A Strategic Agreement on Electric Vehicles and Agriculture
The agreement Carney reached with China during his visit to Beijing last week represents a significant shift in Canada’s trade policy, which had previously followed the U.S. lead by imposing a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum from China. In response, Beijing had imposed 100% tariffs on Canadian canola oil and canola meal, as well as 25% tariffs on Canadian pork and seafood. The new agreement allows 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles per year to enter the Canadian market at a tariff rate of 6.1%, which corresponds to the volumes seen in the year prior to the recent trade friction over these imports, representing less than 3% of the Canadian market for new vehicles sold annually.
In exchange for this concession on electric vehicles, China has committed to significantly reducing its tariffs on several key Canadian products, notably canola seeds, whose combined tariff rate will drop from approximately 85% to 15% by March 1, 2026, thereby opening up a US$4 billion market for Canadian producers. Beijing has also agreed that Canadian canola meal, lobsters, crabs, and peas will no longer be subject to the relevant anti-dumping duties from March 1, 2026, through at least the end of the year. Together, these outcomes are expected to unlock nearly $3 billion in export orders for Canadian workers and businesses as they realize the full potential of China’s massive market of 1.4 billion people.
This negotiation reminds me of the fundamental principles of economic diplomacy: knowing how to give a little to gain much more. Carney understood that the Canadian electric vehicle market is too small to justify a prolonged confrontation with Beijing, especially when vital agricultural sectors like canola were suffering disproportionately. There is a certain elegance to this pragmatic approach, which prioritizes the concrete interests of Canadian farmers over rigid ideological stances. This is not weakness; it is strategic intelligence. Canada is not becoming a client state of China; rather, it is using its market as leverage to secure tangible concessions. This is the harsh reality of international trade in the modern era, where principles must sometimes yield to economic imperatives to protect the livelihoods of our fellow citizens.
Expected Investments in the Canadian Automotive Industry
One of the most controversial aspects of this agreement concerns expectations regarding Chinese investment in the Canadian automotive industry. Carney indicated that he anticipates this agreement will lead to significant new joint Chinese investments in Canada with trusted partners within three years, which should protect and create new automotive manufacturing jobs for Canadian workers and ensure robust development of Canada’s electric vehicle supply chain. The Prime Minister also emphasized that within five years, more than 50% of these vehicles are expected to be affordable electric vehicles with an import price of less than 35,000 Canadian dollars, thereby creating new, lower-cost options for Canadian consumers.
This prospect of Chinese investment in the automotive sector has, however, raised significant concerns in the United States, where Trump and his advisors fear that Canada could become a “gateway” allowing Chinese manufacturers to circumvent U.S. tariffs and flood the U.S. market with vehicles assembled in Canada. These concerns were amplified by a video message released by Trump in which the CEO of the Canadian Automotive Manufacturers’ Association warns that there will be no Canadian auto industry without access to the U.S. market, noting that the Canadian market alone is too small to justify large-scale manufacturing by China.
U.S. concerns about a potential Chinese “gateway” via Canada are not without merit, but they also reflect a certain economic paranoia characteristic of the Trump administration’s trade approach. There is something ironic about seeing the United States—which has itself long used Mexico as a low-cost manufacturing base—now worrying that Canada might serve as a gateway for Chinese products. This geopolitical hypocrisy strikes me every time I hear American protectionist arguments, which seem to forget that the rules of international trade must apply equally to everyone—not just when it suits Washington. The Canadian auto industry finds itself caught in this turmoil, forced to navigate between the conflicting demands of its main trading partner and the opportunities offered by other expanding markets. It is a precarious position that serves as a stark reminder of the structural vulnerability of the Canadian economy, despite all the progress made in recent decades.
Section 2: Donald Trump's Fierce Response
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1348092378-optimized-madmax-mkv0pedw.jpeg)
Threats of Unprecedented Economic Sanctions
Donald Trump’s reaction to the Canada-China agreement was as swift as it was fierce, turning what was initially presented as a minor trade adjustment into a major international crisis. On Saturday morning, the U.S. president threatened to impose a 100% tariff on all Canadian goods entering the United States if Canada “reaches an agreement with China”—a deliberately vague phrasing that leaves Ottawa in the dark about the exact scope of potential trade restrictions. In his post on Truth Social, Trump taunted Carney by calling him “Governor,” a derogatory nickname he had previously used for his predecessor Justin Trudeau, thereby suggesting a certain condescension toward the Canadian leadership.
