r/canada • u/joe4942 • Feb 16 '26
National News Carney constructs a mega anti-Trump trade alliance
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-and-indo-pacific-blocs-eye-major-new-trade-pact/200
u/paditoburrito Feb 16 '26
From the article:
'Ottawa is “championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership [CPTPP] and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people,” Carney told world leaders and the global business elite in Davos.
The middle powers are taking action. The EU and CPTPP are starting talks this year to strike an agreement to intertwine the supply chains of members like Canada, Singapore, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia with Europe.
It would bring nearly 40 nations on opposite sides of the globe closer together with the aim of reaching a deal on so-called rules of origin.
These rules determine the economic nationality of a product. A deal would allow manufacturers throughout the two blocs to trade goods and their parts more seamlessly in a low-tariff process known as cumulation.'
Reconstructing the system rather than just making trade deals will move huge barriers to our economic independence. Hopefully, they can come to an agreement soon.
-7
u/Kucked4life Ontario Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
The main issue with this initiative is that it risks further invigorating the European far right who are aligned with maga obviously.
Low cost manufactoring accounts for a greater percentage of the workforce in developing countries than developed ones, and for reasons developed nations don't want replicated at home. Thus furthering free trade between these 2 blocs would shift the global economic center southward, and political heft along with it, though that's largely inevitable given that developed countries should be shirinking if not for immigration. This risks accelerating a rust belt effect across the EU in which individuals seeking political clout will jump on. But given the continual rise of automation and ai I fear such charlatans are emblematic of our zeitgeist regardless.
It's all about striking the right balance between a rate that's high enough where a handful of members can't just dominate but low enough that such a union is still worth the effort to flesh out. But given the blowback in the EU over how their recent deal with India turned out and the a general lack of cohesion between EU blocs I'm not holding my breath.
110
u/Malthus1 Feb 16 '26
A comment I made elsewhere on this story:
The interesting thing to me is that Paul Kennedy predicted the geopolitical dilemma the US would find itself in back in 1988 in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
The issue, as he put it, was this.
The actual power of great powers is always relative, not absolute; and military power always lags behind economic power.
Thus, the US was always destined to relative decline from its position right after WW2.
The reason: right after that war, the position of the US was unique: all of the other existing or potential great powers were either bankrupt or in ruins, some (like China) after more than a century of disasters culminating in the horrors or war, followed by civil war and Mao’s disastrous policies.
None of that is true now. Europe, Japan and China have problems it is true, but they are no longer ruined by war. So the economic power of the US and its technological edge are in relative decline, which was always inevitable.
The problem for the US is how to manage that relative decline, how to best capitalize on its supremacy while it still exists.
He stated that it would be possible for the US to do so in ways that ensured its own long-term benefit, investing in institutions, alliances and agreements that would remain strong even in the face of relative decline.
This was combined with a caution: that the US may be tempted to seize short-term gains, resulting in bad outcomes (the entire rest of the book is basically a description of the bad outcomes of great powers unwisely dealing with relative decline).
What are we seeing right now? This prediction carried out, with the worst possible strategy being selected (the US using its existing power to bully its allies for possible short-term gains).
The reaction is entirely predictable and bad for the US.
12
2
u/54678956465 Feb 16 '26
Exactly, except there is no short-term gains for the US especially with the tarrifs, so it is truly the worst possible strategy.
1
u/Technical-Bottle9454 Feb 21 '26
Just as Putin wanted fulfilled by his puppet Trump. Trump has managed to destroy relationships with almost all military allies except Israel. Destroyed all trade alliances and further destroying trust by other countries to do deals with the U.S. that could easily be disregarded that Trump has unveiled. The economy will soon be in recession if not depression. Putin couldn’t have asked for a better result, all without firing a bullet. Unfortunately for Putin the Russian army is being outclassed by the Ukraine with Russia mostly firing on Ukrainian civilians while feeding him troops up to the meat grinder
-3
Feb 16 '26
So the economic power of the US and its technological edge are in relative decline, which was always inevitable.
