Terry Newman: Carney hasn’t prepared Canadians for trade concessions

All of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s “elbow’s up” bluster has not prepared Canadians for the inevitable — a compromise with our largest trading partner. Trade negotiations are not hockey games where you can let your emotions take over, throw punches and continue to leer at an opponent until the game is over. They necessarily involve compromise.

So far, we have heard no specifics from the Liberals about the negotiations, we have had to hear everything from either the United States ambassador to Canada or the U.S. president’s social media posts. The deal is not yet finalized, but the vagueness of Liberals’ statements this week, contrasted with the excited statements from the Americans, suggests concessions have been made, which, given the rhetoric so far, may shock and anger many Canadians who Carney prepared for a forever war with our neighbours to the south.

It’s safe to say that since running for the Liberal leadership, Carney has given the impression that such a deal would never come to fruition. This is going to come back to bite him in the arse.

Shortly after becoming Liberal leader in late March 2025, he told Canadians, “The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military co-operation, is over,” and that the U.S. is “no longer a reliable partner.” Suffice to say, this was never going to be fertile grounds for negotiations.

It was also around this time that the “elbows up” messaging began in response to Trump’s 51st state comment at a White House dinner in November 2024, which then-public safety minister Dominic Leblanc said was “in no way a serious comment.”

In his April 2026 prerecorded “Forward Guidance” video, Carney touted a statue of War of 1812 Gen. Isaac Brock, not so tactfully associating himself with a British war general who fought the Americans. And he did this during ongoing trade talks. (Of course, Brock was fighting for the British Crown at the time, not Canada’s sovereignty, which wouldn’t be achieved until 55 years later.)

Despite campaigning on being the best leader to deal with Trump and telling an American audience in May that, “Canada Strong will help make America great again” and that the partnership between the two countries is a “mutual strength,” he failed to walk back his talk of a permanent rupture.

The truth of the matter is that the negotiations likely soured from the get-go with former prime minister Justin Trudeau at the helm. Despite implementing a task force to deal with the Trump’s stated reasons for imposing tariffs on Canada, including fentanyl coming across the U.S. border, Trudeau released a statement calling the the tariffs “unjustified.” We, of course, know that fentanyl was being produced in Canada.

Another issue Carney is going to have to face is that the Liberals have consistently been tight-lipped about the state of the negotiations, leaving Canadians to believe that the U.S. is entirely unreasonable. After all, how could the Liberals be publicly at war with Trump, while telling Canadians that negotiations are actually progressing behind the scenes? They can’t, especially when they resurrected their party on Trump’s back.

This week, Carney told reporters that the “most important thing happening in Canada this week is today’s announcement,” referring to the Churchill Falls deal. This was an odd thing to say, as the economic relationship with the United States clearly outweighs it, and because Carney presented himself to the Canadian public as the leader with the “strength” to negotiate against Trump.

Yet throughout Carney’s tenure, Canadians, including the media, have not been informed about the substance of the negotiations and, more recently, have had to rely on the U.S. ambassador and Trump’s Truth Social and White House account for inklings of how the trade deal might shape up.

We had to hear from the U.S. ambassador what the sticking points were, such as provincial bans on U.S. alcohol. The Americans, for their part, never completely banned anything. Surprisingly, this was one of their top-ranking irritants. Others included supply management, digital streaming taxes and buy Canadian policies.

U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra told CTV in June that they were close to a deal last October that covered oil, “uranium, auto parts, steel and aluminum.” Things appeared to be going well. Yet the only thing Canadians were told at the time by Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc was that talks were “successful,” “positive” and “effective.” This was until Hoekstra told the press that an anti-tariff ad commissioned by the Ontario government “burnt the bridges.”

On Friday, we received confirmation that Carney’s approach wasn’t working. U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance reportedly suggested to a crowd at a New York fundraiser that Carney made a fool out himself. Carney “comes in and puffs his chest out and says, ‘I’m going to, like, out-tough Donald Trump,’ ” said Vance.

This week, things seem to be going well again. We’ve heard no specifics from the Liberals, as usual, and we’ve had to hear from Trump that the deal may include reviving Keystone XL, which could be great for Canada.

But Carney has a problem. He’s nurtured anti-Americanism to such a degree that Canadians may not want him to accept the deal, even if it’s good for Canada. He’s claimed throughout his leadership that he would not make concessions on a number of issues, which will not likely be forgotten by his die-hard anti-American voters.

One Canadian journalist even suggested that accepting a deal other than the one that was currently in place would be folding to the U.S., and if Carney did so, that he “will denounce him to the end of days.”

It’s not surprising that he feels this way. Carney’s conditioning worked. But again, trade is not hockey. This deal isn’t about a journalist or Liberal voter’s longstanding anti-American prejudices, Confederation or Trump. It’s about improving the livelihoods of Canadians. And compromise can be a good thing.

National Post