The U.S. president has not let up on his attacks since then, posting a new message on Sunday afternoon in which he claimed that China “is succeeding and taking complete control of the once-great country of Canada. So sad to see this happen. I just hope they leave ice hockey alone!” He added in another post that “the deal with China is a disaster for them. It will go down in history as one of the worst deals of any kind in history. All their companies are moving to the United States. I want to see Canada SURVIVE AND THRIVE!” These ill-timed statements were amplified by other members of the U.S. administration, notably Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who told ABC’s “This Week” that “we cannot let Canada become a gateway through which the Chinese flood the U.S. with their cheap products.”
The verbal vitriol of these Trump-style attacks astounds me every time I read them. There is something almost caricature-like about the way the U.S. president treats Canada—not as a sovereign and respected ally, but as a threatened possession in need of his protective guardianship. The paternalistic and condescending tone of these messages reveals a profound misunderstanding of Canadian reality and a staggering arrogance on Washington’s part. What strikes me in particular is how quickly Trump has shifted from apparent indifference to open hostility, suggesting that his reaction is driven less by genuine economic concerns than by domestic political calculations and a constant need for dramatization. Canada thus finds itself caught up in Trump’s media storm, reduced to a prop in a political spectacle that has little to do with the actual interests of both nations.
The Apparent Inconsistency of the U.S. Position
One of the most striking features of the U.S. reaction to the Canada-China agreement remains its temporal inconsistency. Last Tuesday, during a White House press conference, Trump stated that the trade agreement between Canada and China was “a good thing,” adding that “that’s what he should do. “It’s a good thing for him to sign a trade agreement. If you can get a deal with China, you should do it.” This statement contrasts sharply with the threats of sanctions that followed, creating considerable confusion regarding the U.S. administration’s true position and the specific criteria that would trigger the imposition of 100% tariffs.
Scott Bessent attempted to clarify the U.S. position by specifying that the tariffs would be applied only if Canada went “further”—that is, if it allowed Chinese manufacturers to flood the U.S. market with products—but this wording remains vague enough to keep Ottawa in a state of constant uncertainty. This strategy of calculated ambiguity appears deliberate, allowing the Trump administration to maintain maximum pressure on Canada without committing to concrete actions that would have immediate economic consequences for both countries. Moshe Lander, a professor of economics at Concordia University, analyzed this approach, noting that “at the end of the day, to exert influence over Canada, you have to ensure that Canada has no options,” suggesting that Trump is deliberately seeking to limit Ottawa’s trade alternatives to maximize his bargaining power during the upcoming review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement scheduled for this summer.
This apparent inconsistency in the U.S. position comes as little surprise to me, as it reflects the fundamentally transactional and unpredictable nature of the Trumpian approach to foreign policy. There is something almost Machiavellian about this strategy of creating chaos to better manipulate allies, using uncertainty as a bargaining chip. What particularly concerns me is that this approach risks destabilizing trade relations that have functioned relatively well for decades, replacing predictability with calculated unpredictability. Canada finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to guess at U.S. intentions rather than being able to plan based on clear and stable rules. This is a recipe for long-term economic failure, regardless of the short-term political satisfaction it may bring to Washington.
Section 3: Implications for the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_767350314-optimized-madmax-mkv0phh0.jpeg)
Contractual Obligations Under USMCA
In his defense against the U.S. accusations, Carney emphasized that Canada is fulfilling its commitments under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (USMCA), which requires each of the three countries to notify the others in advance if it wishes to pursue a free trade agreement with a non-market economy such as China. This specific clause in the North American trade agreement is intended to prevent any of the partners from entering into preferential trade agreements with economies that do not adhere to the same market standards, thereby protecting the integrity of the North American free trade area against potential unfair trade practices.
