, new and complex trade regulations are being developed. These Brexit-related border challenges resemble those we now face in Canada under Trump’s policies.

David Grondin: That won’t happen. There are limits to U.S. executive power, particularly within the military. The vast majority of soldiers would view such an order as unlawful and respond: Invade Canada? No way!