World leaders emerged dazed and confused from the G7 summit in Quebec this past weekend. The outcome of the summit was confusing to say the least. President Donald Trump renounced the official communiqué minutes after its release, attacked Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau for making “false statements”, and renewed his threat to impose tariffs on automobiles supposedly “flooding the U.S. Market!”. Read our analysis here.

The Economist met Mr Trudeau before the G7 summit (and days before Mr Trump announced his intention to slap hefty tariffs on steel and aluminium from several countries, including Canada). The prime minister described his relationship with Mr Trump as a “very good working relationship”. “My job is to stand up for Canadian interests and [Donald Trump] doesn’t take that as an attack or an issue,” Mr Trudeau said.

Our correspondent spoke to Mr Trudeau about how to handle Mr Trump, why Canada will not cower to America on NAFTA, and what Canada is doing to protect liberal values. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

The Economist: Is the G7 in danger of becoming the G6 plus one?

Justin Trudeau: I think one of the things that people overlook is that in the seven most advanced economies, the West, and frankly the world in general, we’re facing a similar problem. We’re all facing the same challenge, which is how do we create growth in a way that includes everyone, that includes the middle class and those working hard to join it. We have a situation where economic anxiety, worries about the future, worries about your kids’ future, worries about whether or how you are going to retire, worries about the technological changes, worries about disruptions in globalization and global trade are hitting our citizens, particularly in the G7 nations, pretty hard. And all of us, from Donald Trump to me to the other leaders, have all been elected on, one way or another, a commitment to make the economy work for everyone, not just for the few, not just for the wealthy. Now the policy prescriptions obviously are different in different places. But that challenge is at the core of what we are each facing internally and what we are facing as a world. And that is really, the G7 being fundamentally an economic gathering, that is at the core of the discussions we are going to be having in Charlevoix.

The Economist: But nevertheless, these differences have become more apparent and there is a challenge to keep the sense that the unity of purpose is there in this vital group. What are you finding, as you prepare for this, the toughest in that respect?

“Canadians expect and have always expected that the prime minister stands up for Canadian interests, Canadian values, Canadian solutions, and not just be an extension of the United States.”

Mr Trudeau: I think just to highlight that, I mean obviously my political philosophy and approach to a number of different problems is, as a number of people have highlighted, a marked contrast from the approach that the president of the United States takes on many of the similar problems. And yet we find ourselves, because of geography and because of renegotiations of NAFTA, in regular contact on issues that matter to both of us. And they are almost always issues of the economy, issues of how to make our middle classes successful, how to bring the people who entrusted us with the responsibility of building an economy that actually includes everyone, and that brings back people who feel they were left out of it, and we find common ground on those challenges. We find ways, as we negotiate, as we look for ways to collaborate domestically, but also with the international community, with a focus on: Is this going to help our workers, our citizens? And the one thing that is very clear is that it is not a zero-sum game. Just as we have seen as we have signed trade deals around the world over the past years, something can be a win-win. We can actually benefit workers in the rust-belt in the United States and workers in southern Ontario and across Canada by doing things right together. And that focus on where we agree, where we can be mutually reinforcing in our pathways towards success that includes everyone, is the focus of the G7.

The Economist: Let’s turn to the relationship with the United States, which is the crucial relationship for Canada. A huge percentage of your trade is with the United States; maybe a fifth of your economy is dependent on the United States. How do you manage the relationship with Donald Trump?

Mr Trudeau: Canadians expect and have expected from the very beginning two things of me, and quite frankly they expect it of any Canadian prime minister and any American president. First of all, have a constructive, positive relationship in which we can talk on a broad range of issues that matter to us, very rapidly, that we have a very good working relationship, because obviously we are each other’s closest neighbours and best allies.

But secondly, Canadians also expect and have always expected that the prime minister stands up for Canadian interests, Canadian values, Canadian solutions, and not just be an extension of the United States. And those two elements could seem somewhat at odds with this particular confluence of prime minister and president, but the fact is I have a very good working relationship with the president and he understands that my job is to stand up for Canadian interests and he doesn’t take that as an attack or an issue. It’s exactly what he would expect me to be doing and he is not dismayed when I am very firm that I am going to make sure that only things that happen are in Canada’s interests.

The Economist: Can you give some examples of that firmness and how you’ve handled that, where you’ve had to be particularly robust?

Mr Trudeau: A great example is the ongoing negotiation on NAFTA. We are looking to update and modernize and renew our North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, Canada and the United States. And they have put some proposals forward that we have simply said: We will not accept these proposals. A perfect example is this idea of a sunset clause on a trade deal. Having a trade deal that terminates unless it is actively renewed every five years is simply not a trade deal at all. And we’ve been very clear. However much the United States wants it, it is not true that a bad deal is better than no deal. I have said very clearly that no deal is better than a bad deal and we will be very firm on that.

The Economist: So when President Trump, as he did just recently, calls Canada “very difficult to deal with, very spoiled” do you take that as a compliment?

“What we are focusing on is protecting that incredibly precious resource that is that Canadians are generally very positively inclined towards immigration.”

Mr Trudeau: Um, I take that as an expression that he understands we are standing up for our interests and not allowing ourselves to be intimidated by the difference in scale between our economies.

The Economist: Here at the Economist we have a season called Open Future, which is on remaking the case for classical liberal values for the 21st century. And sometimes Canada is seen as something of a model or something of a champion in that respect. Do you have a view about how to go about this? Because there is a lot of resistance and a lot of opposition. Liberal values are under threat in so many parts of the world right now. What can you do as a country to pursue this sort of agenda while protecting those who are left behind?