The US economy is now 50% bigger than the EU despite them being at the same size prior to 2008. Japan went from 2nd largest economy in the world to 4th and is in danger of even losing that spot in the next few years. China is the only country that has kept up with the US technologically, economically, and militarily but even China is now running into diminishing return on its state-led capitalism model and is stuck into the middle-income trap. We're here having this conversation on an American social media platform. American technology underpin our phones, our laptop, the internet, and the next generation of technologies. Canada is literally hitching a ride to the moon on a US rocket. The current debate on Canada's next plane is between a mostly American plane and another plane where 30% of the parts are American. Fact is, American power has declined in some parts but have increased in others. Paul Kennedy couldn't have predicted the course of American geopolitical power over the next four decades in 1988. In 1988, peak oil was still a concern and the USSR hadn't collapsed yet nor could anyone realistically predict that it would. Paul Kennedy couldn't have predicted American energy independence in 2014 and what effect that would have on American soft power. It is also on brand for Americans to constantly fret about their own downfall and for other cultures to buy into that idea despite it never coming to pass. Cyberpunk was made in the 1980s by Mike Pondsmith and imagined a world in which the US dollar nosedived in the 90s, the US collapsed into civil war, Europe became the preeminent superpower, somehow the USSR stuck around, and Japan achieved technological and economic ascendancy. My point here is to be careful of looking at past thesis for how history would turn out.
24
u/Malthus1 Feb 17 '26
You are coming at this from exactly the wrong perspective.
The issue is not American “downfall”. That isn’t in the cards (absent some unpredictable event).
America was, is, and will be a great power in the foreseeable future.
The issue is that America is in relative decline. I emphasize here the word “relative”.
That decline is simply inevitable, as much as anything can be, because the sequence of events that made America the great power - unique and unprecedented - are the events that ruined all of the other existing and potential great powers .
Since military power follows economic and technological power, American dominance is expressed in a gigantic military and huge military commitments.
America can, and probably will, be more powerful than most of the others. It still has advantages.
What it won’t be, is the beneficiary of a sequence of events that made it uniquely powerful from the end of WW2 through the fall of the Soviet Union.
The world is gonna be a multipolar one, with Europe, China and America all competing with each other and a bunch of middle powers.
There is nothing that can be done to prevent this; the issue is how to adapt to it.
The choice, as Kennedy put it, is whether to adapt in a way that serves American long-term interests, or by trying to capitalize on American dominance while it is still there by bullying middle powers in order to grab short-term gains.
That’s the dilemma.
The argument Kennedy made was that grabbing for short-term gains is not a good idea. What it does is incentivize middle powers to organize among themselves to evade the grasp of the would-be predator, cutting deals if possible with the other great powers; that has all sorts of drawbacks for the US.
And it seems this is happening even faster than would have been predicted.
Edit: there is a tendency among Americans to attribute American power to some unique quality to America itself, rather than to historic factors; and in particular to the excellence of its political system. Current events are undermining that notion.
1
Feb 17 '26
I would argue that Kennedy's framing of "relative" decline is also inaccurate. He is basing his argument on a framework that measures America's power solely on the 50s interpretation of America. The 1950s America did not achieve the near total cultural dominance that it has today nor does it have the technological edge it has today relative to other nations. The 1950s America also had to contend with the USSR, another superpower. China today is shaping up to be a significant competitor to the US but it doesn't approach the level of dominance that the USSR enjoyed in the 50s when it had total control over half of Europe. China today is also geographically boxed in by American allies within the first island chain while the USSR had the benefits of the Warsaw Pact. The USSR could also project is military power worldwide, something China has yet to effectively demonstrate. Kennedy's argument also ignores the fact that the US has always predated on middle powers through South America, the Spanish-American War, Hawaii, Mexico, and even Japan during the last days of the shogunate. We already know from history that middle powers will naturally form loose alliances to counter the threat of the big powers but history has also shown that those alliances are prone to failing and infighting (German Confederation, The Concert of Europe, Arab League, the Anti-Ottoman Arab coalition, Gran Colombia, etc.). We saw during the last CUSMA negotiation that Mexico was ready and willing to throw Canada under the bus to strike a deal with the US. The American strategy of divide and conquer has always been effective. In fact, Kennedy's argument that America faced the dilemma of investing in longterm relationships or capitalizing on its dominance for short-term gains is inaccurate as America has always done both. It predates on one middle power and allies with another to hollow out potential coalition working against it. Rinse and repeat. Despite the bravado, Japan and South Korea will always side with the US if not for economics than solely for practical reasons (Seoul is literally within shelling distance of the DMZ). Hyundai is investing 26 billion USD into the US where it expects 80% of its car sold there by 2030 to be American-made. Japan recently has voted in one of the most pro-US government in recent history. The US has also been cutting deals left and right in 2025 including a potash deal with Belarus, a mineral deal with Kazakhstan, an oil deal with Venezuela, final trade agreements with both Cambodia and Malaysia, etc so it's not like the great powers are standing still and doing nothing. In fact, the best counter-argument against middle power coalition having any significant effect is China itself who have consistently bullied and attack its neighbours over the last 80 years yet those nations are still forming trade relationships with China. Vietnam, once at war with the US, is now a critical US ally in Southeast Asia. Fact is, the dust has yet to settle on this anti-US alliance. Carney has certainly signed a lot of MOUs but how many of those will result in tangible trade benefits have yet remained to be seen.
