Here is what else I believe Prime Minister Carney no doubt learned about Trump and dealing with his Administration. They will determine whether or not he is viewed as a great leader in time of ‘war’. Those lessons include:

1. There is no issue too small to grab the attention of an angry self-mythologizing, personality-disordered leader such as Trump. The re-naming of Lake Ontario to LakeAmerica (only on the American side) which apparently he has no legal right to do. But Google Maps and Apple Maps quickly comply. Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth takes the time from the job he should be doing to mock a few young female Canadian cadets.

   “Hegseth posted a screenshot to X of a young female Canadian volunteer cadet receiving an award at summer training session, with the Canadian flag and the caption ‘this is real.’ [source: Toronto Star]

   Prime Minister Carney had a great reaction to that little insulting stunt from Hegseth: “Stop doing memes, stop throwing shade, stop trying to be tough,” he said to reporters. “It’s beneath their office.” STRIKE! for Carney.

   

   When George Clooney speaks out against this kind of bullying, you know the

   world is paying attention: “You see what the Secretary of Defense just tweeted out? A picture about women in the military from Canada. You’re going, ‘What’s wrong with you? Where’s the sense of decency in all of this?’” the Good Night, and Good Luck director said, referring to Hegseth’s post.” [source: The Independent. Story by Ariana Baio]

2. Mockery is the bastion of those who have lost the argument. The most recent example is the mockery by the smarmy Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s dismissal of Canada’s military (“what are they going to do, grab two Canadian submarines from the Edmonton Mall?”). The follow-up lies by the interfering, serial lying friend and Epstein island visitor, Howard Lutnick and the U.S. negotiator, Jameson Greer who parrots Trump’s lies on a par with his ever-present golf-cart chasing Natalie Harp.

3. There is no distinction between your enemies and your friends. As South Korea recently learned, Mr. Trump threatens to pull American troops because Korea refused to join the Iranian debacle. Trump declared that he had no idea of why America stationed troops there in the first place. Besides he and his pal, North Korean dictator King Jong-Un, really like each other. He treats Canada much the same way - dismissing Canada’s military contributions to Afghanistan (in which 158 Canadians soldiers died in battle), let alone the World Wars and currently doing peacekeeping duty in Latvia on the Russian border.

4. A bullying leader with a brittle ego that needs constant feeding can only be flattered not persuaded. No matter how Carney himself or Dominic Leblanc or Janice Charette tried, anything that was in conflict with his desired tariffs were not only discarded, but additional articles were apparently added on in the final days by Trump’s negotiators.

   

5. A strong leader who deals with such emotionalized, unpredictable leaders such as Trump, requires emotional intelligence. Although not always perfectly, Carney has exercised restraint, when to stay silent and when to speak up. He also knows not to over-reach and personalize attacks against Trump. He will be tested even more on Sept. 8th when his announced counter-tariffs are implemented. Trump will probably escalate his verbal attacks and no doubt another over-reaction.

6. ‘This is war’. When asked whether his tougher tone meant the Prime Minister was “going to war,” Carney said Canada was responding to an attack from Washington. “Because we were attacked,” Carney said. “We got attacked. We waited until the United States decided to actually implement these so-called 338 tariffs. We’re going to focus on what we can control.” (source: ipolitics.ca)

7. This is Mark Carney’s ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’ in his Prime Ministership.

   Having spent a year of my life studying John F. Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, (Essence of Decision by Graham Allison & Phillip Zelikow). I can speak with some confidence about the significance of his leadership curing that crisis. We were fortunate to have Professors such as Richard E. Neustadt, an advisor and speechwriter for JFK. We had guest speakers such as McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy’s National Security Advisor, among several others. They could attest to the value of JFK’s cool handling of the Crisis involving backdoor communications with the Soviet Leader, Nikita Khrushchev. He over-ruled the Generals and was able to get the Soviet missiles out of Cuba and avoid World War III. So far, Carney has captured the ‘cool’ extremely well.

Finally, Canadians put their faith in the leadership of Mark Carney in the 2025 Election, reinforced by three by-election victories two days ago. This is his time. The way he leads is critically important to holding that support. So far so good: bringing in the Premiers, business and labour leaders and yes, the Canadian public. As Churchill knew from his World War II leadership, you can’t win a war on your own.

This Substack is supported by TLC Transformational Leadership Consultants Inc. We specialize in customized Leadership Communications seminars and coaching.

However, in the typical Trump tactic of creating the ‘noise’ that will be guaranteed to change the media narrative and double down on his attempted humiliation and domination of Canada’s economy and ultimately its sovereignty.

