Is 'elbows up' era over? The Front Bench weighs in on Canada-U.S. trade integration

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]Canada, like Mexico, like Mexico, Canada remains open to deeper integration, including options for Fortress North America in selected sectors. And to be clear, those offers are on the table. But if that route is not ultimately possible, we will invest heavily in new markets and products.

[00:00:24]will reward those who build, buy, and produce in Canada, and we will build new partnerships abroad.

[00:00:33]>> Prime Minister Mark Carney this weekend telling an audience of progressives in Toronto that Canada is open to deeper integration with the United States, as you heard there, in select sectors.

[00:00:41]That's despite his own government's state admission to reverse this country's dependence on the US and seek trading partners elsewhere. Those remarks come as Statistics Canada revealed new data Monday that suggests Canadians boycotting travel to the US might be over at least on mass. In April, Canadian return trips from uh the United States totaled 1.8 million, up 1.4% from this time last year at the height of the so-called elbows up movement. And that's the first increase on record since December all the way back of 2024. So, is the prime minister's messaging on the US conflicting or realistic? Is elbows up actually over? Let's bring back our front bench, Brian Glant, Lisa Ray, Tom Care, and Rob Benzy. All of them here in studio with me. Benzy, I'll start with you on this one. Do you think that I mean there's a couple things that struck me that sounded like a even though to an audience of progressives that sounded like a message especially like like Mexico, you know, the ones you're talking to right now, we also don't want to give up on this totally. At the same time, it is a bit different than a lot of the other messages.

[00:01:37]>> Yeah, he the prime minister tailors his message to the room wherever he is as a lot of politicians do. I think though uh you have to be realistic. We cannot wean uh ourselves off of we can't quit America because it's you know 80% of our trade or whatever and 85% of it's covered by koozma which by the way will not expire on Canada today despite all the rumors to that to to that effect. I think though that it's a little bit rich when Mr. Carney is saying well we have to be doing more with China being doing doing more with India and then he's like saying but there's some things we might integrate more with the United States.

[00:02:11]That's that's a tough cell. I think it's not hurting him politically yet. I I will say one thing, Vashi, the the the the slight uptick in in in uh Canadians going to the States, up 1.4%.

[00:02:23]>> Uh I think it was down 35% though last year, so it's still really really down.

[00:02:28]Uh I think that maybe it's a blip. I don't know.

[00:02:30]>> Yeah, I I sort of mentioned it only because anecdotally, we were talking about this on radio today as well, Tom.

[00:02:35]like is is is there a bit more leeway to deliver the message that he is I if people are not quite as like I'm never going back to the states you know obviously the numbers are down overall but we've all noticed on our social media channels people not like hiding their trip to Florida in the way they might have last year >> well said >> but I also think that Mr. Carney is playing it in a very clever manner because he's saying that he's open to more integration when some of his speeches recently have said well that integration which was an advantage has now become a problem for us. So it does seem like on the face of it a bit of a contradiction. But what I think he's essentially saying to the Americans is instead of doing it in a complaining way or a nagging way the way we've been doing is saying how can you be doing that to us? We're your NATO partners.

[00:03:21]We're your NORAD partners. He's saying all of this stuff especially on the level of security is on the table. And if you want then we can discuss it. If not then it's off the table. And I think that what he's trying to do instead of doing it in a way that seems to be threatening like, oh well, we'll turn off the oil or we'll turn off the pot ash to saying this is a potential for the future that's in all of our interest. Do you want to discuss that or do you want to keep going with the madness of the tariffs that are hurting your consumers and the entire North American market? I think that's the message he's trying to give. And it's it's subtle and of course Lutnik and Trump don't do subtle very well, but I think the message will be picked up by a few people in the United States.

[00:04:03]>> And I understand the logic of all of that. I understand the uh merits of like we can't fully wean ourselves off even though the share of experts has gone down. It's still at 70%. All of that stuff. But I also understand the idea that the thing that made him famous for that Davos speech or that in other speeches was not saying that. I don't think if he had got up there and said, "Well, we're really open to some more integration," it would have had the same reaction. It was this idea that it's a permanent rupture and that um you know, like like Tom said, what was once a strength has become a weakness, which is the the exact word that he described. Is that politically problematic or does he have so much political capital spend right now it doesn't matter.

[00:04:40]>> I don't know if it's politically problematic because in the political level, people are still doing the elbows up thing and he he has great support. I think where it's problematic is in business. I think it made the business community very uncomfortable to talk about the fact that we are completely done with the United States. That does not track whatsoever. That's a really important market and that in fact is probably in a lot of cases the only market that some Canadian companies have 80% there 20% here. So he had to do it for that reason. Perhaps as well he's come to the realization, not saying that he hadn't come to the realization, but perhaps it's very clear to him now that for every percent that we lose from the United States, another country is going to step into that space and they're going to be happy to take the share up.

[00:05:23]So let's say that we don't do as much trade, we go from doing 82% to only 75%.

[00:05:28]That 7% Europe's probably going to pick it up or Australia's going to pick it up or the UK is going to pick it up. All of our friends are out there hoping that we give up market share because they'll be more than happy to come in and take it as well. So, a little bit of reality, I think, has crept into the into the scene, into the chat.

[00:05:44]>> What do you think the impetus for those kinds of comments?

[00:05:47]>> So, I agree with my colleagues. I feel like I have to because they're standing right there.

