As the United States celebrated 250 years of independence, Pete Hoekstra attended the Changing of the Guard on Parliament Hill, a summer military ceremony that represents the continuity of the state and unbroken protection of the Crown.
The ceremony left America’s ambassador to Canada emotional, Hoekstra said in a July 4 interview with Canadian Affairs at the U.S. Embassy.
But a year into his post, Hoekstra also says he is surprised at how difficult the Canada-U.S. relationship has become — with almost every aspect of the bilateral relationship now under review or negotiation.
In a wide-ranging interview, Hoekstra shared his thoughts on President Trump’s attention to Canada, the obstacles to closer collaboration, and the still “unlimited” potential of deeper continental integration.
SF: What does this 250-year anniversary mean to you personally as ambassador, and what should Canadians understand about how Americans see this moment?
PH: I had the opportunity this morning to be on Parliament Hill … for the Changing of the Guard. And at that point in time, the Canadian folks were overseeing the ceremony. They played our national anthem before they played Canada’s. And I actually got to be a little bit emotional.
250 years. It’s a really special time.
You know, we’re not perfect, but every day we strive to become a little bit better than what we were the day before.
SF: After more than a year in the role, what has surprised you most about Canada, Ottawa and the bilateral relationship?
PH: Well, I think it’s how difficult it has become — the relationship. Almost any part of the relationship right now is under review and under negotiation, from one standpoint or another.
We see deepening the trade relationship with Canada is a very viable option, maybe almost a preferred path, whether it’s on energy, automotive parts, steel, aluminum or uranium, Canada can be a preferred provider, partner. …
We see it as a valuable relationship. We recognize that Canada’s taking a slightly different perspective — or maybe a significantly different perspective — and calling into question the economic relationship, calling into question the defence relationship and those types of things.
We’ll let this play out, and we’ll see what answers Canada comes up with.
SF: In terms of your day-to-day life as ambassador, how often do you speak with President Trump, and what do those conversations tend to focus on?
PH: Not very often. Maybe once every three or four months. I mean, Canada is not top of mind right now for the president. He’s got a few other things on his mind that he’s working on.
We’ve gone through Venezuela. We’ve gone through Iran. You know, he’s got legislation that he’s pushing on the Hill each and every day.
I talk with the president when I think it’s absolutely essential, or when the president decides that it is absolutely essential.
But, no, he does not provide me with day-to-day guidance or feedback on those types of things.
I’ve got lots of contacts in the State Department, lots of contacts throughout the government that I talk with.
SF: From the American perspective, are stronger ties between Canada and China frustrating?
PH: The president is thoroughly committed to a Western Hemisphere approach to national security, to economic security, defence of freedom and democracy.
So obviously, yeah, we’d like tighter and closer integration with Canada.
But again, that’s Canada’s decision. And I’m not sure that you’re seeing deeper integration. I don’t see Canada having made a move to say, ‘We’re really going to integrate with China.’
I see that Canada has executed a trade deal on canola and automobiles, but I haven’t seen any indication that says, ‘Yeah, we’re getting in bed with China.’
We do trade deals with China, okay? We do them every day. But we recognize the threat that China is to our national and economic security.
You’ve got a lot of bright people in your government. I think they recognize that China’s both a military and an economic threat to Canada.
SF: The CUSMA renewal deadline has come and gone. What do you see as the most significant points of friction preventing a renewal of the trade agreement?
PH: Well, I think it’s the uncertainty … as to exactly what Canada wants to do.
We’ve had a conference in Washington, DC, that was hosted by our secretary of state, where we invited a number of countries to come in and be part of an alliance on critical minerals.
Canada didn’t sign on, so it’s kind of like, ‘Okay, hey, what path are you going to take with critical minerals?”
I’ve talked to the premiers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario in the last couple of months, and they are all eager to get going on critical minerals.
But right now, Canada isn’t part of that framework with the United States. And so some companies have indicated a hesitancy in signing an agreement with the United States because they said, ‘Hey, we’re not sure where the federal government’s going.’
We just signed an agreement in the Congo for copper and cobalt. We recognize we have needs for these minerals, and if we can’t strike a deal, or if Canada is not engaging at this point on critical minerals, it doesn’t mean we stop. It just means that we go to other potential suppliers.
SF: Is it encouraging to see that there continues to be such sustained Canadian interest in academic opportunities, economic opportunities and cultural opportunities in the U.S.?
PH: Canada trains a lot of high-quality people. I’ve developed deep relationships with a lot of people in a lot of different industries. And so I’ve seen Canadian workers and what they can do.
You’ve got the human capital. The question is whether you’re going to create an environment where they can get a great job in Canada, or whether they have to go somewhere else.