Subscribe now

So out came the over-sized ‘sharpie’ and a map showing The Great Lakes with Lake Ontario highlighted. With Stephen Miller looking over his shoulder, he made his signature move behind the Resolute desk, crossing out Ontario and replacing it with… ta da! ‘America!’

He immediately ordered the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to change maps and ensure the renaming was undertaken immediately. (Having done a lot of seminars a number of years ago for the USGS I am truly saddened for them that they have to be involved in this childishly-driven non-accomplishment.)

So I did some research to clarify what rights Trump has - and doesn’t have - in changing the name.

QUESTION Does the President of the U.S. have the authority to rename Lake Ontario to “Lake America” (or any other name)?

ANSWER The United States cannot unilaterally rename the entire shared lake or impose a new name on Canada.

Q: Who owns the Great Lakes?

A: Neither Canada nor the United States owns the Great Lakes as a whole. Four of the lakes, including Lake Ontario, cross the international boundary. Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake located entirely within the United States.

Q: Who has jurisdiction over Lake Ontario?

A: Canada exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Canadian portion, principally through the federal and Ontario governments. The United States exercises jurisdiction over its portion, principally through the federal government and New York State. Indigenous and treaty rights also remain legally significant on both sides.

Q: Can either country do whatever it wants with Lake Ontario?

A: No. Each country has substantial authority over activities on its own side, but that authority is limited by treaties, binational agreements, domestic laws and Indigenous and treaty rights.

Q: What is the principal agreement governing the lake?

A: The 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty gives Canada and the United States “equal and similar rights” in boundary waters. Uses, obstructions or diversions that would affect the natural level or flow on the other side generally require approval through the International Joint Commission. The treaty also prohibits pollution that injures health or property in the other country.

See below for more Q and A specifics on that.

So what should Mark Carney do in response?

COMBO-US-POLITICS-TRUMP-CANADA-DIPLOMACY-TRADE© AFP/Getty

He released a statement that has been quoted widely by elevating the tone and historical significance of the name, ‘Ontario: "We know that America is changing. Their trading relationships, their foreign policies, their national monuments, their hydronyms. Canadians also know that naming reality means calling it Lake Ontario – then, now and always." That’s up your nose - with elegance.

Now that he has issued that statement, and mindful of a fundamental communications principle not to give this ‘side-track’ off-base failed humiliation attempt by Trump any oxygen. It will mostly die out as Trump’s imploding support plummets to new depths.

A lot of Canadians - and now a majority of Americans - are so fed up with Trump’s tariffs and alienation of Canada and most of America’s allies that that they just want the Trump idiocies to end. They think of it as they do the renamed ‘Gulf of America’, his destruction of the East Wing to be replaced by his ‘ballroom’, the planned Trump Arch, his Kennedy Centre failed self-idolization, and this truly pathetic yet memorable disaster: the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting (Green) Pool.

Sometimes doing nothing can be the best response to a bully. Besides, it drives Trump crazy to be ignored. [Just the other day he was informed that he will not be invited to the 9/11 25th Anniversary Commemoration if he insists on giving a speech. So he’s not going.]

The Most Significant 7 days in Canada-U.S, relationship

Finally, this has been the most significant 7 days in recent history between Canada and the United States. It has created anxiety and uncertainty in homes and places of work across Canada. Canadians are clearly putting their faith - and their fate - in Mark Carney’s hands.

It’s not a partisan feeling. It is one that crosses political boundaries - with support from Premiers, Pierre Poilievre and NDP Leader Avi Lewis. He has the wind at his back having earned the time and the good will as he and his government attempt to do what is absolutely necessary - bring this ship safely into harbour.

Until next time, may the wind be always at your back.

Q’S and A’s about Renaming Lake Ontario

Q: Who owns the Great Lakes?

A: Neither Canada nor the United States owns the Great Lakes as a whole. Four of the lakes, including Lake Ontario, cross the international boundary. Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake located entirely within the United States.

Q: Who has jurisdiction over Lake Ontario?

A: Canada exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Canadian portion, principally through the federal and Ontario governments. The United States exercises jurisdiction over its portion, principally through the federal government and New York State. Indigenous and treaty rights also remain legally significant on both sides.

Q: Can either country do whatever it wants with Lake Ontario?

A: No. Each country has substantial authority over activities on its own side, but that authority is limited by treaties, binational agreements, domestic laws and Indigenous and treaty rights.

Q: What is the principal agreement governing the lake?

