A new ballot question: How should Canada define its relationship with the U.S.?

In these disorienting days, Canadian leaders are responding in real time to a deeply uncertain world. 

On the day the president of the United States launched a global trade war, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith chose to look on the bright side. The United States, she wrote, had decided to "uphold the majority of the free trade agreement … between our two nations." And while some tariffs remained in place, "it appears the worst of this tariff dispute is behind us."

At least two parts of the latter comment might be disputed — that the "worst" is truly "behind us," and that the challenge facing Canada amounts to a "tariff dispute." But given her previously stated hope that the present conflict between the United States and Canada could be put on pause until after the federal election, it is not surprising that she leapt at the modicum of solace to be found for Canada in Wednesday's announcement by Donald Trump.

Conversely, at a rally in Kingston, Ont., Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized what he called "another unfair attack" by the United States on the Canadian economy. The president, Poilievre said, was "betraying America's closest friend."

But Poilievre's phrasing might raise another question: Is it still fair to describe Canada and the United States as friends? Do we share values, interests and goals? Does the United States even view anyone as a friend? Would it be more accurate to say that we are now merely neighbours? 

(In an interview with CBC's Frontburner this week, Jason Stanley, an American scholar in fascism who is relocating to Toronto, said both Canada and Ukraine are now "bordered by autocratic dictatorships.")

On Thursday morning, Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke to reporters on Parliament Hill and underlined the stark language he used a week ago when he said that the "old relationship" with the United States — one based on "deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military co-operation" — was now "over."

"The global economy is fundamentally different today than it was yesterday," Carney said.

In so many words, he seemed to suggest that the old world was dying and a new world was struggling to be born. 

There is some general agreement that Canada must act urgently in response to what is happening in the United States. But Carney's statements point to what might be a split in the way the Liberal and Conservative leaders view — or at least talk about — the tumult that is unfolding.

In a speech staged on Wednesday morning, hours before Trump announced his latest tariffs, Poilievre said that as prime minister he would propose to the president that they expedite a review and renegotiation of Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). And while that was occurring, both Canada and the United States would agree to suspend their tariffs against each other. 

It's at least unclear that Donald Trump would be inclined toward such a show of good faith — he imposed tariffs during the negotiation of CUSMA in 2018, and even kept those import taxes in place for a while after Canada and the United States had agreed to a new trade deal. 

Perhaps by May, when Poilievre would hypothetically be in a position to make his offer, the economic pain in the United States would be such that Trump would be looking for an excuse to backtrack. But if Trump views tariffs as a permanent fixture of his country's new economic and fiscal agenda, the notion of tariff-free trade with the United States may now be wishful thinking. 

Poilievre said that in any renegotiation he would draw a number of "red lines." He would, he said, protect control over "our border, our security, our resources, our farmers, including our supply managed farmers, our fresh water, our automotive workers … our sovereignty, our laws, our currency, our dollar, our land, our waters, our sky, our culture, our official languages … our resources and Indigenous rights."