Hi Fred, you always make sense where there IS none! Brilliant haha. I guess blubber will always be blubbering, good thing someone steps in & adds "thinking" the President? cannot fathom. Our neighbours desparately need a new President, a solid leader. I would love to welcome the O's back into the picture.
Glad you brought in the election cycle Fred. That PM Carney is planning and working for waaaay beyond the 4 year election cycle is wonderful. I was going to say unique because most leaders do not. In Alberta there were two in time I’ve been here - Lougheed and Notley. I think what is unique about Carney and now is that he has hugely forecast that that’s what he’s doing - and in a way that people are primed for, given trump and current world circumstances. It’s been so long needed. I’m thrilled to see it in action.
I think that’s exactly what many Canadians are responding to right now... the sense that somebody is finally planning beyond the next headline or election cycle.
Whether people agree with every decision or not, long-range thinking matters in a world that’s changing this fast.
Trade, defence, food security, energy… those aren’t 4-year problems.
Yes. Thank you Fred! Perhaps once this craziness settles and people have a chance to process, a new way of thinking will prove its worth. I hope. Cheers!
Even the Democrats under Obama and Biden practiced protectionism - they were just much more subtle about it. What America really needs is a President who actually understands international trade and the systems that support it. Stop electing populist leaders and elect someone who is competent. This is a major flaw in American politics in my view. Not that Canada is a shining example, until Mark Carney came along we didn’t have a competent leader for quite a while.
Protectionism didn’t suddenly appear overnight... it’s been around under both parties in different forms.
My bigger concern is predictability.
Countries and businesses can adapt to tough rules… what they struggle with is constant uncertainty.
That’s part of why Canada is starting to diversify more... not to walk away from the U.S., but to avoid being overly dependent on one market or one political cycle.
Exactly Kevin- the one sided relationship has been decades in the making. One can hope another Carney like person would step forward ( Australia desperately one also)
I hope Canada builds relationships within this hemisphere too. America relies on Mexico and South America to help supply food. Using resources within this hemisphere can help build up those countries to prosper as well.
Excellent point, Carole... I’ve been thinking the same thing.
Canada sometimes talks as if our only choices are the U.S. or Europe, but there’s a whole hemisphere here.
Stronger relationships with Mexico, Central and South America could make a lot of sense... food, energy, minerals, manufacturing, even supply chain resilience.
A more stable and prosperous neighbourhood benefits everybody.
Less dependency is not isolation… it’s smart diversification
Carney & Company have done fairly extensive discussions with Mexico, culminating in two significant trade missions (last September 2025, and then February-ish 2026). Lots of excitement there, and mutual business happening (especially agriculture) that's "skipping the middleman", so to speak. ;-) And of course, Canada controls the only railroad system that connects all three countries (CPKC).
Extensive discussions also with Brazil (and rest of Mercursor along for the ride). Big headlines for that will be September 2026, when you'll see a major trade mission (and likely Carney, too) visiting Brasilia.
Canada is fairly well regarded in the Caribbean, but we may need some more work there. Besides shoring up some trade with them, more projection of non-American influence may be needed. We have to telegraph that Trump can't just waltz in and take over any of these countries (well, he CAN, but I'm meaning to emphasize that there will be some sort of fallout if he does -- exactly what, well, that's the problem). Anyway, gotta figure out how to do something about Cuba, before the Yanks go and steal Canada's nickel mine there (plus the resorts!)).
I love seeing Canada wake up to the leverage it holds, which will level the field in trade negotiations
And
Even more, I admire Carney specifically for taking a stand, building relationships around the world, and working to ensure that Canada (and all the other “middle powers”) step into owning and building on the power they collectively hold
Acting as a unified whole, y’all have the ability to act as an effective balance and brake on the hegemonic instincts we see in Trump and his ilk around the globe (looking at you, Bibi)
Thing is I don’t even need that fat pig of an ambassador to tell us how much US depends on Canada, how this whole shit show began tells the whole story
I think a lot of Canadians came to the same conclusion long before the ambassador said anything.