A: The 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty gives Canada and the United States “equal and similar rights” in boundary waters. Uses, obstructions or diversions that would affect the natural level or flow on the other side generally require approval through the International Joint Commission. The treaty also prohibits pollution that injures health or property in the other country.

Q: Does the United States have the authority to change the name of Lake Ontario to “Lake America”?

A: No. The United States could adopt “Lake America” for use by its own federal agencies, maps and documents, but it could not unilaterally rename the entire lake, impose that name on Canada or create a universally recognized international name.

Q: What would happen in Canada?

A: Canada and Ontario control official geographical naming on the Canadian side. The official Canadian names would remain Lake Ontario and Lac Ontario unless the appropriate Canadian and Ontario authorities agreed to a change.

Q: What would be required for a jointly recognized new name?

A: A genuinely shared and internationally recognized change would require Canadian agreement and coordination between the appropriate naming authorities in Canada, Ontario and the United States. Without that agreement, the two countries could simply use different names for the same lake.

Sources

• International Joint Commission — Boundary Waters Treaty
https://www.ijc.org/en/who/mission/bwt

• Government of Canada — Canada–U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/canada-united-states-boundary-waters-treaty.html

• Natural Resources Canada — Lake Ontario/Lac Ontario
https://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique?id=88f93aedba2911d892e2080020a0f4c9

1. The speech did what he needed it to do. He drove a message that was potent and believable.

   Carney connected with Canadians in a straightforward, simple way and explained what happened, with words non-economists could understand: “And while we believed, earlier this week, that we were moving towards a mutually beneficial agreement, in recent days, the United States proposed new terms that were uneconomic, unfair, and undermined the net benefits to Canada, and called into question the reliability of any deal.”

   The sound bite that followed kicked it home: “In short, they asked too much and they offered too little.”

   

2. He didn’t do an over-the-top criticism of Trump and his acolytes, but he recycled a powerful one from earlier this Spring that crisply nailed Trump’s motives: “America is trying to break us so they can own us.” Of course, that made most of the American network newscasts. Trump and Natalie Harp, his ‘Walking Printer’ will hate it (again). But to use an old line by Henry Kissinger, “it has the added benefit of being the truth”.

   For those who were deeply worried about offending Trump before midnight Friday night, the worries have mostly dissipated across Canada and while it wasn’t new, it contains a strong message that Canada has seen what Trump has been up to since his second term began and it reinforced why Canada walked away.

3. Carney didn’t threaten, but he used a line that only a fool couldn’t see the embedded warning within: “Canada fuels American growth: supplying 99 per cent of their natural gas imports, 85 per cent of their electricity imports, 60 per cent of their crude oil imports. I don’t think they want us to stop sending any of that energy.” Implied threats are almost always better at the political level than direct, nasty hit jobs. The fact that it echoes Doug Ford’s warning months before definitely elevated its threat potential.

4. He turns from words to Canada’s planned actions in a straightforward manner: “Canada will match Washington’s new tariffs dollar for dollar in order to protect Canadian workers, farmers, families, and businesses. Our response will be concentrated in sectors such as steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics.” You know he means every word of it.

   It would need his trusted advisor, Commerce Secretary and fellow Epstein pal, Howard Lutnick to convince Trump to turn this around.

   

   5. He doubles down on the picture of a powerful and positive future that will emerge from this. He shifts from the downbeat news of the failed negotiations to a strong and confident vision of the future. “We take this step confident that it is in the best interests of Canada. And that by rejecting a bad deal, by standing up for Canada, by focusing on what we can control, we will build Canada strong for all.”

   This a successful speech at such a critical moment - not just for Prime Minister Carney but for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is not just an ending to the eighteen months of threats, illegal tariffs, and friction, it was the beginning of a new era.

   That is where the real test will be whether this speech ultimately succeeds or not.

   Subscribe now

‘8 simple rules for Carney to follow’

1. Begin by acknowledging what Canadians have endured. He knows – and must convey – that this wasn’t just a disagreement over tariffs and trade. Canadians of all ages and stages faced fear about their jobs, businesses, retirement savings and household savings. Exhaustion from repeated threats, deadlines, allegations and reversals.

2. He should avoid escalating the vocabulary. He’s already coined the phrase to describe America’s relationship as a ‘rupture’. Avoid using emotional language like ‘trauma’ but he should acknowledge the emotional injury and anxiety. Yes, he must ‘feel our pain’ in tone, body language and carefully chosen words.

3. He needs to speak clearly and simply from the heart. He should look squarely into the camera – without reading it off a teleprompter - and say something along these lines.