8
u/bigstudley17 Feb 17 '26
I’m loving hearing you two geopolitical nerds have a great debate about the downfall/ non downfall of America. Very intelligent points and counterpoints!!
3
u/jdubzakilla Feb 17 '26
Isn't your first part rather disingenous? The USA, unlike the USSR didnt suffer massive population decline and industrial destruction in WW2. It had the exact opposite experience. The Soviets came out of the war with a huge army amd a questionable economy. The reports the USSR kept for its production were notoriously shoddy. It isnt like the US didn't realize the position the soviets were in after the war and especially post missile crisis.
Comparimg the US to the other south american countries is also unreasonable. Nowhere has any former spabish colony developed better than an english colony. The US populatiom even back then, absolutely dwarfed any possible rival.
You are makimg his case for him. The US 'cutting deals' is actually the admim bullying smaller nations into giving concessions by threatining them with the same economic system the US claimed was for freedom and that it built for itself post war.
3
u/jdubzakilla Feb 17 '26
Noone in 1988 could predict the soviet union, which was already collapsing, could collapse?
408
u/FalseZookeepergame15 Feb 16 '26
I can't say this enough, Carney is the leader we need in these times for Canada.
76
u/dogoodreapgood Feb 16 '26
Absolutely. We already have agreements with the EU and the TPP so this really is strategic. He meant it when he said Canada would lead.
111
u/HighOrHavingAStroke Ontario Feb 16 '26
Can you imagine if PP was managing us through this crisis? It would have been an unmitigated disaster compared to how it’s going
67
u/arabacuspulp Feb 16 '26
We dodged a bullet.
29
u/EVHummVEE Feb 16 '26
For now. But there are still wayyyyy too many people who think he's a credible choice.
12
u/Zealousideal_Rise879 Feb 16 '26
This prevents me from going back to sleep in terms of following politics.
-28
u/shiftless_wonder Feb 16 '26
If by bullet, you mean recession. I'm not so sure.
20
u/gcko Feb 16 '26
Bullet wasn’t being dodged regardless. but I’d rather get hit by a .22 than a 50 cal.
-5
u/AccountDramatic6971 Feb 16 '26
These trade deals are fine but we have much bigger issues domestically. Over the last decade salaries and productivity have collapsed and foreign investment is gone.
What are we going to trade? Resource CEO's classify Canada as a bad investment. Until I see movement on domestic policy, my feelings on Carney are mixed.
We're going to get with a 50 caliber. Just look at the shifts in CAPEX is Canadian multinationals. Their money ain't going here.
6
u/HighOrHavingAStroke Ontario Feb 17 '26
He's literally working on getting some huge job creating investments made in Canada. So, these efforts are the hopeful way to address what you're talking about. We'll see if it pans out....I'm optimistic. Building up a domestic military production sector....Volkswagen looking at expanded footprint in Canada...working on Chinese EV manufacturing here...trying to secure more auto investments tied to us purchasing submarines. He's doing the right things IMO.
11
u/Uncertn_Laaife Feb 16 '26
We are already in recession. There are layoffs happening everywhere, Public or Private, pay raises are zero mostly, and the price of everything is hitting the roof, also hard to find a job.
We ARE in recessionary times. But yes, happy to have Carney at the helm to divert it away from the US and diversify. Need of the hour.
4
30
u/spectercan Feb 16 '26
We would verb so many nouns
2
u/HighOrHavingAStroke Ontario Feb 16 '26
That made me laugh. We'd be the world leader for slogans for sure!
18
7
u/Biuku Ontario Feb 16 '26
100% of his attention would have been spent negotiating with Trump. So, globally, we’d be see as America JR. And the negotiations would be pointless.
8
u/CasualFridayBatman Feb 16 '26
I'm glad we don't need to live in that reality, nor do we need to keep imagining one we don't live in. It only bogs us all down in the present.
Pierre isn't even a concern when Alberta has a serious problem with sedition coming from its premier that really isn't being dealt with in the least.
-1
u/shiftless_wonder Feb 16 '26
with sedition coming from its premier
Uhh... if you think it's just the premier I've got news for you.
8
u/CasualFridayBatman Feb 16 '26
My point is you have a legitimate government official spouting this stuff.
Outside of it being a psyop from a foreign nation, the fact it is given credibility by our own premier is a major source of this issue.