SF: If Americans and Canadians are sitting down 50 years from now at America’s 300th anniversary, what do you hope they’ll say that this generation got right about the relationship?
PH: That they got right seeing what we can do. The potential is unlimited.
North America can dominate the world in terms of energy. We can dominate the world in terms of technology, the digital world. We’re dominating the world. It was North America that sent the first folks to the Moon and will hopefully be sending them back.
It’s North America that continues to make the health-care breakthroughs. It’s North America that just continues to do amazing things. America’s … goal is to continue doing amazing things.
We think we can do more amazing things if we partner with Canada.
*This transcript has been edited for clarity and concision.
Hoekstra is a typical Trumpian grossly ignorant American. Trump is isolating the US by agressive vengeful acts and comments. His 51st state is completely unacceptable and stupid. How would the USA like it if Canada supported California separatism and lobbied with Mexico for the return of the lands stolen by the USA. These would be Texas, Okahoma, New Mexico and California for starters. They BELONG to Mexico and were stolen from them. Does Hoekstra think and any of Trumps actions against Canada are acceptable and based on facts? If he does he is just as stupid as his dear leaders.
.If this is an indication of “Canadian Affairs” and how Canadians feel about things, then you are NOT a hard hitting journalist! That was absolutely a waste of time to read. You never even brought up all the insults to Canadians that have come from Hoekstra, the 51st State rhetoric, his constant whinging about Canada. That read like a happy little tea party.
What? “Unlimited” potential of deeper continental integration? You know, he’s really talking about us becoming the 51st state. Yes, this piece of soft journalism is unworthy of Canadian Affairs.
Hoekstra, formerly the U.S. ambassador to Netherlands was asked to leave by that country because of his undiplomatic verbiage. I agree with some of the other’s comments that this was not a worthwhile interview. Because of Trump’s ignorant belligerence Canadians are all too aware of the downsides of North American economic integration that Hoekstra is flogging. Prime Minister Carney is absolutely right to be pursuing diverse trade deals outside North America, in other words, the exact opposite of Trump’s hegonomic vision. It would be a fatal error to follow Trump in his isolationist fantasies, since it is obvious that he is seriously diminishing American economic power with every decision he makes.
I find it curious that in this interview Mr. Hoekstra has softened his tone towards a more placating approach. However based on his previous statements and opinions I find it much like the fox inviting the hen to dinner.. watch out because you are on the menu! Agree with other commentators about appallingly mild interviewer and no pushback as regards to the unspoken word…’annexation’. Disappointing.
Weak interview. He’s obviously been directed to put on a charm offensive
I don’t read Canadian Affairs much but now I will never
Wish you hadn’t interviewed him. Gives him the idea that he is credible. There is not a single person in the current Trump led (bullied) administration that is sane enough and competent enough to be in a leadership or advisory position.
Hoekstra is completely ignoring the deep, structural fractures that Trump has created between our countries. Of course I realize it must be difficult having a madman for a boss, but this doesn’t mean that you get to go around denigrating and belittling the country you are supposed to be building a BETTER relationship with. This was a puff piece.
Ask the opinion of any Canadian who has been paying even cursory attention and every one will tell you they want Hoekstra out of the country and Trump off the planet.
I agree with the above responses. This interview did nothing to inform us, and did nothing to press Hoekstra on his- and his boss’s inflammatory rhetoric. All it did was give the trump admin a ‘legitimate’ forum, much like all of the news outlets in the US whose complicity has been strong-armed. Just because you are a Canadian journalist does not mean you should go out of your way to be polite.
Well, he’s a belligerent bully like his narcissistic boss. Needs a reality check from a real adult. Carney’s the man. The sunset years of any empire are tough for lesser powers. Strategic thinking and behavior are needed to deal with a self-obsessed, paranoid empire in decline. Diversify and create better alliances. That’s the ticket. Be nimble.
What a container of hogwash? I see “hard hitting journalism” at your offices is an extremely loosely used term.
Why would the US anthem be playing at the Changing of the Guard on Parliament Hill? (Hint: it doesn’t).
As pretty much everyone else mentioned above: this interview was a joke.
As Trump is now partnering with North Korea, and parting with South Korea, one of the most advanced countries in technology because they wont help fight Iran…he has shown that he is the stupidest polititian in the world. Hoekstra is a carbon copy of the rude, annoying, borish president. As Yrump commits to dictators on a daily basis, how dare they condemn Canada for trading agreements with China. America does more trade with China than any other country, 99% of what Trump sells as president comes “made in China”. It costs Trump $1 American dollar for each $70 bible he sells. Trump needs to let Canada be. He keeps saying the US doesnt need Canada…well he is wrong…we dont need him or his country.