“You and your families have endured months of uncertainty and anxiety about your jobs, your businesses, your finances and our country’s future. Yet throughout this ordeal, you have remained true to the principles that define us as Canadians: patience, tolerance, mutual respect and a determination to do what is right.”

4. Explain the agreement honestly

Over the next few days and beyond, in several key media formats, speaking opportunities and the House of Commons, the Prime Minister needs to provide a plain-language accounting of:

• What Canada protected.

• What Canada gained.

• What Canada conceded.

• Which tariffs and issues remain.

• What’s he going to do about that.

Canadians are desperate for transparency. It won’t be perfect and Canadians will accept if you’re honest with them. Oh, and it must happen right away. No more delays with varying messages. He must be 100% consistent and drive the messages - not merely react to critics.

5. Give credit broadly

Carney should share credit with Premiers, Members of Parliament, Indigenous leaders, labour, business, negotiators and Canadians themselves.

He should particularly recognize workers, businesses and communities that absorbed the real costs during these many months. That turns the story from “Carney vs. Trump” into “Canada stood together.”

6. Move from uncertainty to resilience

Canadians will not be reassured merely by hearing that an agreement has been reached. They need evidence that Canada will be less vulnerable next time.

Canada’s non-U.S. share of exports has already reached its highest point in more than four decades, according to Global Affairs Canada. That provides a foundation for diversification, but not a reason to abandon the American market.

7. Maintain visible vigilance

Trust cannot depend on Trump’s assurances. Nor Carney’s either. It must rest on Canadian preparedness and actions.

8. The central post-crisis message

Carney’s message should not be in any way triumphalist. It should be:

Canada came through this together. We have achieved greater stability, but we have also learned that stability cannot be taken for granted.

That is how he helps Canadians heal: not by asking them to trust Trump again, but by demonstrating that Canada no longer needs to depend on that trust.

If he accomplishes all that, he will have reinforced the trust that Canadians placed in him less than eighteen months ago. He will have passed his ‘moment of truth’ as Prime Minister.

Subscribe now

It is Mr. Carney’s ultimate test of leadership. In this podcast we discuss what that means for a leader and what he must accomplish - whether or not there’s a deal. What could he say or do that would turn off Canadians as they would with any leader who violates core lessons of leadership.

Get more from Barry McLoughlin & Laura Peck in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Every leader of an organization will inevitably face such a day. A huge decision needs to be made for the survival or future of the organization. Advisors and critics have their own - sometimes harshly presented - advisor or opinions that you should do this, that or nothing. Your reputation depends on it.

Mark Carney faces that moment. On August 19th we find out if Donald Trump will follow through on some or all of his threatened 50% tariffs targeting Canada’s key sectors - steel, aluminum, potash and those much-needed items for all American consumers -hockey sticks! One thing we know about Trump is that besides unwanted, mindless re-decorating of reflecting pools, slapping his name repeatedly on the Kennedy Center, U.S. currency and passports; is that Donald Trump loves the last-minute drama - whether pulling the trigger on bombing Iran or navigating the self-defeating bombing or do what he glories in doing mocking and threatening his allies. Hello South Korea. Welcome to the club.

Whatever decision in this latest 50% tariff outrage that USTR Jameson Greer has already warned Canada not to retaliate—the Prime Minister will have to make the most significant decision in his time in office.

He will need to demonstrate leadership in this time of reckoning.

Leadership in a moment like this requires character: the internal compass to know what must not be surrendered.

It requires courage: the willingness to make a consequential decision without the comfort of universal approval.

It requires judgment: the ability to distinguish a difficult compromise from an unacceptable capitulation.

And then it requires communication: the ability to explain the decision, defend it and withstand the blowback and recrimination that will inevitably follow.

That is the test facing Carney. It is also a lesson for every leader.

Last minute intensive negotiations are in the final landing stage for Canada to obtain relief from existing tariffs and prevent the new measures justified under the Smoot-Hawley bill that threw America into the deepest Depression in history. The stakes are economic, but they are also political and national. The decision will affect workers, businesses, communities and Canada’s future relationship with its most important trading partner.

Yet the quality of Carney’s leadership will not be judged solely by the details of the agreement—or by whether there is an agreement at all.

It will be judged by the level from which he communicates.

The Communications Hierarchy

Here is something that I first learned many years ago - The Communications Hierarchy. It is a way to look at what persuades the public when arguments and messages are presented by politicians. Although it could also be applied in many ways to leaders of organizations.

Most leaders communicate from the bottom of the Communications Hierarchy.

