It was a big day on the bilateral Canada-US calendar on this date in 2018. With President Donald Trump demanding changes to NAFTA, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ventured into the heart of traditional American Republicanism -- the Reagan Library, to make Canada's case. To help us mark this anniversary I have turned to Michael Den Tandt, also a former journalist -- like me -- from the Kingston Whig-Standard. A good friend and incredible writer, Michael served proudly as speechwriter and assistant to Mr. Trudeau on the Reagan Library speech. He is our guest columnist today. Over to you Michael!By Michael Den TandtFebruary 9, 2018 was the day I came closest to a catastrophic faceplant as a speechwriter. The remarks were to be the PM's signature moment in a swing through southern California, and a centrepiece of our effort to persuade Republicans that it was in America's interest, as well as Canada's, to preserve NAFTA.We'd spent the day before in San Francisco and were leaving early on speech day to fly to Los Angeles, then hop on buses to get to the Simi Valley. Speech prep went off without a hitch. I packed up my notes, expecting to finalize the text on the plane.But on the flight, and then as the bus wound its way into the hills outside LA, I was unable to access my speech file. I messaged ahead to the ground team, begging them to set up a laptop with the connectivity I needed. We arrived with 90 minutes to spare. I piled out and ran up the trail to a side entrance, to the room where a connected laptop awaited. Miraculously, I was able to log in. I began to work.My then-boss, Brian Clow, occasionally would pop by to see how I was doing. “Are you close?” he asked once, quietly. At that point we had 30 minutes to spare.When extreme stress causes a fight-or-flight response, blood rushes to the hands and feet. It becomes, I discovered that day, next-to impossible to type. In trying to fix typos I made more. In the end I had to ask my mensch of a colleague, Phil Proulx, if he'd type in the changes as I stood over his shoulder. Phil saved the day.Finally, we had the copy ready. But there was another problem: The printer. It was of an early vintage – perhaps, I thought, dating back to when Reagan was President. With ten minutes to spare, and the PM waiting patiently in the next room, we resorted to taking each page singly to him for review, as it emerged. He, for his part, was icy calm.We knew we were all out of time when we saw the boss and his security detail whisk by on their way to the venue – speech or no speech. The final podium copy went into Phil's hands and he took off, moving like a running back. Moments later I was at the back of the hall, barely sentient, listening to the PM speak. I have been told, by people who were there, that it worked out okay.[caption id="attachment_607314" align="alignnone" width="765"] Trudeau Reagan Library Speech (pm.gc.ca)[/caption]Prime Minister Trudeau: Thank you for that very kind introduction and for inviting me to speak here, just three days after the anniversary of President Reagan's birth.I think there could be no finer setting than this marvelous library, such a fine testament to his legacy, for the conversation I'd like to have with you today.Ronald Reagan came over to my house when I was a kid. It was early 1981, mere weeks after his inauguration. He radiated optimism, confidence, and charm. He spoke of America as a shining city on a hill, quoting John Winthrop.I remember that he was genuinely interested in speaking with me, attentive and kind. He asked me if I liked Western films and I nodded enthusiastically, because my father had recently shared with me his affection for Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood.So he recited, from memory, a poem by Robert Service: “The Shooting of Dan McGrew.”I was enthralled. At nine years old, I received a masters' class in political charisma, one that, I like to think, stuck.As we look back now at the record of his first official visit to Canada, there's a lot we can learn.For one thing, political branding can be deceiving.He and my dad, who was Prime Minister of Canada during much of that first term, were purported to have held opposing views about everything. They were fire and ice, supposedly.And Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who governed in Canada in the mid- and late-1980s, is sometimes cast as having never disagreed with the President about anything.After all, they negotiated free trade together. Therefore, they must always have agreed.The truth is more nuanced. My father actually had a quite constructive relationship with President Reagan, as the archives here show. And Prime Minister Mulroney was actually tougher in his engagements with the President, than the public perception.The fact is that, for a Canadian leader, regardless of political affiliation, tenacity and focus are vital job requirements when it comes to working with the U.S.My father coined the expression that to be Canadian, living next to the United States, is like being a mouse, sleeping next to an elephant.Personally, I think of us as less of a mouse and more of a moose – strong, resilient, but still massively outweighed.Consequently, we need to speak up, consistently and clearly, to make ourselves heard. Canadians are often teased for being overly polite – which may not be entirely true, I'm sorry to say. We are not, nor have we ever been, pushovers.In fact, on many cross-border issues, certainly since the early 1990s, Canadian leaders of different political stripes have taken quite similar stances.And getting to an agreement with our American friends, though it inevitably does happen, has always required hard work, persistence, and no shortage of sunny, Reagan-esque optimism, on both sides.Acid rain is one example. This cross-border environmental problem was top of mind for Canadians in the 1980s. Canada engaged with the Reagan administration on this in 1981, and continued doing so under the Mulroney government. The discussion went on for a decade. But our countries got the Acid Rain accord signed in 1991.And the same pattern has often repeated itself on trade.Among the catalysts for free trade in the 1980s, from a Canadian standpoint, was a need to defend Canadian exporters from the protectionist wave that was then sweeping Congress.This eventually led to something far more ambitious than a mere defensive strategy, of course - something creative and visionary and truly world-leading. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989 was the most comprehensive and ambitious trade pact of its day.It was not automatic that things would turn out as they did. This required leadership. It required persuasion. And it began with conversations between Canadians and Americans not unlike the ones I've been having all this week, in Chicago and San Francisco, and here with you today.And Canada's message heading into the original creation of our FTA, and then of NAFTA, a quarter century ago, was the same as our message today; America has no better friend, ally or partner than Canada. We have the longest, most peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship of any two countries in the history of the world.Simply put, if trade between Canada and the US is a bad idea, then there are no good ideas.***Today in Canada, there is wide agreement that the North American Free Trade Agreement, while certainly in need of an update, has been good for middle-class folks in both our countries.And after multiple rounds of NAFTA negotiations - the sixth concluded last week in Montréal and the seventh is scheduled for the end of this month in Mexico City - here's what we know: This accord should be modernized and updated.With effort, hard work, and a willingness to compromise on all sides, this is very achievable.Our negotiators have already closed three chapters: on competition, small and medium-sized enterprises, and anti-corruption. They're within range of closing several more bread-and-butter chapters at their next meeting.And they've begun talking, thanks to some creative ideas advanced by Canada's negotiators – who are doing an extraordinary job I have to say – about some of the toughest issues that have faced us in these talks: with respect to rules of origin for the auto sector, investor-state dispute settlement, and a regular five-year review of the agreement.My friends, we've made progress. And it is vitally important we build on this progress. I fundamentally believe it is in America's interest, not just Canada's, that we do so.Now, I see the response this can draw: “Of course, NAFTA has been good for Canada. Canada is winning in NAFTA and America is losing, and that's why you Canadians like it.”But trade is not a hockey game.The truth is that both Canada and the United States are winning. And so is Mexico. And that's how we should keep it.When trade is working as it should, all partners win.And the data bears this out:You may have heard some of these numbers before; I certainly hope you have.Nine million jobs in America are tied to trade and investment with Canada – including more than a million right here in California. Two thirds of American states have Canada as their largest export market. And, we're in the top three markets for 48 states.We buy more American goods than China, Japan, and the UK combined. We buy more California fruit, nuts, vegetables, and more of your wines, than any other export market.You've got leading California companies like Mattel, Warner Brothers, and Aecom, with deep connections to Canada, both as a market and through their supply chains.And you have innovators like Thalmic Labs, based in Waterloo, Ontario, with a growing office in San Francisco – a recent start-up that is on the cutting edge of wearable technology, now serving clients worldwide.These are all examples of Canadians and Americans, innovating, creating, and building, together.Moreover, the sum of our trade, including both goods and services, is essentially balanced. In fact, in 2016, the U.S. enjoyed a trade surplus with Canada of close to US$8 billion. In manufactured goods, your surplus was nearly US$36 billion.Those are American numbers, by the way, from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, in the Department of Commerce.Where we do have a significant surplus with you is in energy trade – about US$37 billion in 2016. Canada provides more than 40 per cent of America's imported crude. We supply you with more electricity and uranium than any other country, too.But those energy imports, from a trusted partner and ally, support U.S. energy security. They're also, to be clear, in Canada's interest, because our exporters gain from access to the American market, just as U.S. manufacturers and farmers gain from access to ours.And when you're more secure, we are too.Once again: This is a win-win.In fact, since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, the U.S. economy has added 33 million net new jobs.That's also not a Canadian number. It's according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. To put this in perspective, the entire population of Canada is 36 million.NAFTA, while not perfect, has been a good agreement for the United States, broadly speaking, just as it has been good for Canada and Mexico, broadly speaking. That is not in doubt.What is also undeniable, however, is that global trade isn't working for everyone. Income inequality is growing, worldwide. This is an urgent problem.There's been much parsing of the origins of the reaction against globalization, essentially against global free trade, that's swept around the world these past few years.