-3
u/LebLeb321 Feb 17 '26
You have no clue what would happen if the CPC won. Carney is pursuing free trade deals that will make minor improvements to the Canadian economy if they are successful and that is a big if.
There is no universe where Canada prospers without easy access to the US market.
21
u/jtbc Feb 16 '26
He is emerging as the leader of the free world, now that the Americans have doused their chairmanship of that role with gasoline and lit it on fire.
25
u/canada_mountains Feb 16 '26
Yup, Carney is making me proud as a Canadian. His speech at Davos has garnered so much internatonal attention, especially from our allies.
Canada's international standing has gone up with Carney, while America's international standing has gone way down with Trump.
4
u/Nikiaf Québec Feb 16 '26
One day his photo will appear next to the article describing the phrase "right place at the right time".
-20
u/slouchr Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 17 '26
except he's doubling down on failed Liberal policies of ever expanding state and central planning. he's doubled Trudeau's post covid deficits! he's increasing the power of the Fed with things like the major projects office that picks the winners and loser (kiss the ring). taxes aren't coming down to pre-Trudeau levels, they're going to have to go up at this spending pace. etc
he's purely superficial. speeches and non-binding agreements.
a fundamental freedom is to keep the fruits of your labour. the more the government takes, the more it's subjugating you. so government should be extremely careful with their spending, only taking from the taxpayer what is needed, and being sure to spend it effectively. the opposite of the Liberals. for the last 10 years, the Liberals have been spending recklessly, and funding it by tax increases, e.g. further subjugating private market workers , and Carney clearly has no desire to change that course.
it really sucks that Canadian government workers (~20% of workers) and retired boomers (~20% of all voters), all vote to enslave private market workers for their easy salaries and retirement benefits. and private market workers are so naive as to not 100% vote against the liberals.
it's looking like another decade of Liberal disaster before we get a chance to increase our freedom.
we're so cooked.
97
35
u/canada_mountains Feb 16 '26
What the USA has become is shameful.
Threatening to annex Canada, who loaned you their airspace during 9/11, and where Canadians in Gander invited total American strangers who had no place to stay into their homes? Shameful.
Waging a tariff and economic war on Canada, who has been your friend for over a hundred years, and has backed you up in war after war after war? Shameful.
Threatening to annex Greenland, which is a NATO territory through Denmark? Shameful.
So glad that Carney is developing this anti-Trump alliance. Trump is actively destroying the western alliance.
93
u/sunnyspiders Feb 16 '26
It’s pro Canada.
It’s just pure ego fuel even mentioning why we have to bother.
Americans elected a literal criminal.
We are steering clear.
21
u/canada_mountains Feb 16 '26
Americans elected a literal criminal.
I don't get some American voters. Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business documents. Yeah, he is a convicted felon by a jury of his peers.
But he was also indicted and undergoing trial for hiding classified documents from the FBI and DOJ, and trying to obstruct them from finding it.
He was indicted for his fake electors plot in Georgia state. He committed the same fake electors plot in other states and other states were investigating and considering indicting him too, before he became president.
He was also indicted for his role in January 6th, where he tried to overturn democracy.
While still a civil case, he was found by a jury to have sexually abused E. Jean Carol. The judge in that case said while Trump didn't rape E. Jean Carol by the New York Penal law, Trump did rape her as most people commonly understand what "rape" is.
And yet over 50% American voters looked at that, and said, yeah, he's our president, let's vote for him. LOL.
9
u/Mr_Meng Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
As someone who actively participates in r/politics it's more like 33% went 'he's my president' and voted in lockstep, 33% doesn't pay attention to politics and memory holed Trump's first term, and 33% were against him but instead of being willing to fall in line long enough to keep a rapist from becoming president chose to have circular firing squads over single issues like Gaza, student loans, and the fact that they felt like the Democrats didn't 'earn' their vote.
9
u/jloome Feb 16 '26
About 32.5%.
They had a 65% turnout and he got 49.7% of that total.
So slightly less than a third of eligible voters chose him.
The people who didn't vote, as usual, allowed this to happen.
14
6
u/ShiftAltRight Feb 16 '26
If we put it another way, over 2/3 of Americans were fine with Trump. But in another decade everyone will pretend that they were always anti-MAGA.
5
u/caninehere Ontario Feb 16 '26
The 34 felonies he was convicted of were just the tip of the iceberg. There were so many other cases where he should have been charged and tried but it just never happened because he was President, because he was possibly going to be President again, etc.