They talk about opinions:

• Which tariffs should be imposed?

• Which regulations should change?

• Which concessions are acceptable?

• Who gained or lost what?

This is the natural territory of political debate. It is also the least persuasive.

Opinions are positions. They invite counterpositions. The moment a leader says, “This is what we have decided,” critics begin assembling reasons why the opposite decision would have been better.

Communicating at this level is sometimes necessary. People need facts, details and policy explanations. But facts alone rarely create conviction. A spreadsheet can show the economic cost of a decision; it cannot tell a country why that cost is worth bearing.

One level higher up the hierarchy is ‘attitudes’.

Here the discussion moves from individual measures to broader public concerns: affordability, jobs, economic security, climate change or the future of Canadian industry.

Attitudes are more powerful than opinions because they connect policy to lived experience. A tariff is technical. The possible closure of a local plant is personal.

But attitudes are still vulnerable to changing circumstances. Affordability may favour one decision today and another tomorrow. Different regions and industries will experience the same agreement differently. A leader who rests the entire case on economic benefit may lose public support the moment the economic forecast changes.

At the top of the hierarchy is the most persuasive of all - values.

Dignity.

Sovereignty.

Fairness.

Security.

Responsibility to future generations.

Values answer the question beneath every other question: What do we stand for?

This is where leadership communication becomes most persuasive—not because values eliminate disagreement, but because they give people a reason to accept sacrifice, uncertainty and imperfection.

Carney must explain more than the deal

Whatever the Prime Minister decides, Canadians should expect a complete accounting of it.

What did Canada gain?

What did it concede?

Which industries will benefit?

Who will bear the cost?

What protection will be offered to the workers and communities placed at risk?

Those questions belong in the conversation. They demand direct answers, not slogans or evasions.

But the Prime Minister’s real task is larger. He must explain how his decision expresses Canadian values.

If he accepts a compromise, he must show that it preserves Canada’s capacity to choose its own future. [The latest negotiation signals indicate this may be the outcome.]

If he rejects an agreement, he must explain why the cost of saying no is preferable to the price of saying yes.

If Canada retaliates (or ‘responds’ which may be a better choice of words, he must demonstrate that the response is disciplined, proportionate and connected to a clear objective—not merely an expression of anger.

If Canada makes concessions, he must identify the boundary between pragmatic negotiation and submission.

He cannot simply tell Canadians that his decision is the best available option. He must tell them what principle guided it.

Without that explanation, compromise can look like weakness. Resistance can look like recklessness. Retaliation can look like theatre. Even a technically sound decision can fail politically if Canadians cannot see the values behind it.

Courage includes facing the blowback

There will be blowback whatever Carney chooses.

Opposition parties will accuse him of giving away too much or risking too much. Premiers will defend their regional interests (but they have to be brought onside). Business leaders will warn of lost investment. Unions will demand protection for workers. Commentators will judge the decision before its consequences are fully known.

The United States may apply further pressure. The Trump people have already characterized any Canadian resistance as hostility or Canadian compromise as an invitation to demand more.

A leader cannot prevent these reactions. Nor should a leader expect immunity from legitimate criticism.

Courage is not refusing to listen. It is listening carefully, deciding deliberately and then remaining steady when criticism becomes personal, partisan or coercive.

That steadiness must not become stubbornness. Strong leaders correct mistakes when the evidence changes. But they do not abandon a principled decision simply because defending it has become uncomfortable.

The lesson for every leader

The Communications Hierarchy applies far beyond national politics.

When an organization faces a difficult restructuring, leaders can argue about individual positions—or explain their responsibility to preserve the institution.

When a company introduces a contentious policy, executives can defend the rules—or connect those rules to dignity, safety and fairness.

When a community must accept disruption in order to build for the future, officials can recite project details—or explain the values that make the disruption worthwhile.

The higher a leader communicates in the hierarchy, the clearer the purpose becomes.

That does not mean wrapping an unpopular decision in lofty language. Values cannot be used as decoration. People quickly recognize the difference between genuine conviction and a communications strategy designed to manipulate them.

A leader’s conduct must substantiate the values being invoked.

If Carney speaks of sovereignty, the agreement must preserve meaningful Canadian autonomy.

If he speaks of fairness, the burdens of his decision cannot be downloaded onto those least able to carry them.

If he speaks of national unity, affected workers, industries, provinces and Indigenous communities must be treated as participants—not props.

If he speaks of courage, he must be candid about the price Canadians may have to pay.

The moment of truth

The official statement announcing the threatened tariffs said Canada would defend its workers, businesses and sovereignty. Next week, those words may acquire a real cost.