However, the interpretation of what exactly constitutes a “free trade agreement” remains a matter of debate, with Carney asserting that the agreement he reached with China represents only a limited tariff adjustment rather than a comprehensive free trade agreement. Dominic LeBlanc, the Canadian minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade, reinforced this position by stating that “there is no pursuit of a free trade agreement with China. “What has been achieved is a resolution of several significant tariff issues.” This semantic distinction is of paramount importance, as it could determine whether Canada has technically violated the provisions of USMCA or whether it has remained within the scope of permitted tariff adjustments.
The legal complexity of this situation fascinates me. Carney navigates the intricacies of contractual language with surgical precision, seeking to define the precise boundary between an acceptable tariff adjustment and a prohibited free trade agreement. There is something almost Kafkaesque about this situation, in which the future of trade relations between two historic allies hinges on the interpretation of a few contractual clauses and subtle semantic definitions. What strikes me is just how much international trade law has become a political battleground where every word counts and every sentence can be exploited to justify radically opposing positions. Canada finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to prove its legal good faith in an environment where bad faith seems to have become the norm in international relations.
The Prospect of a Turbulent Renegotiation
Trump’s threats come at a particularly critical moment, as the renegotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement is already scheduled for this summer. Scott Bessent explicitly mentioned this imminent renegotiation during his interview with ABC, noting that the agreement will be renegotiated “this summer” and expressing uncertainty about Carney’s exact intentions, suggesting that he might simply be trying to “engage in virtue signaling to his globalist friends in Davos.” These comments clearly indicate that the U.S. administration plans to use the China issue as a bargaining chip in the upcoming talks, potentially seeking concessions from Canada on other issues in exchange for relative trade peace.
The atmosphere surrounding these upcoming negotiations is all the more tense given that relations between Trump and Carney have deteriorated considerably since the Canadian prime minister’s speech in Davos, where he warned against U.S. hegemony and asserted that “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” Trump reacted to that speech by declaring that “Canada lives off the United States. “Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements,” a remark that was perceived in Ottawa as an explicit attempt at intimidation. This verbal escalation suggests that this summer’s negotiations could be among the most difficult in the history of Canada-U.S. trade relations.
The prospect of these negotiations fills me with a certain apprehension, but also with a strange fascination. We are witnessing a historic moment in which the trade architecture that has underpinned North American relations for decades is being fundamentally challenged. Carney seems to have understood that the status quo is no longer tenable and that Canada must position itself differently in an emerging multipolar world, but this transition is extraordinarily risky. There is something almost tragic about this situation in which Canada must choose between continued dependence on an increasingly unpredictable ally and economic diversification that could provoke immediate retaliation. This is the kind of strategic dilemma that defines periods of historical transition, and I cannot help but think that the decisions made over the coming months will shape Canada’s position in the global economy for generations to come.
Section 4: Canada's Trade Diversification Strategy
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_767351741-optimized-madmax-mkv0pkk3.jpeg)
The Goal of Reducing U.S. Dependence
The agreement with China is part of a broader trade diversification strategy that the Carney government is actively pursuing, as Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand emphasized during an interview on CBC’s “Rosemary Barton Live.” The minister stated that Canada needs to “protect and strengthen the Canadian economy, and trade diversification is fundamental to that. “That’s why we went to China, that’s why we’ll go to India. And that’s why we won’t put all our eggs in one basket.” This statement reflects a growing awareness in Ottawa that Canada’s excessive dependence on the U.S. market represents a major strategic vulnerability, particularly given that the United States appears willing to use its economic power as a tool of political coercion.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs also mentioned the concrete initiatives Canada is already implementing with other like-minded countries, citing the “coalition of the willing” on Ukraine as an example of effective international collaboration. Anand noted that she had met in Davos with a group of countries seeking to address Ukraine’s energy needs in the face of Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable strikes against its power grid, adding that “these are the kinds of pragmatic steps we will continue to take as middle powers to ensure we respond to the current situation.” This multilateral approach stands in stark contrast to the unilateralism characteristic of the Trumpian approach.