When tariff threats started flying while the U.S. was still heavily relying on Canadian energy, potash, metals, and supply chains… the contradiction was pretty hard to miss.
The part that I reflect on is WHY he said it -- as you both point out, Canadians (who pay attention at least) realized this even before Carney took the reigns, and certainly right after when he did his first European pitch for middle power economic trade in his very first week in office.
So why would Hoekstra say this (and theoretically undermine his Boss in saying so -- and Pete is about as MAGA as you can get)?
Answer: They're scared, and trying to bluff us into capitulating to their demands at the CUSMA "review."
That's certainly one possible interpretation, Grant.
I try to be careful about assigning motives, but I do agree that timing matters.
When diplomats start emphasizing how important the relationship is right before major negotiations, it's fair to ask why.
Whatever the reason, I think the bigger takeaway is that both sides know the relationship is more interconnected than the public rhetoric sometimes suggests.
That's exactly why the upcoming CUSMA discussions could be so important... there’s a lot more at stake than tariffs alone.
I'm often pointing out to people, who simply say "well, screw this relationship. Canada should just walk away", that that is extremely easier said than done. I don't have accurate stats on this, but something like 80% of our economy is, as you say, highly interconnected with American (and Mexican) trade. It doesn't pivot on a moment's notice, and the stakes of "everybody walking away" would be disastrous for all three countries! (USA take note - you will be harmed MORE than Canada or Mexico, it just might not be felt as quickly).
That doesn't mean that we "cave into the pressure at all costs" -- but it does mean that while the world looks to diversify (per conversations all week that we've had about your various articles), you still have to "do something with the existing relationship", even if that means standing up for ourselves in these "negotiations" and saying "cut all the boisterous rhetoric - are you wanting a working deal or not?"
(and a reminder, we are not "negotiating a trade agreement" here - we are REVIEWING an existing one, with the intent to tweak it so that it works better. CUSMA does not end on July 1, unless somebody gives the 6 months notice).
You have hit the nail on the head when you sift through the blizzard of agreements we're doing on trade, to zero in on the food security announcement.
The grocery affordability crisis has focussed attention on who exactly owns our means of food production and sales ( and its mostly foreign for the former, and an oligopoly with only a few big companies for the latter).
But I believe the deeper thread running through this domestic spending announcement is directly tied to civil defense.
A country that cannot feed itself cannot survive. And what threatens our survival most in the coming decade? Predatory powers, looking to gain control of our physical resources.
I think Ottawa knows we are already in an asymetric battle for our future as a country.
-We are fending off overt economic attacks by the US.
-We are trying to resist paid online agitators tasked with amplifying Albertan separatists.
-We are now classified by Russia as a "warmonger", for the side we are sending to help defend Ukraine from the ongoing Russian invasion, now in its 4th year.
I think Ottawa is well aware of the hole in our civil defense presented by the current model of the processed food industry. And I am glad to see action on that file.
As for me, I am fortunate enough to live in the Maritimes, where I am never more than 50 km from everything I need for food basics.
And I encourage everyone to start looking into how you might start the 100 mile pantry for your home, where you are getting to know and buy from your local producers, instead of defaulting to one of the big 3 chains for everything on your table.
Hi Fred, you always make sense where there IS none! Brilliant haha. I guess blubber will always be blubbering, good thing someone steps in & adds "thinking" the President? cannot fathom. Our neighbours desparately need a new President, a solid leader. I would love to welcome the O's back into the picture.
Thanks Patsy 😊
I think a lot of people are feeling whiplash these days.
My bigger concern isn’t even one president... it’s what happens when policy swings wildly every election cycle.
That’s exactly why Canada needs more options and less dependence on any one country.
Strong neighbours are good… predictable neighbours are even better.
Glad you brought in the election cycle Fred. That PM Carney is planning and working for waaaay beyond the 4 year election cycle is wonderful. I was going to say unique because most leaders do not. In Alberta there were two in time I’ve been here - Lougheed and Notley. I think what is unique about Carney and now is that he has hugely forecast that that’s what he’s doing - and in a way that people are primed for, given trump and current world circumstances. It’s been so long needed. I’m thrilled to see it in action.
