A A

Forget the midnight flights to Washington and the clumsy presidential threats, the phoney deadlines and blatant negotiating ploys. If Canada is to achieve a renewed continental trade agreement under viable terms, it has to shrug off American pressure tactics and stay focused.

There is no rush to get a new NAFTA because there are no hard deadlines, just movable goalposts that change by the week. And there’s too much on the line to be distracted by side issues like the new deal’s name, a question that fascinates Donald Trump and no one else. Lately Trump’s been test-marketing “USMC” for U.S., Mexico and Canada. But he likes to add, maybe not Canada.

Trump might not understand what’s at stake: peaceful commerce across an entire continent, the future of trillions of dollars of investment and millions of jobs. He acts like it’s a nod-and-wink deal set up to make politicians look good on TV.

Even so, it’s likely that Canada already has made or will soon make meaningful concessions to U.S. demands. They might include measures that raise prices for Canadian consumers, perhaps of drugs and technology, but lower them in other areas, like dairy and poultry products.

This assumes that Canada will give ground on agriculture, which seems increasingly likely. Dairy producers demanded again last week that Ottawa hold the line on agricultural quotas and tariffs, or supply management, but not everyone snapped to attention.

No wonder. As a political and economic calculation, should the country should go to the wall defending a 1970s-era system that protects long-vested farm interests, one that inflates consumer prices? Dairy farmers insist the quotas maintain orderly markets, but can’t prove there will be grave disorder without them.

Still, weakening farm quotas carries political risk, especially in Quebec where a provincial election is underway and Justin Trudeau’s Liberals will try to defend 40 federal seats next year.

Most important to Canadian interests is the need for language on dispute settlement. The Trump administration wants unfair practices and dumping claims to be argued in U.S. courts, suggesting that independent panels undermine national sovereignty. Other than the inconvenience of losing a lot of cases, the dispute panels used in Canada-U.S. trade for 30 years didn’t damage anyone’s sovereignty. Sometimes the Americans just had lousy cases.

That’s why there’s no sense making any deal that doesn’t have a means of enforcement, especially given the inconstant regime in Washington. When two parties sign a contract, both need legally binding protection from things that go wrong, either due to intentional acts or because conditions change. Getting U.S. agreement to those enforceable protections might be hard, but what’s the rush? Republican politicians warn that time was running out for Canada, but with what consequences? They don’t specify.

Mexico is working out final details with the U.S. and wants to settle everything before its new president takes over on Dec. 1. That would be tidy, but unnecessary. New chief executive Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has not demanded major changes. And that’s Mexico’s issue to resolve, not Canada’s. We owe Mexico nothing, surely not acquiescence in a bad deal, just to smooth their presidential transition.

As to the U.S. congressional elections on Nov. 6, it’s hard to imagine a new Congress being much more hostile to Canada’s interests than the current one. Like the president himself, the Republican-dominated Congress has proven itself to be unpredictable and untrustworthy. Canada should not rush to make deals with such people.

The ultimate weapon against Canada is the one Trump throws around so often and so carelessly, punishing tariffs on Canadian auto imports. But who’s to say Trump wouldn’t do that anyway, deal or no deal?

If the talks collapse, it’s possible political turmoil in Washington will result in paralysis and the current NAFTA carrying on for some time. There won’t be instant chaos. Canada should take the time to get the right deal.