This diversification strategy strikes me as both courageous and necessary, although it carries obvious risks. There is something profoundly sound about Canada’s desire to reduce its excessive economic dependence on a single partner, no matter how important that partner may be. The expression “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” has become a cliché for a reason: it expresses a fundamental truth of risk management that Canada has ignored for too long. However, what concerns me is that this transition toward more diversified trade is taking place against a backdrop of significant hostility from the United States, which could make the transition far more painful and costly than necessary. The political courage to pursue this strategy despite U.S. pressure is admirable, but its success will depend largely on Canada’s ability to execute this transition with skill and precision.
The Challenges of Reorienting Toward Asia
The reorientation of Canadian trade toward Asia presents considerable challenges that go far beyond relations with the United States. Geographic distances, cultural differences, language barriers, and distinct trade structures create significant obstacles that Canadian companies will need to overcome to succeed in Asian markets. Furthermore, trade relations with China in particular remain complex due to persistent concerns regarding human rights, national security, and unfair trade practices—concerns that prompted Canada’s initial sanctions against Chinese products.
Despite these challenges, Canada has set an ambitious goal of increasing its exports to China by 50% by 2030—a goal that will require massive investments in infrastructure, the development of export capabilities, and the establishment of sustainable trade relationships with Asian partners. The focus on the energy, clean technology, agricultural products, and wood sectors reflects a recognition that Canada possesses specific competitive advantages in these areas that can be leveraged in rapidly growing Asian markets. However, achieving this goal will depend on Canada’s ability to skillfully navigate between economic imperatives and geopolitical considerations.
The challenges of this pivot toward Asia sometimes seem insurmountable to me, and yet I am struck by the absolute necessity of this transition. There is something both noble and desperate about Canada’s attempt to reinvent itself as an Asian trading power at a time when the major powers are retreating into their respective spheres of influence. What particularly fascinates me is the constant tension between the economic opportunities presented by growing Asian markets and the geopolitical risks inherent in this increased proximity to a China that is becoming increasingly assertive on the world stage. Canada is walking a tightrope, seeking to capitalize on trade opportunities without compromising its core values or its long-term security. It is an extraordinarily difficult balancing act, and I cannot help but admire the boldness of those who are attempting to pull it off despite all the obstacles.
Section 5: Political Reactions in Canada
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_865338475-optimized-madmax-mkv0pnn7.jpeg)
Mixed Support from the Provinces
The reactions of Canadian provinces to the agreement with China reflect the deep geographic and economic divisions that characterize the Canadian federation. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew defended the agreement during an interview on CTV’s “Question Period,” stating that “this is the reality Canada finds itself in, and I hope Canadians will be ready for this journey because we need to be able to negotiate and reach agreements with China,” adding that trade with countries like China is “a truly delicate balancing act.” Kinew had previously urged the federal government to remove its tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in order to get Beijing to lift its tariffs on Canadian canola and pork products.
However, other provinces strongly oppose the federal government’s approach, notably Ontario, whose Premier Doug Ford has opposed reducing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, citing risks to Ontario’s auto industry, which relies heavily on integration with U.S. manufacturers. This provincial divide creates an additional political challenge for Carney, who must navigate the conflicting interests of eastern and western provinces while managing complex relations with the United States. At the upcoming meeting of premiers scheduled for January 29 in Ottawa, these divisions are likely to come to the fore in a dramatic way.
These provincial divisions remind me once again of the fundamental complexity of the Canadian federation. There is something deeply ironic about how regional economic interests can divide the country on foreign policy issues, turning what should be a matter of national sovereignty into a provincial battleground. Manitoba and Ontario represent two radically different visions of Canada’s economic future, and their differences reflect economic realities that are equally valid. What strikes me is the difficulty of reconciling these conflicting interests in a federation where each province has its own perspective on what “the national interest” means. Carney finds himself in the impossible position of having to satisfy mutually exclusive demands, and I cannot help but think that this type of federal-provincial dilemma has become a permanent feature of Canadian politics.