[00:05:52]>> It's a little bit different when I'm in sort of my house by myself on on a virtual call, but uh so so look, I I think it is um a few different things happen at the same time. the the Davo speech to me, the way that I read it, it was sort of the Avengers assemble. It was like the middle powers assemble and everybody was like, "Yes, finally somebody said it." I don't think it was really trying to say this is how our relationship with the US is going to go moving forward. He said a lot of things that I believe people wanted to say themselves. So that's why it was so >> it's kind of an indictment of US leadership.

[00:06:19]>> It definitely was and that's and I 100% and I think I think a lot of people would have wanted to say it themselves and didn't have the sort of courage to do it. So that's why it was so popular with so many people and it was a bit of a call to let's all get our act together as sort of middle powers and work together. So on on the idea of integration and as Tom mentioned it's sort of an option. We we're willing to do that in a few sectors and we're obviously didn't say it this way but go alone a bit more or build up relationships with others. I think I think that's probably the right posture to have and I like that better than saying using the word rupture which he used at Davos. I don't think that was the right right tone to have. I think a lot of the rest of the speech was good.

[00:06:58]Uh that I didn't particularly love. So, so the idea of those two options, the one thing that they have in common, in my humble opinion, is we need to be stronger at home because if we're going to go and develop different relationships, we need to have something to offer and we need to be able to negotiate a really good position and to negotiate with the Trump administration and future administrations in the US.

[00:07:19]The stronger we are, the more sovereign we are, the less that we kind of need them, the better as well. It always makes the negotiations a little more even even uh when you have something to offer and you feel you don't necessarily absolutely need everything that they have to offer.

[00:07:33]>> I feel like I'm going to be asking this in a lot of panels, fancy, but like what do you do if you're pure poly again and this is the thing you said a month ago in your speeches that was kind of by some people criticized at the time and obviously it's diffing the message but it is essentially the same thing. I guess he could try to sue Carney for plagiarism, but it didn't work last year, Vashy, when when the Liberals ripped off the Tory manifesto. Uh, and so many things that have that the prime minister has done successfully are are things that he cribbed from uh the poor uh embattled uh conservative leader. Uh I don't know what Polyv does. If I'm him, I'm thinking my biggest priority right now is holding on to the job that I have, not the job that I want because I will this time next year, will he still be the conservative leader? I don't know. I'm not sure I'd take that bet if I had Tom's 25 cents.

[00:08:21]>> And and Tom, what do you think about that, Tom?

[00:08:23]>> I think that his chances uh of staying on as leader until the next election are slim. Um just talking with people who who are conservatives, some of whom worked for him, tried to help get him elected leader. They've come with regret to the conclusion that Pier PV is not going to be the prime minister of Canada. And that's the purpose of politics. You can only tell people for so many election cycles that they have no chance of forming a government. At some point they actually want to do more than perform. And PyV is an outstanding leader of the opposition on the first part of the job which is holding the government to account on the other part of the job showing himself capable of heading a government you know showing that the conservatives are a government and waiting. They fall well short and it shows in the polls. It shows in the attitude of Canadian voters towards Mr. Puv as a potential leader visav Mr. Carney and I think that a lot of the people in the Conservative party have that figured out. It's going to take time. Mr. Puo is very strong willed.

[00:09:20]He's not going to go like Mr. Shear or or like Mr. Oul and it might be a lot trickier, but I think the results going to be the same.

[00:09:28]>> Does it matter that you know he would say I said this first type of thing?

[00:09:32]Like does that ultimately politically matter?

[00:09:35]>> No.

[00:09:36]>> Yeah.

[00:09:36]>> Sadly no. Um, I think what needs to happen is you need to get your caucus back and behind you and supportive and happy and just come up with new ways in which to be the opposition that looks like you're going to be the next government. 3 years is a long time.

[00:09:53]Carne government may make some mistakes along the way and we'll we'll have to see. But right now, I think what they're doing is proper because the economy is such a state that having um I think this kind of big fight over absolutely everything all the time and bogging down parliament is really going to tick off the voter because they're feeling it and they're every day. So being obstreporous isn't going to be helpful either. I have seen lately, I would note over the last month, Brian, and last word to you, the amount of other people from caucus who are the conservative caucus who are speaking about policy issues. Like never in the last three years have I seen that many different people, for example, available for an interview. I imagine that has something to do with trying to get caucus behind you.

[00:10:34]>> Yeah. And and maybe from a communications point of view as well, right? I I think when you go back a year and a half ago, year and a half ago, can you imagine what we were talking about when it came to a year and a half ago, which is crazy.

[00:10:43]>> I wasn't planning on being here. Yeah.

[00:10:48]Exactly.

[00:10:50]>> So he also may be saying, "Look, a year and a half, two years ago, I was the only message uh messenger and and I was great at it. I was disciplined. I focused on Trudeau. I focused on these points and that just got us here. So maybe we need to show more of a team."

[00:11:03]So it could be about his leadership.

[00:11:05]Yes, it could be because that's what one of the things that caucus wants to see.

[00:11:08]But it could also be them saying we need to shake it up from McConnell's point of view.

[00:11:12]>> Okay, I got to leave it there. Guys, thanks for coming in. It's been such a pleasure. Brian Gant, Lisa Ray, Tom Mir, and Rob Benzy, our wonderful Monday front bench.