Canadians have learned in recent days that Prime Minister Mark Carney did indeed apologize for an Ontario advertisement that used Ronald Reagan’s own words to correctly portray the late United States president’s views on the importance of free trade.

The subtext to such an apology is clear: “Sorry Ontario accurately described Ronald Reagan’s stand on free trade, Mr. President. We understand those words hurt your feelings and challenged your version of the truth, which of course is unacceptable. We promise we won’t let the facts get in the way of our relationship again.”

Last spring’s election was all about building insulation to Trump, using phrases like “Elbows up” and “Canada Strong.” But the attitude of both the federal government and the Official Opposition, then and now, has often been conciliatory to the point of obsequiousness.

Far from elbows up, Canada too often seems to have no elbows at all.

Read more: Elbows down? Why Mark Carney seems to keep caving to Donald Trump

Implications of the apology

Carney apologized for something he didn’t do — and something that was completely defensible, at least in a normal period of Canada-U.S. relations.

Critics of Ontario Premier Doug Ford and defenders of Carney — often the same people — will say the ad should not have happened in the first place.

They would point out, not incorrectly, that though the ad accurately recounted Reagan’s words, those words aren’t relevant to Republican views anymore and that the ad unnecessarily poked the bear. This may be true, but it doesn’t justify the apology.

In normal times, there would be nothing wrong with the ad airing in the U.S. Traditionally, Americans have valued and encouraged free speech and reasoned argument, and respected the views of allies and partners. Canadian governments, accordingly, may resort to public advocacy south of the border to get the attention of decision-makers in the complex U.S. policymaking apparatus.

When institutions are working as they should in the U.S., power is disaggregated between federal and state levels and between executive and legislative branches, making advocacy a complex, multifaceted affair.

But we are not in that world anymore. The U.S. must be handled as a regime, not a democracy. As The New York Times editorial board accurately described things recently, democracy in the U.S. is under sustained threat due to the actions of Trump and his supporters. There are still democratic elements within the country, but the U.S. no longer responds to normal diplomacy.

The ad was therefore an unnecessary risk. The apology, however, was an unnecessary own-goal. An apology is due when someone has done something wrong, but that is not the case here. The ad might have been ill-advised, but it was not wrong.

Dealing with a bully

When dealing with a bully, don’t say or do anything you’re not willing to stand beside, even if it provokes a presidential fit of pique. Every climb-down is a defeat and an admission of weakness. Better to say nothing than to say something you have to take back. And if offence is taken, an apology will only make things worse in the long run.

It has been obvious for a long time that the only thing Trump respects is power, and the only thing he may be persuaded by is a transactional, personal payoff. While an apology might seem to provide a personal payoff him, what it really does is communicate a lack of power. That in turn invites further demands.

Bullies don’t stop bullying when you make it clear you’ll do what they ask. They stop when it’s clear that you won’t. As long as outrage is rewarded, Canada can expect more of the same.

The truth doesn’t matter

What’s more, Carney’s apology makes clear that truth won’t be an obstacle to Canadian compliance, not unlike when the country took the imagined fentanyl border crisis seriously. In both cases, Canada’s response communicated that its actions will be tailored to suit Trump’s version of reality, not facts on the ground.

Such deference is not only a betrayal of Canadian dignity, sovereignty and interests, it’s also not going to work. There is now ample evidence backing this up.

Retract the ads, and the tariffs go up anyway. Apologize, and the tariffs stay in place. Spend billions on cross-border security, including fentanyl interdiction, and the tariffs remain. Spend additional billions on defence spending, and the tariffs stay put. Fly to Mar-a-Lago as a supplicant and get a series of 51st state taunts for your pains.

Would-be autocrats thrive on the subjugation of facts to their will. Canada simply can’t afford to keep giving in to Trumpian demands or to allow the truth to be whatever the American administration says it is.

Read more: Psychoanalysis explains why Donald Trump is taunting Canada and 'Governor Justin Trudeau'

Public diplomacy in the Trump era

Canada’s best option, instead, is to stay consistent with a single message: it stands ready to be a partner. The two countries have always benefited from working together, and can again do so. Canada is not out to antagonize, but neither should it apologize for simply speaking the truth.

Going forward, it’s clear that Canada’s premiers must work more closely with the federal government on a single forceful message, not freelance in whatever direction suits their particular political interests at the moment. Canada needs one foreign policy, not 14. Multiple messages simply create opportunities to divide and conquer.

Similarly, Canada must deepen links with other allies and partners around the world as quickly as possible. Bullies pick on the weak and the isolated. Canada can’t afford to be either.

Above all, when the U.S. takes offence, or gives it, the country must politely but firmly stand its ground. Canada cannot allow the freedom to speak the truth or stand up for itself to become the latest casualties in Trump’s trade war against all.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Stewart Prest, University of British Columbia

Read more:

Stewart Prest does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.