Canadian Unity in the Face of U.S. Pressure
Despite these differences, Kinew stated that “unity is very strong across the different regions of the country,” adding that there is “no debate at the premiers’ table or the premiers’ roundtable that each of us is a proud Canadian and will do what is necessary to ensure our country’s freedom and that people in this country can put food on the table for generations to come.” This statement suggests that, despite their differences on specific trade strategy, Canada’s provinces are uniting to defend Canada’s sovereignty in the face of what is perceived as unacceptable U.S. interference in Canadian domestic affairs.
This apparent unity, however, masks deep-seated tensions regarding the best strategy for managing relations with the United States. Some advocate a more conciliatory approach aimed at allaying U.S. concerns, while others support a firmer stance that defends Canada’s right to pursue its own trade interests regardless of U.S. concerns. These internal debates reflect a broader question about the future of Canada’s role in the global economy and how the country can preserve its economic sovereignty in a world increasingly dominated by rivalries among major powers.
Canadian unity in the face of U.S. pressure moves me deeply, even if it sometimes seems more for show than real. There is something poignantly Canadian about this ability to unite in the face of an external threat, even when internal divisions are deep and irreconcilable. The expression “putting food on the table” perfectly captures the essence of Canadian pragmatism, which transcends ideological and regional divisions. What strikes me most is how this crisis has forced Canadians to reflect on what their national independence truly means and on the sacrifices they are willing to make to preserve it. There is a certain nobility in this collective determination to survive and thrive despite the enormous pressures exerted by their powerful southern neighbor—a nobility that deserves to be recognized and celebrated.
Section 6: Potential Economic Consequences
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_734378383-optimized-madmax-mkv0pqpy.jpeg)
Trade Crisis Scenarios
The imposition of 100% tariffs on Canadian exports to the United States would represent an unprecedented economic catastrophe for Canada, where approximately 75% of exports are destined for the U.S. market. The hardest-hit sectors would include the automotive, aerospace, agriculture, energy, and natural resources industries, all of which are critically dependent on unrestricted access to the U.S. market. Economic analysts estimate that such a measure would lead to massive job losses, a deep recession, and a major financial crisis in Canada, with ripple effects throughout the entire North American economy.
Even if the announced tariffs are not implemented, the mere threat creates uncertainty that is already paralyzing investment and business decisions. Canadian companies are reluctant to invest in new capacity or commit to long-term contracts as long as the future of Canada-U.S. trade relations remains uncertain. This uncertainty has real economic costs that are already manifesting as a reduction in economic activity and a decline in investor confidence, creating a pre-crisis situation even before any concrete measures are taken.
The potential economic consequences of this crisis send a chill down my spine. There is something terrifying about the prospect of a recession caused by political decisions rather than by fundamental economic factors. What strikes me in particular is the power imbalance between Canada and the United States: a U.S. decision can devastate the Canadian economy, while the consequences for the United States would be relatively minor by comparison. This structural vulnerability is a stark reminder of the limits of Canadian sovereignty, despite all the progress made over the decades. It is the kind of situation that forces us to reflect on the true nature of national independence in an interconnected world, and on the inevitable trade-offs between economic integration and political autonomy.
Opportunities for Structural Transformation
Paradoxically, this crisis could also represent an opportunity for Canada to structurally transform its economy and reduce its excessive dependence on the U.S. market. Increased pressure to diversify export markets could accelerate investment in transportation infrastructure to Asia, the development of new production capacities tailored to Asian markets, and the establishment of more resilient and diversified supply chains. This transformation, while painful in the short term, could strengthen Canada’s position in the global economy over the long term.
Furthermore, the crisis could catalyze massive investments in Canadian innovation and productivity, forcing Canadian companies to become more competitive in order to survive in more challenging international markets. This competitive pressure could ultimately benefit the Canadian economy by forcing it to evolve beyond its traditional reliance on natural resources and privileged access to the U.S. market. However, this transformation will require significant public investment and a clear strategic vision to succeed.