That is when values matter most.

Values that disappear under pressure were never values. They were preferences.

Carney’s ultimate test is therefore not whether he can produce a perfect outcome. No such outcome may be available. The test is whether he can make a defensible decision, explain it honestly and stand behind it when the pressure intensifies.

Canadians do not need manufactured certainty. They need clarity about the choices, candour about the consequences and confidence that their government knows what must not be traded away.

The strongest message Carney can deliver is not simply:

Here is what we decided.

It is:

Here is who we are. Here is what we stand for. Here is why this decision protects it. And here is the price we are prepared to bear.

That is communicating with power.

And that is leadership.

This time the targets appear almost random—from hockey sticks to cement a wide range of manufactured and consumer products. Yet collectively they represent an estimated $20 billion in Canadian exports—roughly 5% of Canada’s exports to the United States.

So what will Prime Minister Mark Carney do?

I’m going to stick my neck out and make a prediction.

First, let’s consider what he won’t do.

He can’t—and won’t—do nothing.

Canadians have made it abundantly clear that they do not want their government to roll over and play dead. They expect their Prime Minister to defend Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canada’s sovereignty.

At the same time, Carney doesn’t want to ignite an all-out trade war with someone who is without boundaries and doesn’t respect other countries’ boundaries either.

Mr. Carney’s carefully cultivated image is that of the calm, cool, collected economist—the leader who weighs his words, keeps his emotions in check and responds in a measured, disciplined way. That isn’t simply a political brand; it reflects his entire professional career.

We’ve already seen Canada make unilateral concessions on issues that had become irritants in the relationship with Washington, including the Digital Services Tax and other cross-border disputes. Those moves have not produced the breakthrough many had hoped for.

So if Carney won’t roll over—and won’t escalate rhetorically—what will he do?

I believe he’ll return to the strategy he adopted during the first wave of Trump tariffs.

It’s worth remembering that many of those earlier tariffs, imposed despite the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), were later found by the U.S. Court of International Trade to have exceeded the President’s legal authority, with the litigation continuing through the U.S. appeals process. Nevertheless, the Trump Administration has continued searching for alternative legal avenues to justify new tariffs.

Ironically, the intellectual roots of this protectionist approach stretch back nearly a century to Senator Reed Smoot, co-author of the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930—legislation that many economists believe deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. He’s also inventing the story that Canada has not acted against imports from China that use slave labour in their supply chain. Well I did a contract two years ago with CORE - Canadian Ombudsman for Responsible Enterprise, which activated a series of investigations against a number of major North American importers with world renowned brands who were alleged to have turned a blind eye to their own supply chains in China. So that is false.

So my prediction is this.

Carney will respond with matching counter-tariffs.

If Trump’s new measures affect approximately $20 billion worth of Canadian exports, Canada will impose counter-tariffs affecting roughly the same value of U.S. imports.

And, as before, don’t be surprised if those tariffs are carefully aimed at products originating in politically important Republican—or “red”—states.

The objective won’t simply be economic.

It will be political.

The goal will be to increase pressure on Republican members of Congress from affected states while holding those measures in place through the 2026 U.S. mid-term elections. The purple states - ones that can waiver - will be in play in these mid-terms and will determine how Trump’s final two years will proceed. Will the independents and reachable voters be persuaded by these targeted tariffs on products - and consumers from those states? That is a calculated guess. But doing nothing at this stage will do nothing to move those voters.

If Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives—and with it the chairmanships of key congressional committees—the political dynamics surrounding trade policy could shift significantly. Control of the Senate would be an added advantage, but it isn’t essential to this strategy.

Will everyone be satisfied?

Hardly.

According to the latest Angus Reid Institute poll, more than six in 10 (62 per cent) of Canadians polled by Angus Reid supported retaliatory tariffs of some kind, with 34 per cent saying they want the government to match U.S. tariffs dollar for dollar and 28 per cent supporting limited counter-tariffs, the polling shows.

His critics, however, will argue either that he has not gone far enough—or that he has gone too far. His political opponents are unlikely to support whatever course he chooses.

My prediction?

Mark Carney will neither surrender nor overreact.

He will retaliate—but in a disciplined, calculated and politically targeted way.

Whether that strategy succeeds remains to be seen.

What do you think?

Should Canada respond with matching counter-tariffs?

Should it negotiate without retaliating?

Or is there another strategy that would better protect Canada’s interests?

Subscribe to my Substack and let me know what you think in the comments. I’d genuinely like to hear your views.

