How do we Ensure Canada is Important to Americans

Patrick Gossage • February 7, 2025

I was Canada’s PR guy at our Washington Embassy during the Reagan years. In doing my rounds with media and influential think tanks, I soon realized the frightening lack of knowledge that even well-educated Americans had of Canada. We also knew that Canada was well behind countries like Sweden in profile in the capital of the world. Our ambassador - Alan Gotlieb - was determined to change that. Our first strategy for putting Canada on the map was to host parties at the Gotlieb residence which would be must-attends by the elite of Washington.

By having cool dinners honouring famous Canadians like the late Peter Jennings, Norman Jewison, and Donald Sutherland we attracted senior White House staff, Cabinet Secretaries and even members of Congress. I made sure the parties were covered in the social pages of the Washington Post and voila - we were the talk of the town. We were on the map and Gotlieb was soon writing op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.


It worked – a classic PR strategy of using celebrities to attract attention. It is amazing to me that classic media relations and marketing play almost no role in Canada’s need to reach the hearts and minds of Americans.


In this daunting situation of threatened Trump tariffs, this role is largely being fulfilled by the provinces and by the leading candidates to replace Trudeau. Ontario ads are ubiquitous on CNN, and Chrystia Freeland has had a good interview with Dana Bash on CNN as well as a strong interview on Bloomberg. Her views have appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Her rival candidate, Mark Carney, has been on late night TV, on FOX news and in the Economist. The Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford has done several US TV shows.


It's ironic that these players are reaching out to Americans and the active existing Liberal government under Justin Trudeau is not. Why is he not giving interviews to major US media and making better use of his social media outlets? Why is the government not investing in hard-hitting factual TV ads about the integrated North American manufacturing and energy sectors and the value of the two-way trade? And the fact, much promoted by Melanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs that tariffs mean higher prices for US consumers when Trump promised to reduce them.

This pitch should be garnering widespread US media coverage.


The Trump gang pays far more attention to public opinion than in what the established business elites, or even Democrats think of the new regime. We could make a determined effort to influence it.


But we need to speak in one voice to Americans. Regional self- interests, especially from Alberta, cloud our messaging. Most Canadians know that the only way to impress a bully like Trump is to show strength. Slowly the gang of provinces and the federal government are buying this playbook.

Canadians are coming together with new nationalistic fervour to fight the threat of Trump wanting to make us the 51st state. This has produced an impressive and reassuring rise in patriotic sentiment everywhere. If only the US media could be convinced to pay attention to this growing movement among us normally calm restrained citizens. Again, a classic PR challenge which could be tackled and easily achieved. The New York Times has staff here, who have already covered our plans to tackle the fentanyl crisis.


Making fun of this unCanadian phenomenon which manifests itself in a “buy Canadian” movement has produced some hilarious comedy. A recent This Hour has 22 Minutes skit sees Mark Critch abusing a shopper for nor buying Canadian ketchup even cheezies. “We are in a trade war” you traitor!


The humour in the 51 st state scenario was well exploited by US late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel: “But let’s just imagine for a second that somehow… (that) Canada does become a state. Do they think it would be a red state? There are forty-one million people living in Canada. They’re about the same number we have in California. California has fifty-four electoral votes. If Canada also had fifty-four electoral votes, forget MAGA — our next president will be a kindhearted lesbian moose. “I’m trying to say, I’m for it. Save us, Canada — you’re our only hope.” Obviously,

he sees a residue of pro-Canadian sentiment in America. We should be exploiting it!


Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

A couple in matching formalwear walks the red carpet, surrounded by photographers and camera flashes.
By Patrick Gossage August 11, 2026
Watching cringeworthy video of our former PM’s hand on popstars Katy Perry’s bum at the Tribeca film festival gave me pause about who our former leader had become.
By Patrick Gossage April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.
More Posts