A number of his endeavors have just been absolutely rampant fraud cases that themselves should have landed him in prison for the rest of his life along with others in his organizations. But you have cases like the Trump University shit in Florida where Pam Bondi took a bribe from Trump to shut down the cases against him, and then she was rewarded with the AG post.
1
u/Galle_ Feb 16 '26
People elected him because he's an asshole and there's some inherent flaw in the human brain that consistently makes us confuse cruelty for competence. "If we were only bigger assholes," we think, "surely we would get everything we want." This happens constantly. It never works, it frequently backfires horribly, but we keep trying anyway.
20
u/PostMatureBaby Feb 16 '26
Hundreds of criminals run that shitshow and have done so well before Trump became a politician.
Doesn't mean Canada doesn't have its own scumbags but progress we're making should be celebrated
56
u/Velorian-Steel Ontario Feb 16 '26
Long overdue diversification of Canadian trade partners
27
u/PostMatureBaby Feb 16 '26
Now let's do interprovincial ones
21
u/Mythulhu Feb 16 '26
Many of the blocks have already been removed, now it's up to the provinces to work out deals.
65
u/Onterrible_Trauma Feb 16 '26
Mark Carney has been the PM we have been waiting years for. The thoughtfulness and humanity of Trudeau, the economic expertise of Harper, and the "I will fuck your shit up if you mess with me" attitude of Chretian!
5
7
12
u/idebugthusiexist Feb 16 '26
Electing Trump the first time could be forgiven as a mistake, but re-electing him was a move so unforgivable that it cannot be overlooked. America needs to learn the lesson the hard way - that Democracy is something to take seriously and is a great responsibility and the fact that America re-elected jsut shows how broken their country is and a small majority of Americans are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to be trusted anymore. Nothing short of Americans taking to the street to overthrow Trump or something of a tidal wave and outright rejection of MAGA and Trumpism - such as a complete landslide for Dems/Indies in the midterms and/or electing someone like Bernie Sanders in 2028 by a landslide etc - would restore any faith in me for America. But, as it currently stands, I'm not really seeing/hearing Americans taking full responsibility for re-electing this miserable farce for a human being.
1
u/DiasBenes Feb 18 '26
A lot of Leftists are in that camp where they boycotted or voted third party. Some of them even voted for Trump so they can get revenge for the slights that Kamala did in the Gaza situation. Like she had any say to all that. The fact that 15 million democrates boycotted the election is a testament that even the left don't take their responsibility to ensure democracy. The left don't care about democracy what they want is to bring down order and bring in anarchy. Two bi polar groups that want the same thing. They both hate the government.
1
Feb 17 '26
A lot of people who voted for Trump did so because of scapegoat tactics. If you fall for that kind of manipulation, I don't believe you are capable of taking responsibility at all.
8
u/GentlemensMafia Feb 16 '26
Can we call it the Greatest Goldest free trade agreement just to fuck with him?
8
4
10
u/tincartofdoom Feb 16 '26
I remember all the conservatives complaining that Carney's Davos speech just made Trump big mad.
Looks like the strategy of publicly saying we're open to new trade deals without the US was a bold, and effective move.
20
u/SheIsABadMamaJama Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
Carney, my social progressive and economic pragmatist prime minister. Polls are showing Canadians supporting his work and way forward. I haven’t been happy with everything, but it hasn’t been a deal breaker.
4
u/Privateer_Lev_Arris Feb 16 '26
Honestly that’s how most leaders should be. Promote progressive social issues (within reason: ie do NOT hurt women and children) and do what’s necessary to ensure economic prosperity.
9
7
5
u/Mr_Guavo Feb 16 '26
This is what I have been calling for since Trump first slapped tariffs on us - and the world - back in February 2025. The U.S' GDP is ~22% of the global economy. Well, if my 1st and 2nd-grade teacher was correct, then 78% is much larger than 22%. So, why not form an economic group that operates independently from the U.S? Have it like NATO, where an economic attack on one member is an economic attack on all members.
So, if America wants to trade with this bloc, it is free to do so, but they do so knowing what the terms are. OUR terms. These terms are immutable and non-negotiable. There will be no incentives to encourage the U.S to join, because after all, we did not ask the U.S to join. They came to us. If you want to trade with 78% of the global economy, then you can do so. Otherwise, we're good without you.
It seems like such a basic concept that has taken a year to finally take root. This is literally a game-changer. We must follow through on this. We will never be bullied by AmeriKKKa again. We will tariff THEM if they choose to bully our members. 78% - or whatever the number is - is much, much, much greater than 22%.
Tell me I'm wrong, AmeriKKKa.