The idea that this crisis could represent an opportunity for structural transformation strikes me as both bold and perhaps a bit too optimistic. There is something almost Stoic about this attempt to see the positive in what could be a major economic catastrophe. What strikes me is how easily we rationalize crises as opportunities for change, when for millions of Canadians, these “opportunities” will mean job losses, financial hardship, and profound uncertainty. Nevertheless, I am forced to admit that history shows that periods of crisis are often when the most profound transformations occur, precisely because the status quo becomes unsustainable. There is something deeply human about this ability to find meaning and hope even in the darkest moments, and this quality strikes me as particularly Canadian.
Conclusion: The Future of North American Trade Relations
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_809702305-optimized-madmax-mkv0pttb.jpeg)
A Historic Turning Point
The current crisis surrounding the Canada-China agreement represents a historic turning point in North American trade relations and in Canada’s position in the global economy. After decades of increasing economic integration and growing dependence on the U.S. market, Canada finds itself compelled to reassess its trade strategy and seek to diversify its economic partnerships. This transition is all the more necessary as the United States appears determined to use its economic power as a tool of political coercion, calling into question the very foundations of the special Canada-U.S. relationship.
The decisions made over the coming months will shape Canada’s economic future for generations to come. The country can either continue to rely excessively on an unpredictable and potentially hostile partner, or embark on the difficult transition toward a more diversified and resilient economy. Carney appears to have chosen the latter path, despite the immediate risks it entails, convinced that continued dependence on the United States represents an unsustainable strategic vulnerability in the long term.
This historic turning point fills me with a deep sense of melancholy. There is something tragic about the end of an era of relative stability and shared prosperity, replaced by a new era of uncertainty and economic conflict. What strikes me most is the speed with which this transformation has taken place: in just a few years, trade relationships that seemed eternal have been fundamentally called into question. I cannot help but think of previous generations who built this trade framework with optimism and confidence, and who would likely be horrified to see their work dismantled so quickly. There is something deeply sad about the realization that progress is never guaranteed, and that the institutions we consider permanent can crumble under the weight of shifting political forces.
A Test of Canadian Resilience
The current crisis also represents a major test of Canadian resilience, both economically and politically. Canada must demonstrate creativity, determination, and unity to navigate this hostile environment while preserving its core values and national sovereignty. The country’s ability to diversify its economic partnerships, invest in its productive capacities, and maintain national cohesion in the face of external pressure will largely determine its future success.
The coming years will be crucial for Canada as the country seeks to reinvent itself as a more autonomous and diversified trading power in an emerging multipolar world. Carney laid the groundwork for this transformation through his trip to China and his speech at Davos, but implementing this vision will require a sustained national effort and significant sacrifices. Canada can emerge from this crisis stronger and more resilient, but only if it manages to overcome internal divisions and pursue a coherent vision for its economic future.
As I reflect on Canada’s future in this new global trade landscape, I am overcome by a complex mix of emotions: concern, certainly, but also a strange sense of pride and even a certain hope. There is something deeply inspiring about Canadians’ determination to preserve their sovereignty and build their own economic future despite the enormous pressures exerted by their powerful neighbor. This crisis has revealed strengths and capabilities that I may have underestimated: the creativity, resilience, and unity that can emerge even in the most difficult times. What moves me most is the conviction that, whatever the outcome of this crisis, Canada will never be the same again, and that this transformation, though painful, could ultimately make it stronger and more self-reliant. In this moment of historic uncertainty, I find some comfort in the thought that great nations are forged in great crises, and that Canada may finally have the opportunity to truly become itself.
Sources
Primary Sources
Government of Canada, “Prime Minister Carney forges new strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China focused on energy, agri-food, and trade,” official press release, January 16, 2026. Prime Minister of Canada Website. Government of Canada, “Joint statement of the Canada-China Leaders’ Meeting,” joint statement, January 16, 2026. Prime Minister of Canada Website.
Secondary sources
Rob Gillies, “Carney says Canada has no plans to pursue free trade agreement with China as Trump threatens tariffs,” Associated Press/Yahoo News, January 25, 2026. Stephanie Ha, “Carney insists Canada has ‘no intention’ of seeking free trade deal with China,” CP24, January 25, 2026. Benjamin Lopez Steven, “No plans for China free trade deal, Carney says as Trump fixates on Canada,” CBC News, January 25, 2026.
This content was created with the help of AI.
