Business
Carney’s Bungling of the Tariff Issue Requires a Reset in Canada’s Approach to Trump
Rank and file Americans are best positioned to insist upon a relaxation of Mr. Trump’s tariff policies – that populist base which Mr. Carney neither understands nor respects but whom the President cannot afford to ignore or alienate if he wishes to retain their political support.
By now it is becoming apparent that Mark Carney’s government is seriously bungling Canada’s response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff initiatives. By ill-advisedly imposing counter-tariffs only to withdraw them later, Ottawa temporarily played with “elbows up” – only to learn that, as in hockey, pursuing such a strategy in the absence of a strong offence simply draws penalties and gives the other side a manpower advantage.
As the list of Mr. Carney’s missteps on the tariff file grows – costing Canadians jobs, incomes, and increases in prices – surely it is becoming clear that a fundamental reset is required in Canada’s approach to Mr. Trump and his tariff initiatives if their negative consequences for both Canada and the U.S. are to be overcome.
So what and where is the reset button that could be pushed to redress those initiatives? Who is in the best position to push it, and when is the best opportunity to do so?
That button is not to be found in Washington or on Wall Street, but rather among those to whom Mr. Trump made a promise – time and time again – namely, the American people. “We’re going to get the prices down. We have to get them down. It’s too much. Groceries, cars, everything. We’re going to get the prices down,” he declared repeatedly throughout the 2024 presidential election campaign.
That was the promise. But the current reality is price increases for Americans on food, energy, furniture, and paper products, as well as projected increases in the cost of homes, industrial structures, and public infrastructure as tariffs on steel, aluminum, softwood lumber and timber take their toll. In other words, the reality is not a decrease but an increase in the cost of living for millions of American consumers and voters.
Who then is best positioned to insist upon a relaxation of Mr. Trump’s tariff policies? Not Mr. Carney and his officials, nor even the traditional Washington influencers, but those rank-and-file Americans comprising the massive populist wave that put Mr. Trump in the White House for a second time – that populist base which Mr. Carney neither understands nor respects but whom the President cannot afford to ignore or alienate if he wishes to retain their political support.
So when will be the first real opportunity for Mr. Trump’s core constituency to speak to him effectively – through their votes – about modifying his approach to tariffs? It will be in the months running up to the midterm congressional elections in November, 2026, in which the 435 seats of the House of Representatives and, more crucially, the 35 seats in the US Senate, will be up for election.
Most of those Republican candidates standing for election will want to be pro-Trump to retain hardcore Republican voters, but they will also want to be anti-tariff to secure the support of voters suffering from tariff-induced price increases. How can they be both? By being fully supportive of Mr. Trump’s war on illegal drugs and migrants, bloated bureaucracies, and the mis-management of government finances, while at the same time campaigning as “tariff modifiers”. By asking voters to send them to Washington to support Mr. Trump but to remove the price-increasing-sting of his tariff policies through the negotiation of “reciprocity agreements” with major US trading partners to achieve that objective – just as former president William McKinley, whom Mr. Trump professes to admire, did many years ago.
The election of just a few tariff-moderating Republicans to the U.S. Senate in 2026, to be present when the tariff bill embodying Mr. Trump’s policies eventually gets to that chamber, will do more to improve tariff-disrupting Canada-U.S. trade relations than the ineffectual efforts of those like Mr. Carney who seek to get to Mr. Trump by traditional elite-to-elite negotiating practices.
Getting to Mr. Trump on the tariff issue through his own populist base raises some obvious questions. Which U.S. states, for example, are experiencing the greatest price increases as a result of the tariff wars, and of those, which offer the greatest opportunities to nominate and elect tariff-modifying Republicans to the Senate? Where in the U.S., at the state or national level, are there the beginnings of a grassroots tariff-modification movement, and how might such a movement be encouraged and supported by Canadians as well as Americans.
Americans of course have a vested interest in securing research-informed answers to such questions. But so do Canadians. More on these questions and answers shortly. They are the keys to achieving the desire of the vast majority of rank and file citizens on both sides of the border for a restoration of amicable economic and social relations between our two countries.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
You’ve probably heard by now the blockbuster news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, one of the richest people to ever walk the planet, has had a change of heart on climate change.