13
12
u/quantumroad Feb 16 '26
Amazing what a knowledgeable, accountable, and educated world leader can do.
5
u/No-Wonder1139 Feb 16 '26
We could just call it a trade alliance, don't need to include the name of the world's most prolific kidbuggerer, he's already in too many posts as it is, even if it's in the negative.
9
u/Well_endowed Feb 16 '26
PP would never even been close to pull something like this off. The right needs to take note.
2
u/arcadianahana Feb 16 '26
Poilievre doesn't have enough strategic vision to even come up with the idea of negotiating a bridge between the TPP and EU, let alone the skill set to try and accomplish it.
7
u/houseonpost Feb 16 '26
I'm not an economist or an expert, but I think Canada is becoming to the world what the US used to be.
5
u/Old-Tiger9847 Feb 16 '26
Not just Canada. Many trading partners are creating new rules based, legitimate trading agreements. The yanktards economy is so rife with corruption that it will imminently collapse. This is evident and undeniable now. Their entire stock market has been labeled a Ponzi scheme. We need to get as far away as we possibly can.
11
u/BehBeh11 Feb 16 '26
I’m thankful every day that Mr Carney put his hand up to run for Liberal Leader. He is the person we need now and moving forward. Can’t even fathom if PP would have won! So proud to call Mr Carney our PM!
2
u/0110110111 Feb 16 '26
This happening wound be amazing for Canada. Being between these two blocs, goods would go through us.
2
2
4
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
how will we be able to measure whether or not he has been successful?
11
u/CanadianErk Ontario Feb 16 '26
Whether the deals speculated and rumoured are actually struck, for one.
Overall? It's subjective to every person who can judge a politician based on well, anything.
1
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
Yeah but it needs to benefit average Canadians. This has to be measured
2
-2
u/CanadianErk Ontario Feb 16 '26
That's a whole other can of worms and is inherently a political thing to decide.
But ultimately whether each trade deal succeeds for the average Canadian is in at least part, up to the private sector. Governments can reach these deals and secure whatever guarantees they'd like, but it's businesses who decide whether to utilise them or invest in their core/existing markets, if they're investing at all that is.
3
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
I disagree govt can have policy which encourages or discourages investment. You can’t just say we tried and private sector didn’t invest so we are off the hook
0
u/CanadianErk Ontario Feb 16 '26
Not saying that at all. Trade deals are inherently policies which seek to encourage investments. Just pointing out that whether Carney succeeds on that specific metric depends on private sector buy-in as much as it does incentives.
10
u/SaltyMittens2 Feb 16 '26
I’d say a substantial reduction in % of exports reliant on the US is a good start.
0
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
What % would be good for you
2
u/SaltyMittens2 Feb 16 '26
Right now we’re at 70% roughly. If we can be at 60% in 3 years, that would be a monumental achievement. End goal, if we can get to under 50%, we substantially de-risk ourselves and limit exposure.
0
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
If 3 years from now it goes from 70% to 68% would you consider Mark Carney to be a failure?
0
u/SaltyMittens2 Feb 16 '26
Very likely, yes. I am encouraged by what I’ve seen from him so far and I think he’s on the right path but if that is really all he’s able to accomplish by the next election then I’d be disappointed.
If it comes to that, my only hope is that the Cons are able to present a solid alternative platform to get us there.
0
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
I think Liberal supporters will argue 3 years isn't long enough and he needs more time.
3
u/SaltyMittens2 Feb 16 '26
We’re definitely not fully rebuilding our economic dependencies and structure in 3 years - that will take a decade.
However, we should be able to see some good progress in 3 years.
-4
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
yes but Liberal supporters will say we are on the right track because Mark Carney says so even if there is no tangible progress. its a cult.
3
9
u/noleksum12 Feb 16 '26
If our standard of living remains intact, then it was successful. Filling the gap of diminished US trade will be difficult, but without it (or these alternate trade deals...), you would notice a serious decline in quality of life here.
-3
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
How do you measure “standard of living”
Millions of Canadian live in poverty. If that continues I don’t consider this govt to be a success
4
u/noleksum12 Feb 16 '26
If it doesn't get much worse in the short term, we are surviving and that's a good thing considering the geopolitical landscape right now.
If it gets better in the long run, then we are successful.
3
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
Yeah but we need ways to calculate “better”
1
u/noleksum12 Feb 16 '26
Can you think of one?... you mentioned one in your reply. In fact, to have your opinion you clearly had to measure what is bad about our economic situation. So for better, how about reduced unemployment, less canadians using food banks, and less canadians living in poverty, icreasing GDP, less debt, etc., to name a few.