So we all waited with baited breath for these new revelations from the Chinese to massive numbers of dead people casting their votes! and every rumor and innuendo from the usual experts, “some people” “ and the usually reliable, “everybody’s talking about it”.

Audio-recorded proof of attempted Presidential election interference!

To be fair to Mr. Trump, there actually exists documented proof of attempted election interference designed to overturn the election results in the State of Georgia, and with it the Electoral votes that would come his way.. Most people in America heard it, including Congress!

Remember this: January 2nd 2021 Trump pressures Georgia’s Secretary of State, “Brad I need to find 11,800 votes!” Time and again in the audio-recorded conference call in a last gasp effort before the January 6th assault on the Capitol, President Trump, alternately cajoled, berated and threatened Brad Raffensperger. He held his own and pushed back at the unproven allegations and fantasies under-pinning Mr. Trump’s case.

Of course, he wasn’t able to mention the one proven effort for all the world to hear!

The Networks did the Right Thing in Refusing to Air it Live (except FOX News)

No doubt much to his disappointment, the networks covered it like “The Great American State Fair” and the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool amazingly repainted in stunning ‘American Blue’ All but FOX News wisely chose not to ‘go live’ with his ‘shocking revelations and proof of election interference in the 2020 Presidential election. Like a gifted carney hustler, Mr. Trump let loose with a tornado of anger, empty promises, and self congratulatory messages. As he told us, “As your President, I am doing a great job.”

Well, I believe the jury has cast their vote on that!

The answer is NO!

Subscribe now

Get more from Barry McLoughlin in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The news that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has suddenly passed away shocked me and millions of people. I immediately flashed back to a time when I met him and when we discussed an amazing possibility.

It was June 20th, 2008 and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was visiting Ottawa at the invitation of U.S. Ambassador to Canada, the Hon. David Wilkins. Laura and I had become friends of the Ambassador and his wife, Susan. They were an amazingly charming and genuine couple, who represented so ably the United States under the leadership of President George W. Bush (who was by then immensely unpopular in Canada). Regardless of the loathing and ridicule of his boss, everyone who knew David Wilkins liked him, respected him and enjoyed his self-deprecating sense of humor, his love of the South Carolina culinary dish of ‘boiled peanuts’.

On a few occasions, Ambassador Wilkins would either call me or invite me over for a coffee and would ask my opinion or advice on some issues. I remember more than once him saying, “they sure don’t tell me that in the State Department”.

By then I had developed a reputation as a political debate trainer (having ‘committed sins on all fronts’ politically in that regard with various leaders across the spectrum). At that time, I didn’t know a lot about Barack Obama but I knew a lot about Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero who had time and again been scheduled to be sent home from the torturous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ which housed American P.O.W’s. Each time his name came up, he passed it up, ensuring that another P.O.W. would go home in his place. He had run against George W. Bush, whose campaign, in turn, had run a nasty campaign against him in 2004. Now he was the front-runner of the G.O.P. going head-to-head against Sen. Obama, one of the least experienced candidates to ever lead his Party into a Presidential election. I liked what I saw but they had their team fully in place, led by David Axelrod, doing an amazing job in this campaign and clearly were on a path to victory.

We of course discussed the Presidential campaigns and at some point I mentioned how it’s clear that the debates were going to be very influential in persuading the ‘undecided’ and ‘independents’ in the Fall. He said, well, you should meet Sen. McCain when he comes up here later in June. I said I’d love that.

Flash forward to June 28th, 2008 and Sen. McCain was doing a ‘meet and greet’ with brief informal remarks, and Qs and As at the Rideau Club. I asked him a question, and was surprised (and yes, pleased) that he seemed to know who I was - no doubt prompted by my name tag, visible in this photograph!

We had a few brief private remarks, and the next thing I’m at the back of the room being introduced to Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Senator’s Campaign Manager. It was clear to me that the Ambassador had shared with him my comments and openness to help Sen. McCain in his debate preparation. I recall that he said, ‘we’d love to have you, but you may have read about some of our internal ‘struggles and one more major change in the campaign would create more problems’.

He was very gracious and sincere in his comments, and even though I had not sought out that possibility, nevertheless, he indicated that he wished the situation were otherwise.

I thought of that this morning, when I heard the news and thought immediately of his strong support of Ukraine, from which he had just returned from meeting with Zelensky, In that moment, I couldn’t help but over-ride my disappointment in his complete turn-about in supporting all things Trump.

In my view, that was so unfortunate, as his legacy was mixed and damaged what otherwise could have been a man of great character that his good friend, war hero and Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain had become.

