Trade tensions and foreign policy misalignments are testing the strength of the Canada-U.S. relationship.
This week, Canadian Affairs spoke with former U.S. vice-presidential candidate Timothy Kaine to understand how a leading U.S. Democrat regards the state of Canada-U.S. relations.
The Virginia-based senator, who was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in 2016 and is today a member of the U.S. Senate’s armed services and foreign relations committees, was in Ottawa for the Future Forward Summit, hosted by the Canada 2020 think tank.
Kaine shared his views on Ottawa’s decision to recognize Palestinian statehood, the real risks in defence diversification, where the opportunities lie in trade relations, and who is responsible for addressing rising anti-Americanism.
SF: You have mentioned your support for Canada’s recognition of a state of Palestine. Given President Trump’s recent remarks about that move being a reward for Hamas, are you at all worried that this policy misalignment might lead to protracted discord between Canada and the United States?
TK: I don’t think so. I mean, first [recognition of Palestine] is not a reward from us; it’s just meeting a promise, [a two-state solution], that hasn’t been met for 80 years.
The lack of meeting that promise has continued to be an agitation. Remember, Hamas doesn’t want a two-state solution. Hamas is opposed to a two-state solution. Hamas attacked on October 7 to disrupt a normalization discussion between the U.S., Israel and the Saudis that had a Palestinian future state as one of the negotiation points.
They, [Hamas], don’t want that. And so I know that’s the line that Prime Minister Netanyahu uses over and over: ‘It’s a reward for Hamas.’ No, it’s not. It’s doing something that Hamas doesn’t want.
The stated conditions and the resolution that Canada supports — and that I support in the U.S. — would say Hamas has got to go, and it has got to be a demilitarized state.
But that could be a future chapter. That would be a chapter of hope for Palestinians. So I don’t think that issue is going to make the trade issues harder, or other issues harder.
SF: Prime Minister Carney has moved to diversify defence procurement, reduce reliance on U.S. equipment — to reconsider the F-35 fighter plane contract, for instance. Given the long history of Canada-U.S. cooperation on defence procurement, how do you view this impulse to decouple?
TK: I don’t view diversification as decoupling.
If you separate out salaries paid to Canadian troops, about 75 per cent of the Canadian [defence] budget is purchasing U.S.-based weapon systems and other equipment.
I’m a [Senate] Armed Services Committee member. I want the U.S. to do everything. But that does not trouble me as long as it’s interoperable.
We met with the [Canadian] Defence Minister McGuinty today, and I said, ‘Diversification doesn’t frighten me, and domestication doesn’t frighten me. But if we drift away from interoperability, that does frighten me.’ Because I do think the allies need to be able to operate platforms where we can act jointly. We’ll be stronger.
SF: Canada has long defended its right to protect certain industries — from supply managed dairy and poultry, to cultural industries and even digital services. As the free trade agreement comes up for review in 2026, how legitimate do you think these protections are? Do you think that the United States should respect them as matters of sovereignty, or press for market access?
TK: These are things that friends ought to be able to resolve. Tariffs against adversaries is one thing — you know, [if] you’re stealing my intellectual property, or you’re dumping and undercutting my industry. [With] trade differences among friends, you need mechanisms like the USMCA to work ’em out.
And having a dispute resolution mechanism is the key. There may be a dispute that gets resolved in a way I don’t like or that Canada won’t like … but having the mechanism that you can agree on for the disputes, that’s the key.
SF: When you think about the trajectory of the Canada-U.S. economic relationship, are there any industrial sectors you are especially optimistic about?
TK: Well look, from the U.S. side, and especially in Virginia, [it is] services.
Here’s a pretty amazing stat: Canada’s our number one export market in Virginia. We export $3.5 billion a year in goods, $3.1 billion in services. The goods number has gone up about eight per cent in the last 10 years. The services number has gone up 57 per cent in the last 10 years, and so that’s been the real area of growth.
So I think that can continue to be an area of growth. When you [look at] goods or manufacturing, [it is] ship building and submarine building.
I’ve toured Canadian shipyards — Irving in Halifax. We want to rely on your expertise on icebreakers because we don’t [build] those … Canada and Finland are the pros.
SF: Pete Hoekstra, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, has lamented the culture of anti-Americanism that came to define Canada’s most recent federal election. Do you believe Ambassador Hoekstra’s concerns are legitimate?
TK: If I were ambassador to Canada, I wouldn’t like it either.
But I’ve never experienced any anti-Americanism from Canadians — either as a person or as a government official.
There was a very tough reaction against the ‘51st state’-type comments and … some of that [rhetoric]. But you have to put that in the context of a reaction to some very extreme language on our end that a lot of Americans view as … just kind of a joke.
But Canadians didn’t view it that way. And if I were Canadian, I would’ve viewed it seriously as well.
SF: Recent Pew research indicates one-third of Canadians have a favourable opinion of the United States, which is down 20 percentage points from last year. What’s your message to Canadians who feel pessimistic about the Canada-U.S. relationship?
TK: My message is really more to Americans. More Americans ought to be doing what we are trying to do today: bringing a Virginia delegation here [to Ottawa]. Because Americans feel very positive about Canada, about the U.S.-Canada relationship, about our economic ties with Canada.
So to the extent that we feel that way, but we haven’t demonstrated it by coming and doing visits, we need to do more of it.
So the message to Canadians is that I’m going to try to encourage more Americans to shoulder our burden of demonstrating what we feel, which is that this relationship really matters to us.
*This transcription has been edited for clarity and concision.
