—Dr. Alexandra Flynn, Associate Professor and Director, Housing Research Collaborative; Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada
[Editor’s Note: This is one of our ICONnect columns. For more information on our 2025 columnists, see here.]
These days, Canadian media is entirely consumed with President Trump’s latest dramas, from tariffs to the unilateral renaming of geographies to angry meetings with world leaders.
The long list of shocking actions taken by United States’ leaders has engulfed Canada’s own important news: since President Trump took office, Canada has lost a prime minister (Justin Trudeau) and gained a new one (Mark Carney). Carney is an international banking superstar who won the leadership of the Liberal party despite his relative lack of political experience.
On April 28, 2025, Canadians will face a pivotal choice: elect Carney and give the Liberals another mandate (it has had three since 2015), or choose Pierre Poilievre, a populist Conservative leader. Until a few months ago, Poilievre was almost guaranteed to win the election; now it’s anyone’s guess.
In a typical federal election, Canadians might expect heated debates about constitutional issues—most recently, Indigenous sovereignty, the housing crisis, or the role of the federal government in addressing provincial disputes. However, these pressing issues have been largely sidelined in 2025. Instead, the election – less than a month away – is dominated by discussions of Canada’s relationship with the United States, not the many, many challenges Canada must address at home.
While the neglect of these fundamental domestic issues is troubling, it also speaks to the extent to which Trump’s actions have shaken Canada’s political character. President Trump’s rationale for the sudden imposition of a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports in early 2025 was justified under the guise of border security concerns and economic protectionism. But his suggestion that Canada’s dependence on the United States meant that it is a 51st state was inflammatory and a direct affront to Canadian independence.
As a result, for many Canadians, the 2025 election is not just about responding to Trump’s policies, but about affirming the country’s identity. The tariffs have rekindled a sense of sovereignty, pushing Canada to clarify its values and rethink its economic and diplomatic relationships beyond North America.
For those involved in the legal profession, there are important repercussions for the dominance of US-related issues in Canada. First, the tariffs raise significant concerns regarding the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in Trump’s first Presidency. Trump’s current actions challenge both CUSMA and broader principles of international trade law and approaches to transnational economic agreements.
This new political era is revealing the limits of the rule of law in governing international trade when one party—namely, the United States—ignores its commitments under CUSMA. A pressing question is how Canada will assert its autonomy while relying on legal frameworks that may not be fully enforceable against an uncooperative American administration. Avenues for Canada’s response include formal dispute resolution mechanisms, retaliatory measures, and trade diversification. If legal frameworks fail to provide an adequate solution, Canada may be forced to take unilateral actions, raising difficult questions about the rule of law in the face of economic coercion.
Second, this election’s overwhelming focus on the United States also risks overshadowing Canada’s unresolved constitutional and other challenges. For example, prior to President Trump taking office, the key issue was housing, with political leaders in the hot seat on how they’d address the lack of affordable housing stock. This issue, like so many others, has faded into the background. While trade disputes may be urgent, they should not come at the expense of addressing domestic issues that have long demanded attention.
Third, the Trump administration will likely propel a new relationship between Canada and the United States regardless of who wins the April election, rattling the past half century of Canadian identity, economic relationships, and federalism. This new era magnifies the difficulty of amending the Constitution as a vehicle to mobilize a national conversation.
Amending Canada’s Constitution is notoriously challenging given its rigid amending formula, which requires varying levels of consent from the federal and provincial governments depending on the nature of the change. The formula was established to balance federal and provincial interests, but in practice has led to political gridlock, making substantive constitutional reform nearly impossible. As a result, Canada continues to rely on judicial interpretation and legislative practices to address contemporary challenges, rather than direct constitutional change, leaving key areas such as the division of powers largely frozen in time. Legal professionals will play an important role in articulating possible next steps given this Constitutional conundrum.
The 2025 federal election is about much more than electing a government—it is about defining Canada’s place in the world and the values it will embody at home. While immediate concerns over tariffs and US relations dominate the debate, legal professionals must remain cognizant of Canada’s broader constitutional issues. Canada has an opportunity to reinforce its sovereignty and the rule of law, but it must also recognize that true independence means addressing the constitutional challenges that exist within its own borders.
Suggested citation: Alexandra Flynn, Rule of Law or Rule of Trump? How the United States is Defining Canada’s Election, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Apr. 2, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/rule-of-law-or-rule-of-trump-how-the-united-states-is-defining-canadas-election/
Comments