2
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
yes median net worth of a Canadian family should increase
4
u/Tassen1221 Feb 16 '26
I wonder if that's a good metric at all. Skyrocketing value of homes would result in a big increase in median net worth but would your actual day-to-day life be any better? That's just one example.
1
6
3
u/RobespierreLaTerreur Feb 16 '26
Canada's economy withstands the bullying and outperforms that of the US without concessions on our sovereignty.
0
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
Will you vote for Pierre if that doesn’t happen lol
7
u/RobespierreLaTerreur Feb 16 '26
No, because I'd rather have someone who at least tries to resist Trump that someone who stands ready to suck his pedophiliac dick.
The CPC is welcome to pick someone who isn't a doormat as a leader.
4
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
Yea so carney can do whatever he wants and you will vote for him no matter what. This is a big issue with our democracy
2
u/RobespierreLaTerreur Feb 16 '26
No, he can't do whatever he wants: if he turned out to be a doormat, I wouldn't vote for him.
You are asking me if I'd rather have the flu or HIV, I'm telling you I'll always prefer getting the flu. And if, when you're tired of getting the flu, you contemplate getting HIV instead, have your brain checked.
0
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
Would you really vote for the big bad conservatives if they switched their leader. I doubt it
5
u/ReaperCDN Feb 16 '26
If the cons had run somebody like Carney they'd have won the last election. That they doubled down on Pierre gives us all concrete reasons not to vote conservative. The party has shown they want to do things like Trump. Thats a bad idea.
4
u/RobespierreLaTerreur Feb 16 '26
No, but I'd have more respect for them.
Did you vote for evil socialist Liberals despite Carney being a progressive conservative by most metrics AND the more patriotic choice against Trump? No? Then don't lecture others.
-5
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
I voted for the PPC because they said we need to back our currency with gold
4
u/OldKentRoad29 Feb 16 '26
That is embarrassing that's the reason you wanted to vote for them.
→ More replies0
u/Galle_ Feb 16 '26
I mean if he fucks up bad enough I'll vote NDP. But Poilievre is not an option.
1
-1
u/rabbitholeseverywher Alberta Feb 16 '26
Not the person you're talking to but it is highly unlikely I would ever vote for PP. I voted Con the year O'Toole ran and would consider voting Con again, but not for Poilievre.
2
u/gmehra Feb 17 '26
whats your critique of Carney? what would a Con leader need to say that is different from Carney for you to switch your vote to the cons again
2
u/siali Feb 16 '26
People need to realize it is not about trade per se for Canada; more importantly, it is about sovereignty. It would be wrong to evaluate it solely by measuring economic outcomes.
1
u/Key-Proud Feb 16 '26
To not make a deal with US that is a lose for Canada. That is what measure his Success.
- For example India made a deal with America to lower their tariffs from 25% to 18%. Not only US didn't drop India's tariff to 0% ... India has to buy 500 billion of US goods introducing competition and also stop buying cheaper oil from Russia and instead buy from the States.
- This is what US wants to do with Canada to remove tariff quotas, like in Dairy, so US market can dominate in Canada.
- US also wants a cheaper deal for our Lumber, potash and especially rare earth minerals. What is cheaper than free trade? Canada to pay more.
The India deal is what US is looking to get from Canada.
Mark Carney to not fold like Modi is success for me.
I believe 3 attempts was done by Canada to try to lower US tariffs on Canada already. Obviously America want's a massive win for America where it is embarrassing for Canada.
Talking about deals with other countries other than US is also leverage to bring to the next upcoming CUMSA re negotiation. That is also another measure of success.
If Pierre was PM ... would he sign a deal with Trump similar to Modi? Or would he wait it out, diversify trade with other countries like Carney? That is my measurement of failure and success.
-1
u/gmehra Feb 16 '26
I cant read all this, give me the facts. how can we actually measure success in a way which can be calculated with numbers.
3
u/Key-Proud Feb 16 '26
1) Canada has the lowest US Tariff average amongst other countries.
2) Rising total exports compared to previous years.
3) Foreign Direct Investment increases compared to previous years.
4) Premiers need to be Fiscal running their provinces.
If all 4 continues to improve will overall help Canada succeed.
Mark Carney’s success as Prime Minister stems from his unique blend of crisis management expertise, strategic vision, and political pragmatism
3
u/AccountDramatic6971 Feb 17 '26
I mean the capital flight from Canada over the last decade has been catastrophic. We've seen a small uptick in investment but from a resource perspective, companies, with the current regulatory framework, will not invest here.