For several decades Gates poured billions of dollars into the climate industrial complex.
Some conservatives have sniffed that Bill Gates has shifted his position on climate change because he and Microsoft have invested heavily in energy intensive data centers.
AI and robotics will triple our electric power needs over the next 15 years. And you can’t get that from windmills.
What Bill Gates has done is courageous and praiseworthy. It’s not many people of his stature that will admit that they were wrong. Al Gore certainly hasn’t. My wife says I never do.
Although I’ve only once met Bill Gates, I’ve read his latest statements on global warming. He still endorses the need for communal action (which won’t work), but he has sensibly disassociated himself from the increasingly radical and economically destructive dictates from the green movement. For that, the left has tossed him out of their tent as a “traitor.”
I wish to highlight several critical insights that should be the starting point for constructive debate that every clear-minded thinker on either side of the issue should embrace.
(1) It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate policies. This includes improving agriculture and health in poor countries.
(2) Countries should be encouraged to grow their economies even if that means a reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. Economic growth is essential to human progress.
(3) Although climate change will hurt poor people, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease.
I would add to these wise declarations two inconvenient truths: First: the solution to changing temperatures and weather patterns is technological progress. A far fewer percentage of people die of severe weather events today than 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago.
Second, energy is the master resource and to deny people reliable and affordable energy is to keep them poor and vulnerable – and this is inhumane.
If Bill Gates were to start directing even a small fraction of his foundation funds to ensuring everyone on the planet has access to electric power and safe drinking water, it would do more for humanity than all of the hundreds of billions that governments and foundations have devoted to climate programs that have failed to change the globe’s temperature.
Stephen Moore is a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
At Tesla’s Austin headquarters, investors backed Musk’s 12-step plan that ties his potential trillion-dollar payout to a series of aggressive financial and operational milestones, including raising the company’s valuation from roughly $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and selling one million humanoid robots within a decade. Musk hailed the outcome as a turning point for Tesla’s future.
“What we’re about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla but a whole new book,” Musk said, as The New York Times reported.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The decision cements investor confidence in Musk’s “moonshot” management style and reinforces the belief that Tesla’s success depends heavily on its founder and his leadership.
Tesla Annual meeting starting now
https://t.co/j1KHf3k6ch— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2025
“Those who claim the plan is ‘too large’ ignore the scale of ambition that has historically defined Tesla’s trajectory,” the Florida State Board of Administration said in a securities filing describing why it voted for Mr. Musk’s pay plan. “A company that went from near bankruptcy to global leadership in E.V.s and clean energy under similar frameworks has earned the right to use incentive models that reward moonshot performance.”
Investors like Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood defended Tesla’s decision, saying the plan aligns shareholder rewards with company performance.
“I do not understand why investors are voting against Elon’s pay package when they and their clients would benefit enormously if he and his incredible team meet such high goals,” Wood wrote on X.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment Management — one of Tesla’s largest shareholders — broke ranks, however, and voted against the pay plan, saying that the package was excessive.
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk,” the firm said.
The vote comes months after Musk wrapped up his short-lived government role under President Donald Trump. In February, Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team sparked a firestorm when they announced plans to eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development, drawing backlash from Democrats and prompting protests targeting Musk and his companies, including Tesla.
Back in May, Musk announced that his “scheduled time” leading DOGE had ended.
Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
Public Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
Bizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves
Canada’s heavy oil finds new fans as global demand rises
-
COVID-192 days agoFreedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to appeal her recent conviction
-
Business2 days agoCarney’s budget spares tax status of Canadian churches, pro-life groups after backlash
-
Justice2 days agoCarney government lets Supreme Court decision stand despite outrage over child porn ruling
-
Daily Caller2 days agoUN Chief Rages Against Dying Of Climate Alarm Light
-
espionage1 day agoU.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs
-
Business22 hours agoCarney budget doubles down on Trudeau-era policies
-
COVID-1922 hours agoCrown still working to put Lich and Barber in jail
-
Business22 hours agoCarney budget continues misguided ‘Build Canada Homes’ approach