Anyway, I don’t speak ill of the dead and I liked the man when he was in his prime. Here’s to you Senator, especially from the people of Ukraine and those who once saw the bright light that your represented on the political spectrum!

May the road rise to meet you Senator!

Subscribe now

Get Your Message Across in an Age of Uncertaint

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

In our podcast, Laura Peck and I discuss our experience in that very ballroom in the basement level of the Washington Hilton, famous for the site where Ronald Reagan was sho - right outside the glass doors and windows where the red carpet parading had just occurred prior to the dinner. [And where during that event two protestors somehow appeared - one wearing a mask and the other holding up a poster and calling out his grievances. No one seemed to be surprised - let alone ask how the had got there, right outside the entry door of the ballroom with Donald Trump, JD Vance and most of the Cabinet Members inside!

We had attended the National Prayer Breakfast in that room with Barack Obama in the exact same position where Donald Trump was sitting. Same lack of security. So long as one had their tickets to the event, that was good enough. We also were asked to do the VIP welcomes for the Obama-Biden first official Inaugural Balls in January 2009. We talk about what that involved in terms of security.

What does all this mean for Donald Trump? Well, his response for the most part was solid and unflappable. He messaged that he wanted to continue the event. Then when he was over-ruled by security he pledged to attend it if held in the next 30 days. He then held a ‘press briefing’ in the White House where he actually had a very different tone about the media and the ‘shared’ experience they had just gone through. Will it last? Not really. But it will bump up perceptions of him among his dwindling MAGA supporters.

So check out our podcast and we’d love you to subscribe!

Keep your eye out for information on our upcoming course, “Get Your Message Across in an Age of Uncertainty” a hybrid one-day seminar on how to deal with the information overloaded and heavily disinformation-laced environment. We will be hosting it live at the Shannon School of Business at Cape Breton University on Saturday, June 27th from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (ADT) and it will be conducted in hybrid format across the country and elsewhere. Last year we were pleasantly surprised to welcome over 80 participants and we hope some of you will join us!

Courtesy of the President of the most powerful nation the world has ever known who chose Christians’ holiest day of the calendar - with the Easter Bunny at his side looking out over a sea of young children with their baskets all ready for the egg roll - to threaten to annihilate an entire civilization. Is it possible to conjure up such an event that would dive so low and appeal to those with hate and anger in their hearts? Well it turns out Mr. Trump once again is able to press that button. At least, the Rev. Franklin Graham will be guaranteed to remain onside with Trump’s added prayer, “God Bless the Great People of Iran!”

Never mind that such a threat, if carried out, would be a war crime under the Geneva Convention but would that pose any concern for the Trump team desperate to change the channel on all the bad news and low polls he is facing? Of course not. Besides, the nation almost always rallies around wartime Presidents. Until they don’t.

No coherent narrative. No clear goals. No thought about the Strait of Hormuz

In this case, without a coherent narrative about why launch attacks on the Iranian regime, what the goals of such a war would be, how and when will it end, the public - including the Republicans in Congress and key MAGA supporters could not be persuaded to sign up for this. With the highest gas pump prices in years, with trillions of hard-earned tax dollars needed to finish the job, Americans - and the rest of the world - except for Israel - are definitely not on board. Trump knows it - hence the “you’re on your own” insults against NATO allies in Europe.

From darkness comes the light

Just when the world looks so dark, along comes NASA’s Artemis II with a crew of four, led by Commander Reid Wiseman, and a Canadian Space Agency astronaut, Jeremy Hansen - right out of central casting - the world’s eyes and dreams looked up to a full moon knowing that these heroes are the farthest away that human beings have ever been and circling the moon. The only dark side of that mission was the never-before-seen side of the moon.

Subscribe now

Over one-third of North Americans weren’t even alive when astronauts last walked on the moon. Now they are witnessing something that they had only read about or seen in movies and on their streaming platforms. It is a true wonder of the world - one that seems ever closer to a permanent, nuclear-powered lunar surface base near the south pole with habitat modules supporting long-term human presence. The Artemis II mission.

From this lunar presence will be the springboard to astronauts on board Mars missions.

That is the vision, ever closer now, of the future new world.

Thats’s why, as the late Jesse Jackson would say, we need to “keep hope alive”.

Now I’m going to relax by tuning out the world, the driving habits of Tiger Woods and the increasing global outrages to spend hours in front of my screen watching my favourite golf tournament of all, The Masters.

I feel my blood pressure coming down already!

Until next time!

Check out our Communicate with Power 2026 seminar series