Skip to Content Subscribe My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Modern Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Modern Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentConrad Black: Mark Carney puts it all on the lineIf he's proven wrong, his position will become untenable, but if he's right, this will be an opportunity for CanadaLast updated 4 days ago Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks to journalists outside his office the day after the Liberal's won three byelections, in Ottawa September 1, 2026. Photo by Blair Gable/Postmedia Photo by Blair Gable /Photo by Blair Gable / PostmediaPrime Minister Mark Carney continues to benefit from the Canadian resentment of overbearing American trade policy and its dislike of President Trump, and Trump has been widely criticized in the United States for escalating this absurd trade war. Canada is rightly seen as a friendly country against which the United States has no significant grievances, now that Canada is addressing its defence budget. But there is a sharp disagreement between the two governments over whether the Carney account of the United States changing the terms of the agreement at the last minute is accurate.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorIf the United States acted deviously and layered in new material conditions just before the agreement was to be signed, domestic American opinion would condemn that. The Canadian prime minister was, in that event, clearly justified in ending the negotiations and withdrawing his negotiators. If as the Americans claim, no such event occurred, then Carney‘s popularity, based on the righteousness of fair dealing and the naturally refreshing pleasure of punching Uncle Sam on the nose as he apparently deserves, will be severely undermined. As the official Canadian opposition has recognized, it would be dispositive to make public the final offers. It is a clear point and both sides cannot be right: either the Americans tried to pull a fast one at five minutes to midnight, or Carney saw a chance for a political win and decided to reject the American offer, claim American bad faith, and instead of continuing to negotiate, took such umbrage that he went straight to (trade) war.The National Post newsletter that doesn’t hold back, giving readers the unvarnished truth on media, politics and culture.By signing up, you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Right? will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againCanadians are right to give their leader the benefit of the doubt, but the prime minister has a heavy duty to remove the doubt. As long as his word is disputed, the issue has not been resolved. The very capable Wall Street Journal expert for all of the U.S.A.’s neighbours in the Americas, Mary Anastasia O’Grady, who knows Canada well and worked here for a time, has on this issue been critical of Trump, to whom she is often well disposed. Even though she dismissed the present government of Canada as “sniveling lefties,” a rather harsh wigging, though not entirely undeserved, she held that Trump had done the Canadian government a great favour and that Carney should be grateful for Trump’s boost in Carney’s tribal popularity in the face of perceived American bullying. More unambiguous Trump media supporters such as Laura Ingraham of Fox News, who also knows and likes Canada, told her viewers that “Canada is imploding” and that Carney is solely responsible for this dispute. The Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has made a number of bitchy comments about Canada’s GDP one thirteenth of that of the U.S., “going to war with a submarine from the Edmonton Mall.” This, like Ontario premier Doug Ford’s invitation to President Trump to ”kiss” his fundament, is gratuitous. But it is not obvious why Carney chose to end the negotiations rather than simply saying the current terms were unacceptable, but that the discussions should continue.The Canadian government has said that it will focus its retaliatory sanctions on politically vulnerable areas for the Republicans in the November American midterm election and has written some (Democratic) governors about this. This is an unusually hostile stance that could only be justified if Carney’s account is exactly correct. It is not clear if the impact of these tariffs on September 8 will penetrate through existing inventories and affect voting intentions in swing Senate states such as Maine and Michigan, and a substantial number of congressional districts across the country. But it is a brinkmanship move. If the tariffs do not affect the elections, Carney will seem a devious blowhard. If they do negatively affect the election results, the president will be there for another two years and the vehement hostility of Donald Trump to the Canadian government could become very onerous.If Carney’s version of events cannot be sustained, his position will become untenable. it would lead to an even greater flame-out than that of John Diefenbaker in 1963. when he announced that NATO was downgrading its interest in nuclear weapons, (which was false), and that he had had what amounted to religious revelations of the evil of such weapons and in consequence had decided not to fulfill Canada’s undertaking to NATO to deploy nuclear tipped antiaircraft missiles over northern Canada. His government fell and he was defeated in 1963 election.If the prime minister is not successfully contradicted, as I wrote here last week, it will be a challenging time but a great opportunity to strengthen the Canadian nationality. If we really have been provoked into a commercial war, it will be time for Canada to shed the somewhat hackneyed image of the upright, red-coated Mountie portrayed by Nelson Eddy in the famous 1954 film Rosemarie, (where someone purporting to be Québec Premier Maurice Duplessis makes a cameo appearance), and resort to further unsportsmanlike measures. We should make cooperative arrangements with some of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries and actively entice winter migrants from Florida and other temperate U.S. states. More piquant and an undoubted public service to the United States would be to provide heavy funding for authentic American legal aid charities and clog American courts and reduce the obscene 98 per cent conviction rates in American criminal courts, 95 per cent of those without a trial. The United States today has four percent of the world’s population and about 25 per cent of its incarcerated people; many Americans would thank us for helping to relieve “the sweet land of liberty” of this shame and hypocrisy. These are areas where it would be hard for the United States to retaliate-both sides can keep raising tariffs if they want but it is unlikely to achieve very much, although we could eventually manufacture much more for ourselves and take over the U.S. part of our automobile industry.Geographic realities are immutable. Canada does more business with the United States than with itself, and the present frosty relationship with Washington will have to be improved eventually. In the meantime, the world is cheering for us, though not necessarily for the right reasons, and it is an opportunity for us to strengthen our country and gain for us a level of respect that we could not achieve by continuing to be, in the words of distinguished former American Secretary of State, the half-Canadian Dean Acheson, “arm flapping moralists,” (if not quite “sniveling lefties”).National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.