Lutnick, who has been one of the Trump officials who have been most openly dismissive of Canada and its interests, spoke to Carney directly via text and phone multiple times in the last week, according to three people familiar with the negotiations. One of them said the two spoke as recently as Friday.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the reason for the disconnect and why both sides blame the other for changing the terms at the last minute,” said one person familiar with the talks.
Among the bullshit last minute shit the American side tried to pull was a demand that restricts Canada’s ability to enter into trade agreements with other countries, a demand to not have to follow French language laws in packaging, a last minute demand to exclude heavy trucks from the agreement, and more.
All last minute bullshit demands.
Administration allies confirmed that while Greer was leading negotiations, some of the concessions Canada sought touched on areas overseen by Lutnick, making Commerce an important player in the final agreement.
I’ve heard the ‘tariffs’ (fees, etc) between provinces are higher than the ones the US is now imposing. Maybe we should walk the walk before bitching about what Americans are doing?
And who isn’t getting tariffs imposed on their products? Better that the ROC learn from us and not think of the US as a bully but rather a political entity (just like Canada, btw) that is promoting its own interests over those of others. Trump and crew have no responsibility to protect Canadian industry, they have a duty to protect their own. If only Carney would do the same, but the polls support him NOT making a deal and thus we see the current results. All Alberta and Saskatchewan can do is protect their interests until the elbozos actually smarten up and reframe their childish ‘oppose the bully rhetoric’ with a more mature framing.
The whole entire point is that these changes weren’t good for either side. They had a deal that was good for both sides, but they blew it up last minute.
And, well, yeah. Canada is a democracy. The leader should do what the polls say. The people ultimately decide what is in their best interests.
It also just would be very stupid to let the US change the terms and then roll over and agree. That’s not even about bullying. It’s just bad negotiation.
Those polls you dislike give Carney an edge that he’d otherwise not have. You want the public to be against a deal, so that you can say “well, I’ll convince them it’s a good deal, but only if you play ball.” If he had to worry he’d be kicked out for his actions, the US would have so much more leverage.
I’m not Quebecois nor do I particularly identify with them from all the way over here in BC but even I know that’s a no. Or rather a “câlice de non, tabarnak!”
Provinces don’t have the same type of trade barriers two countries do, as the borders are uncontrolled.
The deal as previously described was objectively BAD for Canada, and accomplished very little. It was at best a “At least this will be stable for a little while” deal, kicking the can down the road as far as they could until Trump is dead or out of office, essentially a prayer that fascists would lose the White House in 2029.
If what we’re hearing now is true, the revised deal could not have been accepted by any sovereign nation, and in the case of demands regarding the status of French, might have been unconstitutional anyway.
Trump and his minions and shallow and dumb and don’t really care about the USA. Had they had any brains and thought ahead, they’d have realized that i they wanted a better trade deal with Canada - which they didn’t need anyway, but suppose they did - then putting the Canadian government in this position, threatening Canada’s freedom and independence, was precisely what would make Canada HARDER to negotiate with. If the issues were just money, you can get some concessions. If the issue is sovereignty, you’re placing the government of the day into a spot where they have no choice but to fight; they’re on political death ground. If they go back to Ottawa saying Canada needs to give up control over its own official languages or foreign trade policy, losing a confidence vote in Parliament is the LEAST of their worries; noose-toting rioters is a distinct possibility.
Of course, challenging points of Canadian unity like the French language may be the very thing they were taking a wild stab at.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that Carney goes up in the polls when he is seen standing up to the bully. He has no incentive to make a deal to the detriment of the actual taxpayers who will lose their jobs because of a lack of a deal. He wins when Canada loses.
And, well, yeah. Canada is a democracy. The leader should do what the polls say. The people ultimately decide what is in their best interests.
They do that by electing the leader who should do what he said while campaigning and as required, guided by their core values of the party, while governing. That means that the polls should not be the driver of policy. We are where we are because we’ve been following the polls. No industry being built, investment fleeing the country, and continued fighting with the largest economy on the planet.
@uzi, you are once again pushing the focus on your inter-Canadian/anti-Carney grievances which you have repeated in every Canadian political thread. This thread is specifically about Carney dealing with Trump and the international negotiations and trade war. Thus, your arguments are a major hijack, and deflection from the actual topic. I am not issuing a Warning this time, or banning you from the thread, but these will be the next steps if it happens again.
To everyone else, do not respond to the off-topic comments either, please and thank you.
Why you continue to pretend that Canada wanted, or has done a single thing, to merit any of this, or has ever exhibited any desire for the fight, is genuinely baffling.