Good observation, Patricia.
I think that’s exactly what many Canadians are responding to right now... the sense that somebody is finally planning beyond the next headline or election cycle.
Whether people agree with every decision or not, long-range thinking matters in a world that’s changing this fast.
Trade, defence, food security, energy… those aren’t 4-year problems.
They’re 20-year problems.
Yes. Thank you Fred! Perhaps once this craziness settles and people have a chance to process, a new way of thinking will prove its worth. I hope. Cheers!
Even the Democrats under Obama and Biden practiced protectionism - they were just much more subtle about it. What America really needs is a President who actually understands international trade and the systems that support it. Stop electing populist leaders and elect someone who is competent. This is a major flaw in American politics in my view. Not that Canada is a shining example, until Mark Carney came along we didn’t have a competent leader for quite a while.
Good point, Kevin...
Protectionism didn’t suddenly appear overnight... it’s been around under both parties in different forms.
My bigger concern is predictability.
Countries and businesses can adapt to tough rules… what they struggle with is constant uncertainty.
That’s part of why Canada is starting to diversify more... not to walk away from the U.S., but to avoid being overly dependent on one market or one political cycle.
Exactly Kevin- the one sided relationship has been decades in the making. One can hope another Carney like person would step forward ( Australia desperately one also)
Thanks for the “like,” Patsy! I liked yours as well. I always appreciate likes. Often though don’t get to respond. Bonus today
My pleasure Patricia, &, thank you as well :)
I hope Canada builds relationships within this hemisphere too. America relies on Mexico and South America to help supply food. Using resources within this hemisphere can help build up those countries to prosper as well.
Excellent point, Carole... I’ve been thinking the same thing.
Canada sometimes talks as if our only choices are the U.S. or Europe, but there’s a whole hemisphere here.
Stronger relationships with Mexico, Central and South America could make a lot of sense... food, energy, minerals, manufacturing, even supply chain resilience.
A more stable and prosperous neighbourhood benefits everybody.
Less dependency is not isolation… it’s smart diversification
Carney & Company have done fairly extensive discussions with Mexico, culminating in two significant trade missions (last September 2025, and then February-ish 2026). Lots of excitement there, and mutual business happening (especially agriculture) that's "skipping the middleman", so to speak. ;-) And of course, Canada controls the only railroad system that connects all three countries (CPKC).
Extensive discussions also with Brazil (and rest of Mercursor along for the ride). Big headlines for that will be September 2026, when you'll see a major trade mission (and likely Carney, too) visiting Brasilia.
Canada is fairly well regarded in the Caribbean, but we may need some more work there. Besides shoring up some trade with them, more projection of non-American influence may be needed. We have to telegraph that Trump can't just waltz in and take over any of these countries (well, he CAN, but I'm meaning to emphasize that there will be some sort of fallout if he does -- exactly what, well, that's the problem). Anyway, gotta figure out how to do something about Cuba, before the Yanks go and steal Canada's nickel mine there (plus the resorts!)).
Great overview, Grant.
One thing that stands out to me is how much of this work is happening quietly, away from the daily headlines.
Trade diversification isn't built with a single announcement... it's built relationship by relationship, agreement by agreement.
Mexico, Brazil, the broader Mercosur bloc, Europe, and the Indo-Pacific all reduce the risk of having too many eggs in one basket.
And you're right about CPKC... people often overlook how strategically important that north-south rail link really is.
The more options Canada builds, the stronger its position becomes, regardless of who happens to be in the White House.
America is like a 13 year old that can’t get what they want, Canada is like a mother sending the kid to their room without having supper.
I love seeing Canada wake up to the leverage it holds, which will level the field in trade negotiations
And
Even more, I admire Carney specifically for taking a stand, building relationships around the world, and working to ensure that Canada (and all the other “middle powers”) step into owning and building on the power they collectively hold
Acting as a unified whole, y’all have the ability to act as an effective balance and brake on the hegemonic instincts we see in Trump and his ilk around the globe (looking at you, Bibi)
Interesting point, Earl.