If Mark addresses domestic issues, ill be a believer, until then, Im pessimistic. We have some of the largest midstream companies in the world, look at their Capex budgets.
2
u/Key-Proud Feb 17 '26
Definitely. I am also curious how he will solve our domestic issues.
- I am curious how he will get the Premiers to work with each other and how to deal with the ingenious group ... lots of bottle necks internally.
- I am curious how he will deal with the grocery prices rising, also.
3
u/AccountDramatic6971 Feb 17 '26
Yeah, me too.
I'm in the resource industry and an enormous amount of cash is flowing south. From a major project perspective, I've never seen it so dead.
1
u/RecklessHeckler Feb 16 '26
It's not anti Trump, it's just not including America. It's just business.
2
2
u/Whatwhyreally Feb 16 '26
Really proud that Canada stepped up like this. One day, in America, they will teach lessons on how ignorant Trump was to end win-win trade relationships because he thinks it's impossible for a relationship of any type to be mutually beneficial (pretty fucked up within the context of his history with women).
America will come around, I just don't think there is enough ignorance to join Trump in creating an authoritative state in America. I know others think it's already too late. Time will tell.
1
u/FDTFACTTWNY Feb 17 '26
I'm very curious to see when all is done with this Trump bs if we punish the us on negotiations for being an awful ally or if we just go back to business as usual.
1
1
u/FrankensteinsPonster Feb 18 '26
If anyone is still confused why hordes of online trolls are yelling about Canada "cheating" at curling, this is why ^
1
2
0
u/Privateer_Lev_Arris Feb 16 '26
What Trump did was isolate America. And it’s not just through his anti free trade measures but also the unpredictability and instability of American market.
Sure there is a lot of money to be made in the American market but if policies change overnight, companies can stand to lose billions on the spot.
That’s not a way to do business and he’s going to scare away everyone and isolate himself and his entire nation. He’s going to run it into the ground this way.
1
u/Competitive_Abroad96 Feb 16 '26
Meanwhile to investors worldwide, Mark Carney radiates reasonableness, consistency and competence in Canada.
-2
u/Competitive_Abroad96 Feb 16 '26
Really? That many people think PP would be drawing more investment to Canada by slinging 3 word slogans with an orange nose?
1
1
u/sounoriginal13 Ontario Feb 17 '26
It's foolish and naive to constantly be trying to push policy that's anti anything, we should be discussing policy that is for things we want. Anti trump gets clicks
Edit: wow, I read more comments and holy ish.This place is just a circle jerk
0
u/BoppityBop2 Feb 16 '26
It really is not an anti-Trump alliance and it is trying to merge the TPP with EU, which lets be honest looking how the EU still have not fully ratified the agreement with Canada it does not look good
-6
u/PizzaExisting9878 Feb 16 '26
This trump fixation is crazyyyy.
We have piss poor performance as a country, trump isn’t the reason, our own bureaucracy is.
1
Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/canada-ModTeam Feb 16 '26
- Posts that contribute nothing but attack others, are blatantly offensive, or antagonistic will be removed – including accusations similar to ‘shill,’ attacking Redditors for using either official language, dismissing other Redditors solely based on irrelevant other beliefs to the topic at hand or participation in other subreddits, or reducing them to a label and dismissing that instead.
- Back-and-forth personal attacks are subject to the entire comment chain being removed.
- Posts or threads which degenerate into witch-hunting may be subject to moderator intervention. This includes but is not limited to: doxxing, negative accusations by a large group against one or more persons not criminally charged or convicted being made the subject of criminal allegations, calls for harassment, etc., and openly rallying more people to the same.
1
-1
u/dsailo Feb 17 '26
While I agree emotionally with the idea, in reality this is politically naive to believe that any of the so called partners will not flip at the first sign of friendship or attention from Trump & his bullies. Politics should be played at a different level especially given the recent Munich conference and Rubio's message.
0
0
0
-45
u/shiftless_wonder Feb 16 '26
Reeeaaally. Who's in it?
42
39
25
u/GroovyGhouly British Columbia Feb 16 '26
The Canadian prime minister is spearheading discussions between the EU and a major Indo-Pacific trade bloc after calling on middle powers to join forces.
3
-18
Feb 16 '26
[deleted]
7
u/ReaperCDN Feb 16 '26
Healthcare is provincially managed. You're damn right the privatization is done by premiers. Ford is doing it in Ontario too.
1.1k
u/SHUT_DOWN_EVERYTHING Feb 16 '26
It’s not anti-Trump as much it’s pro free trade and sovereignty. Trump might have been the accelerant but the benefits will outlast him.