Freeland standing strong in the face of personal attacks
Smart, tough, super-capable and confident women in leadership have to put up with a lot of rubbish.
This is nothing new.
And more often than not it is sexist rubbish.
Recently a steel corporation CEO proclaimed that Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland “was way out of her league.” Freeland, of course, is a graduate of Harvard, Oxford and a Rhodes Scholar. She has proven herself to be one of the most capable of Trudeau’s ministers, handling tough and complex files and doing so calmly, adroitly. In short, she got skills.
Barry Zekelman, CEO of Zekelman Industries, was appearing before the Parliamentary Committee on Trade when he made the remarks. As the owner of North American’s largest independent steel pipe and tubing manufacturer, he was clearly upset with Freeland’s bargaining strategy with respect to dealing with the United States and its punishing tariffs on steel (25 per cent) and aluminum (10 per cent). Many thought these tariffs would have been dealt with in the new NAFTA agreement or USMCA.
They were not.
But no one should underestimate Freeland’s abilities. Disagree with her strategy, that’s legitimate. But do so in a way that does not undermine the country’s bargaining position.
And the personal attacks need to stop. At one point Zekelman complained that her ego was getting in the way of a deal with the United States. He shouldn’t confuse being confident and capable with ego.
These remarks also served to mask his troublesome position on what the Canadian government and Freeland herself are trying to achieve at the negotiating table with the United States. And that is the best deal possible for Canada, not cave to the first real offer from the U.S. That’s not bargaining, it’s begging.
The U.S. has reportedly offered a quota system to Canada, in exchange for tariff relief. The problem is likely the size of the quota — tied to exports at (or even below) current levels.
Obviously this is a problem. What about growth and investment in the sector? How does Canada incentivize investment in an industry where the cap on quotas is at current production or worse lower production? For the auto sector, this was a major point of contention during USMCA talks. Minister Freeland, to her credit, negotiated a successful compromise.
Anyone who has analyzed Trump knows everything is about politics and there will be pressure on him to get a deal before the Nov. 5 mid-term elections. Freeland and her team know this, too.
There is no doubt that the tariffs have caused pain in workplaces and for workers across the country, but how does signing a bad deal help the longterm interests of the industry and sector and most importantly the workers in the sector.
Caving may appease Zekelman who seems entirely too close with the Americans, bragging about his conversations with Trump and head negotiator Robert Lighthizer while taking potshots against Canada’s trade leadership.
But if you’re Freeland, you have to be concerned about more than the here and now, but the future of Canada’s entire steel industry, and not just one player.
Perhaps what was the most telling when looking at Zekelman’s comments are the sexist undertones.
Would he have said the same things about a male political leader? Would he have said they were out of their league? It is highly doubtful. Because if there is anyone who can be criticized on trade it is Donald Trump and his team who consistently have been unprofessional (to say the least) with respect to what they have said about Freeland throughout the negotiations.
Finding a way to navigate and deal with an erratic Donald Trump who had declared an economic trade war against Canada was a tricky piece of work. Freeland for the most part pulled it off.
And not once did she break or lose her cool despite what had to be incredible pressure to get not just a new trade agreement, but one that was better for Canada than the previous NAFTA. I say that knowing the USMCA is far from perfect, or what I would call “progressive”, but the new deal makes positive changes in certain areas.
Throughout the negotiations of the USMCA, she had to put up with her share of naysayers. The President of the United States’s dislike of her is well known. U.S. trade negotiators were far from happy with her. But she did not waiver.
The president’s petulance throughout the talks resembled something out of a schoolyard bully rather than the leader of one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Freeland continued on.
Perhaps the next time Zekelman is looking for an ego to blame he can look south of the border because undermining Canada’s position is not helpful.
In the meantime, Freeland will likely keep calm and carry on as she is known to do. And I suspect in the end, she will have a better deal for Canada than what others are telling her to cave in and accept.