I think what we’re seeing is Canada slowly realizing that being a ‘middle power’ doesn’t mean being powerless.
Countries like Canada, Australia, the Nordics, parts of Europe, Japan... they matter a lot when they coordinate.
We’re not superpowers, but collectively we carry weight in trade, resources, finance, technology, and diplomacy.
And yes… relationships matter more than ever when the global mood starts getting unpredictable.
Thing is I don’t even need that fat pig of an ambassador to tell us how much US depends on Canada, how this whole shit show began tells the whole story
Fair point, Kyle...
I think a lot of Canadians came to the same conclusion long before the ambassador said anything.
When tariff threats started flying while the U.S. was still heavily relying on Canadian energy, potash, metals, and supply chains… the contradiction was pretty hard to miss.
The ambassador just said the quiet part out loud.
The part that I reflect on is WHY he said it -- as you both point out, Canadians (who pay attention at least) realized this even before Carney took the reigns, and certainly right after when he did his first European pitch for middle power economic trade in his very first week in office.
So why would Hoekstra say this (and theoretically undermine his Boss in saying so -- and Pete is about as MAGA as you can get)?
Answer: They're scared, and trying to bluff us into capitulating to their demands at the CUSMA "review."
That's certainly one possible interpretation, Grant.
I try to be careful about assigning motives, but I do agree that timing matters.
When diplomats start emphasizing how important the relationship is right before major negotiations, it's fair to ask why.
Whatever the reason, I think the bigger takeaway is that both sides know the relationship is more interconnected than the public rhetoric sometimes suggests.
That's exactly why the upcoming CUSMA discussions could be so important... there’s a lot more at stake than tariffs alone.
Valid nuance, Fred.
I'm often pointing out to people, who simply say "well, screw this relationship. Canada should just walk away", that that is extremely easier said than done. I don't have accurate stats on this, but something like 80% of our economy is, as you say, highly interconnected with American (and Mexican) trade. It doesn't pivot on a moment's notice, and the stakes of "everybody walking away" would be disastrous for all three countries! (USA take note - you will be harmed MORE than Canada or Mexico, it just might not be felt as quickly).
That doesn't mean that we "cave into the pressure at all costs" -- but it does mean that while the world looks to diversify (per conversations all week that we've had about your various articles), you still have to "do something with the existing relationship", even if that means standing up for ourselves in these "negotiations" and saying "cut all the boisterous rhetoric - are you wanting a working deal or not?"
(and a reminder, we are not "negotiating a trade agreement" here - we are REVIEWING an existing one, with the intent to tweak it so that it works better. CUSMA does not end on July 1, unless somebody gives the 6 months notice).
You have hit the nail on the head when you sift through the blizzard of agreements we're doing on trade, to zero in on the food security announcement.
The grocery affordability crisis has focussed attention on who exactly owns our means of food production and sales ( and its mostly foreign for the former, and an oligopoly with only a few big companies for the latter).
But I believe the deeper thread running through this domestic spending announcement is directly tied to civil defense.
A country that cannot feed itself cannot survive. And what threatens our survival most in the coming decade? Predatory powers, looking to gain control of our physical resources.
I think Ottawa knows we are already in an asymetric battle for our future as a country.
-We are fending off overt economic attacks by the US.
-We are trying to resist paid online agitators tasked with amplifying Albertan separatists.
-We are now classified by Russia as a "warmonger", for the side we are sending to help defend Ukraine from the ongoing Russian invasion, now in its 4th year.
I think Ottawa is well aware of the hole in our civil defense presented by the current model of the processed food industry. And I am glad to see action on that file.
As for me, I am fortunate enough to live in the Maritimes, where I am never more than 50 km from everything I need for food basics.
And I encourage everyone to start looking into how you might start the 100 mile pantry for your home, where you are getting to know and buy from your local producers, instead of defaulting to one of the big 3 chains for everything on your table.