After threatening Canada and Mexico with illegal tariffs and Canada’s annexation threat, President Donald Trump has agreed to refrain from imposing tariffs on Canada for at least 30 days. The decision comes after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke with Trump and made a promise to strengthen border security.
This temporary reprieve provides several breathing rooms, but the long-term question remains of how Canada should handle Trump and American descent to authoritarianism.
The initial response appears to be centred around two policies: Canada trades less with the US, more with other countries, and strengthens the internal Canadian economy.
As I have previously argued, reducing Canada’s dependence on the US economy is necessary in the present moment. But it places a significant cost on Canadians and requires a fundamental readjustment in how we think about the economy and society.
The third option has been revived

(CP photo)
This current crisis is not happening in a historic vacuum. More than 50 years ago, similar concerns about Canada’s dependence on the US led to policy debates focusing on what has become known as the “third option.”
In 1972, then Foreign State Department Mitchell Sharp wrote a paper called “Canada and the US Relationship: Future Options.” At the time, international politics was at a moment of transition, and the United States was re-adjusting its understanding of its national interests.
Sharp proposed to rethink Canada-US relations. He recognizes the benefits of Canadians’ connections with the US, but they are increasingly wary of relations direction and “supporting measures that guarantee greater Canadian independence.” I observed it.
Reflecting today’s concerns, Sharp said that Canada’s central issue is that interdependence with the US “imposes unmanned tensions on another Canadian concept of identity, if not a component of Canadian independence. “He insisted.
The options suggested by Sharp are the same as those offered today:
First option: Maintain current relationships between Canada and the US with minimal policy adjustments Second option: Move towards tighter integration with the US Third option: Strengthen the Canadian economy and vulnerable Pursuing long-term strategies to reduce sex
From 3 options to 1
Sharp’s analysis is clear about the costs and benefits of free trade. In terms of profit, economic prosperity is easy to achieve. In fact, this proved to be critical in 1988, when Canada accepted the second option. It is tightly integrated through the 1988 Free Trade Agreement with Canada.
But as Sharp has largely warned, free trade agreements will be “a fully irreversible option for Canada.” Because it connects the country very closely to the US and increases the cost of demolition.
Meanwhile, the US can always redefine relationships for some reason. This happened in 2001 when the US prioritized security over prosperity in response to the 9/11 attacks. That’s what’s happening now.

Canadian Press/AP, Scott Apple White
Deeper integration remains an attractive response to the US, like in 2001, but given Trump’s attempt to dismantle American democracy at home and bully his neighbors in an unprecedented way, integration The risks caused by this are even greater.
Read more: How the constitutional guardrail always included the president’s ambitions
Already, Canada is struggling to recruit American allies to fight tariffs as it fears US businesses and politicians will stand up to Trump. Choosing to integrate deeper will only exacerbate Canada’s position and become part of the US economy, losing its political influence.
And it does not address the morality of cooperation with the country currently establishing concentration camps for immigration in Guantanamo Bay.
The dictatorship is a bully who always promotes benefits, as Trump’s administration demonstrates in his ultimatum to Canada and Mexico. Taking their demands at face value is a surefire way to abandon Canadian autonomy one at a time. Therefore, the first option – Maintain Status Quo – is off the table.
The third option remains.
The fatal dangers facing Canada
The third option is more appealing across political spheres, primarily because the US is enforcing Canadian hands. The uncertainty Trump injected into relations has made it more expensive for businesses to engage in cross-border trade, even in the presence of trade agreements.
As Trump’s tariff threat remains and his attack on the rule of law continues, the US market becomes even less attractive, especially as Trump injected into the relationship.
However, his actions underscore the new extreme dangers Canada is currently facing.

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
As Sharp recognized in 1972, shared social values were the foundation of the success of Canadian-US relations. He understood that for the third option, the relationship must be “harmony.” Even if he had thought of ways to reduce Canada’s dependence, he would not doubt that Canada and the United States were “a wide-compatible society.”
Its shared foundation “based on a broad array of shared interests, recognitions and goals” allowed Canada to take its own path while maintaining productive relationships with the United States.
Today, that assumption is no longer held. The United States acts under Trump as a power of an expansionist empire with little consideration of international law.
This is something that Needle Canadian politicians have to thread. Geography alone means Canada must continue to maintain its relationship with the US, but without shared value it becomes extremely difficult to have healthy, productive relationships of all kinds.
The cost of democracy
As Sharp realizes, there is a cost to follow the third option. A “intentional, comprehensive, long-term strategy” is required on a scale not seen since the 1960s.
All this must be done in a landscape where Canada and the US no longer share values.
For today’s third option, Canadians must embrace an independent Canadian identity based on democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. There needs to be a consensus that US authoritarianism is completely unacceptable for Canada.
Canada is pushed towards the third option as the worst approach. But as was true in the Sharp era, the third option costs money. Independence and democracy do not come for free.