If Trump’s goal is to move the auto industry back to the US, then he is accomplishing this. Carney’s goal should, I would expect, that we make the case why this is not a good thing for them and why it makes sense to work together. He either is incapable of doing this, contrary to what he told us when campaigning, or won’t do this. My contention is that the polls allow him the latter choice with little consequence.
What you’re overlooking is that Trump’s views on trade are utterly and persistently irrational. You can’t explain to him how protectionism is disadvantageous to the US, because he believes with religious fervour that protectionism is good for the US.
This is one of his few real convictions. Most of the shit he spouts is just shit he’s spouting because he thinks its advantageous for him to spout that particular shit at that moment. But the trade stuff? That he really believes. Consistently, for decades, he’s railed against trade deficits and advocated for tariffs as a tool to punish other nations for running trade surpluses with the US. It’s right up there with his hatred of wind power generation. That anyone who took and understood Econ 101 can explain why he’s wrong about trade, wrong about tariffs, and that his policies hurt rather than help US industry and the economy in aggregate matters not a bit.
It’s impossible to make a case to Trump for why his tariffs are not a good thing for the US, because Trump is not open to considering that possibility. Trump thinks the only good deal for him is the deal that hurts the other guy the most he can get away with. He doesn’t understand that international trade is not a zero-sum game, and he never will.
That case has been made, and is made in every first year economics course taught at every university.
I am genuinely stunned that after ten years of Donald Trump, you can genuinely believe the communication problem lies with anyone other than Donald Trump. Are you at all paying attention to the facts?
I didn’t run on the premise that I’m the trump whisperer. Carney did. Why are you asking me why I should know better? Carney should know better. He is the one who claimed he could make a good deal. So, why are people getting upset when we are asking where is it?
I don’t know if you’re Canadian, but I am and I never was under the impression that Carney thought of himself as a “Trump whisperer”, which is why I support him. Or do we have different definitions of “whisperer”?
I know you love this talking point, but it really isn’t true. Carney billed himself as the best candidate to deal with Trump and the newly antagonistic relationship with the US, not as “the Trump whisperer”. That you don’t appear to understand the distinction between these things is your problem and not Carney’s.
Maybe an analogy:
You tell me you’re the best mechanic for my particular car and that, because of your expertise, I need to pay you upfront.
I bring you the car. You tell me it’ll take two weeks.
Two weeks later, you say a month.
A month later, you say it’s more difficult than expected and you need more money. I pay it.
Eventually I ask for the repaired car, and you tell me: “Actually, this car is impossible to fix. The technology is the problem.”
Fine. Then why did you sell me on the claim that you were the person who could fix it?
And when I ask for my money back, you say: “No. It took all this time and money for me to discover that the problem was the car, not my claim that I could fix it.”
That’s the issue with saying, “Carney can’t get a deal because Trump is impossible.” Carney’s own pitch was that his experience and negotiating ability made him particularly well suited to deal with Trump. If Trump was always the obstacle, that doesn’t erase the claim Carney made about his own ability to overcome that obstacle.
You don’t get to use the very difficulty you claimed you were uniquely qualified to handle as the excuse for not delivering.
Again you misunderstand. Carney was largely viewed as the best person to deal with Trump not because Canadians thought he’d magically get a great deal out of Trump, but because (a) they thought he wouldn’t capitulate to a bad deal (which he’s just demonstrated they were correct about) and (b) that he had the economic chops to guide Canada’s economy through a period of trade turmoil.
“Deal with Trump” doesn’t only mean the direct negotiations with the American administration, but the general course of action taken in Canada in response to the irrational trade policies of the current American government.
Edit: Link in previous post is behind a paywall. Also, some column where someone calls Carney a Trump whisperer in 2025 is not evidence that Carney ran on the basis of being a Trump whisperer. Can’t say much more about that without being able to read the article.
I think that part of Trump’s issues is that he doesn’t really grant agency to most people; probably because he’s such a privileged narcissist. The idea that Canadians might just…not buy American liquor or other products is not something that would register with him. If the issue even comes up his response would be to try to strongarm the Canadian government even harder, not recognize that it’s the Canadian people deciding on their own to not buy things from America.
So, the do nothing approach, which anyone can follow, is the ‘best’ approach?
What is irrational is thinking that MOU’s are a replacement for the 70% of trade being disrupted by this continued trade dispute.
FYI, once the auto plants have moved, they aren’t coming back. And while Carney’s supporters are elbows up, those who have capital aren’t going to be deploying it in places where they are subject to variable tariffs, taxes, and uncertainty. What is certain is that the US will weather this far better than Canada and that is where the money will flow along with the plants and other infrastructure.