Mr Trudeau: I think the element to understand is that those aren’t two separate factors. Those are extremely linked. The fact that there are people being left aside, or left out—or worried that they are being left out—and the faltering of the model that has worked reasonably well in the West over the past decades, are linked. When people get told that we’ll invest in infrastructure, in education, in science, in trade competitiveness, in trade deals and tax competitiveness, and everyone will benefit from the fruits of those pro-growth strategies, and people sort of realize that wow, the wealthiest are getting wealthier but the middle class and those working hard to join it are not doing very well, or haven’t gotten a raise in 30 years, there is something wrong with the system.

So what we did—and Canada is no different, people are sort of holding up Canada has some special place. We’re pretty special but we’re not different from anywhere else. We’re facing the same kind of politics of division, politics of nationalism, of nativism, of worries about trade, of anti-globalization that you see elsewhere. What we did in my election two and a half years ago, was very much focused on saying: OK, we hear that anxiety. Instead of augmenting it for political gains in the short-term, we’re going to focus on allaying it. So the first thing we did was lower taxes for the middle class, [and] raise them on the wealthiest 1%. We then gave a very generous child benefit to low- and middle-income families, [and] stopped sending them to wealthier families. We’re investing in infrastructure, whether it’s green infrastructure or public transit, or public housing—things that are reassuring people that we are on the right track. At the same time as we’re doing that we are investing massively in things like AI, in science, and pure and applied research, in STEM education, in retraining for people in the job market, so that people are not worried about the future but see the future as an opportunity. All those things together have actually led us to having the strongest growth rates in the G7 in 2017. People are confident about where we are going. We’ve got lowest unemployment in 40 years. Things are going well in Canada because we are bringing people along and trying to allay those fears. And that’s actually what is allowing us to sign trade deals, to be positive about multilateralism and the current world order, because we are addressing that fundamental anxiety.

The Economist: There are tricky areas for this. Let’s hone in on a couple where getting the balance right is far from simple. Immigration, for example. It’s one of the areas where the backlash can be strongest. And you’ve had difficulties with people coming across the border from the United States. So how do you get that balance right?

Mr Trudeau: Irregular migration is indeed something that is of concern in our political—and in citizens’—minds right now. And what we are focusing on is protecting that incredibly precious resource that is that Canadians are generally very positively inclined towards immigration. And even the debate around irregular arrivals is more that they are challenging our system and making it more difficult to bring in regular immigrants. And that’s something that people are worried about—that there is some back door into our immigration system.

So what our focus is on, and what we are very much doing, is reassuring Canadians by demonstrating that this is an extra load on our system, but it’s not breaking our system, it’s not straining our system. Everyone who arrives, whether it’s regular or irregular, will be processed rigorously, and if they are coming across the border claiming refugee status and it turns out they are not refugees, they are not fleeing violence, or persecution, or war or terror, they will eventually be sent home to their countries, because it’s not a shortcut into Canada. And getting that message out there, saying: Yes, we accept over 300,000 immigrants a year, almost 1% of our population every year, we’re going to continue to be open and welcoming. But we will do it in the rules-based system. That is deeply reassuring to Canadians, and, on the other side, allows us to ensure success for those new arrivals on integration and on finding jobs.

The Economist: Do you think you sent a too-open message encouraging people to come to Canada, and that’s created a problem for you?

“[Women in the workforce and the empowerment of marginalized women and girls] are all very much the right things to do, but they are also very smart things to do.”

Mr Trudeau: I think that highlighting that Canada will always be an open country, highlighting that we are signatories to UN conventions that mean that we have to accept refugees [and] process asylum claims, is simply a repetition and reinforcement of our values. And sending that message as well that we are going to continue to be a country of laws that apply our rules and our system rigorously does not contradict anything.

The Economist: Another example of where these things can be tricky is gender pronouns. You passed very progressive legislation, but then you hit a problem of accusations that this is an inhibition on free speech. Again, do you find the line tricky to draw?

Mr Trudeau: No. That’s actually not a thing. What you are describing isn’t something that is of any substance at all. We haven’t legislated free speech on gender pronouns or anything like that. That’s a right-wing chimera that they’ve tried to stir up. What we are making a very significant argument around is that inclusion of women in the workforce, and women in success, and empowerment of marginalized women and girls, combating gender violence, are all very much the right things to do, but they are also very smart things to do. That it’s an economic argument of inclusion and equality and pay equity. We know that the growth in our economies over the past few decades has largely, or in a large part, come from the joining of strong, successful women into our workforce. But there’s still a gap in success, in achieving potential. If we close that gap, that’s going to be a place where new growth is coming from. And everyone knows we’re looking for new places to develop growth.

The Economist:Final question. Back to the G7. $600m Canadian dollars. Is that money well spent?

Mr Trudeau: Absolutely. I think it’s an investment in not just bringing leaders together, but demonstrating to our citizens that our countries are working together on the big issues that matter, whether it’s on gender, whether it’s on the environment, but mostly on this shared challenge of how do we create growth that works for everyone. And I think that is both reassuring to people to see people coming together and working on things that matter to them, and the outcomes and the solutions we are putting forward are also going to be very much worth it.

The Economist:Justin Trudeau, thank you.

Mr Trudeau: A real pleasure.