Last week’s foreign ministers’ meeting in Charlevoix, Quebec officially kicked off Canada’s G7 presidency in 2025. In less than one hundred days, the prime minister will host his G7 counterparts, including U.S. President Donald Trump, in Kananaskis, Alberta.
This year’s G7 meeting is significant, and not just because it marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the institution itself. It will take place against the backdrop of significant global upheaval. The future of globalization itself is in doubt.
The retreat of U.S. global leadership has left a vacuum in international affairs. The traditional pillars of globalization—free trade, open markets, and multilateral cooperation—are under strain. The rise of protectionist policies, the recalibration of global supply chains, and evolving national security concerns have challenged long-standing economic and diplomatic assumptions. If the last three decades were defined by the relentless advance of globalization, today we’re witnessing a moment of reckoning.
For Canada, a trade-dependent country that relies on global stability, the stakes are high. The G7 presidency is thus a huge opportunity. It should be understood as a strategic platform—a chance to steer discussions toward a renewed consensus on international cooperation.
Canada must use this moment to champion what former Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called “enlightened sovereignty”—the idea that national interest is often best served through active global engagement, rather than retreating into parochialism and protectionism.
As we set out in a new policy brief for the Public Policy Forum, the heart of Canada’s G7 agenda should be a recalibrated form of globalization—what we might call “Globalization 2.0.” The excesses of hyperglobalization must be addressed, but the alternative—a world defined by economic nationalism and isolationism—is no better.
The challenge is to strike a balance: ensuring that free trade remains the foundation of global commerce while recognizing the legitimate demands for national resilience, strategic autonomy, and more balanced economic outcomes. Think of it as somewhere between Steve Bannon and Klaus Schwab.
One practical step would be advocating for trade agreements that preserve the core principles of open markets but allow for greater policy flexibility. This means acknowledging that some national-level interventions—whether in supply chain security, critical industries, or labour protections—are not necessarily anti-trade but rather a necessary evolution of economic policy in a world where sovereignty matters. Canada can use the G7 platform to frame this discussion and push for pragmatic reforms.
Notwithstanding Trump’s apparent antipathy, the USMCA represents a good model for Globalization 2.0. It enhanced sovereignty by curbing investor-state dispute settlement, set out provisions for dealing with non-market countries, and even has carve-outs for politically sensitive industries. It thus struck a reasonable balance between free exchange and policy sovereignty.
International trade economist Jagdish Bhagwati famously called these preferential trade agreements “termites in the trading system,” but if such arrangements (which are less ambitious than contemporary free trade ones) with allies are the way to save what’s left of the global trade order, we should take it.
Beyond trade, Canada must also assert itself on security and global governance. The weakening of international institutions, from the World Trade Organization to the United Nations, threatens the architecture that has underpinned global stability. As a middle power with a strong record of multilateral leadership, Canada should spearhead efforts to modernize these institutions or conceive of new ones that bring structure and form to global cooperation among allies and partners.
None of this will be easy. Domestically, Canada is navigating its own political uncertainties, which could distract from the demands of global leadership. Yet, history has shown that moments of global instability often create openings for leadership. Canada’s G7 presidency should be more than a diplomatic gathering—it should be an opportunity to help shape the emerging world order.
The statement out of last week’s foreign minister’s meeting mostly stayed clear of these questions. That no doubt reflects the fault lines and tensions between the Trump administration and the others. But if the G7 isn’t a forum to address such fundamental issues, then its own relevance will eventually come into doubt.
As G7 president, the onus lies to a certain degree on Canadian officials. If the government is serious about using the G7 presidency to advance Canada’s national interest, it must act decisively. This means high-level engagement with allies including the U.S. (such as bilateral meetings between Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio) and the others (such as Prime Minister Carney’s recent trips to France and the U.K.). But, as importantly, it means a clear, compelling vision for what a modernized global economy should look like.
Time is short. The window to influence the summit’s outcomes is closing quickly. At a time when the world is looking for leadership, Canada has a rare chance to provide it.
