Two Speeches - Carney Replaces Trudeau, Who Sets Stage for US battle

Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2025

Two speeches, barely a week apart, show a contrast in impact between the outgoing and incoming PM. Mark Carney’s lackluster acceptance speech, following his landslide victory in the Liberal leadership race, contrasts with probably one of the best speeches

Justin Trudeau has ever given.

This is how Justin Trudeau opened his memorable agenda-setting speech against tariffs the day after they were imposed: “Today the

United States launched a trade war against Canada, their closest partner and ally, their closest friend. At the same time, they're talking about working positively with Russia. Appeasing Vladimir Putin, a lying, murderous dictator. Make that make sense.”


This was his last important speech as Prime Minister. It was televised live on Canadian and many US channels. It was a barnburner and harked back to the days when he spoke with authority and heart. It proved he could still rise to the occasion – this time a real threat posed by Trump on our very sovereignty. It set the tone for a whole country already rallying with a level of patriotic fervour not seen since the last war. This fervour and fighting spirit was captured in lines that followed: “Canadians are reasonable and we are polite but we will not back down from a fight — not when our country and the well-being of everyone in it is at stake.”


He then addressed Americans directly: “They've chosen to launch a trade war that will first and foremost harm American families..“ And then proceeded to demolish with facts the alleged reason for the tariffs – the insecurity of the Canada-US border against the

flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants. Then the most requoted line in the speech: “Now, it's not in my habit to agree with the Wall Street Journal, but Donald, they point out that even though you're a very smart guy, this is a very dumb thing to do.” He used “Donald” twice in the speech, a familiarity in response to Trump insulting him as Governor endlessly saying he wanted Canada to become the 51st state. Trudeau had earlier

warned that Trump was using the border issue as a “pretext” and that his real intention was to use “economic warfare” to weaken

the country and that his 51st state threat was real. This revelation fired up Canadian patriotism.


Trudeau has skillfully redrawn and expanded a US threat which now appears to have permanently altered our US relations. He has set a high bar for coming to terms with Trump’s tariffs. He stated Canada’s own wide tariff response will remain in effect until all US tariffs have been withdrawn. This very uncompromising approach was followed by Trudeau’s successor. By contrast Carney in his acceptance speech did not name Trump. He calmly repeated the strategy launched by Trudeau: “My government will keep our tariffs on until the Americans show us respect.”


Since Trump has no bones about his dislike of Trudeau, there is hope that a different interlocutor might have greater success dealing with his unpredictability. However, if Pierre Polievre wins the federal election, he staked his position saying: “Trump stabbed America’s best friend in the back.” Trump has complained that Poilievre is not MAGA enough. He has had nothing to say about the incoming PM, Mark Carney, and it would

appear that Carney has no interest in alienating him. Ironically, it turns out that the script for the ongoing battle has been written by the unpopular outgoing leader. Whatever, Justin Trudeau’s speech marks an almost heroic moment. Carney in his speech emphasized he is a practical man, focused on making Canada strong - a campaign slogan. “It’s not about money it’s about people” he said in an attempt to humanize his message. He saved the strongest language in a fairly routine speech for his rival in what is expected to be an early election. This is the very strong language he used in characterizing Poliviere: “A person who worships at the altar of Donald Trump will kneel before him, not stand up to him.” His acceptance speech could, like Trudeau's, have set a bold agenda for the fight with Trump and a Canadian economy he hopes to make the envy of the world. It did not. Nor did it make the obvious appeal to Canadians to “fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a rough ride”.


The pumped-up partisan crowd of Liberals applauded his mostly calmly delivered lines. In a rare moment, he almost shouted: “Who is ready to stand up for Canada?” It got a roaring response. I feel his victory was more about the resume than the man, a background that said “you can trust me.” It remains to be seen if he catches on with the wider public and whether Trump will treat him as a credible and persuasive adversary. With the

announcement of 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum and threats on our supply-managed dairy industry, he obviously feels he has all the cards. The deadly game continues, and we anxiously await any indication that our new leader may be able to play a winning game. He is certainly better equipped than the sloganeering Poilievre.


Finally, we may yet regret the disappearance of Justin Trudeau, who certainly had a knack for rising to the most challenging occasions, whether a pandemic or a nation-threatening US President.

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts