By Derek H. Burney

February 27, 2026

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney often remarked that the two principal challenges facing any Canadian Prime Minister were national unity and managing relations with the United States. Mulroney excelled at both, which contributed significantly to his back-to-back majority election victories.

Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney faces daunting challenges on both of these files and, so far, his prescriptions for success are neither clear nor certain.

Carney’s most serious deficiency is a weak cabinet with too many holdovers from the decade of drift under Justin Trudeau.

Fresh, competent talent is urgently needed, particularly from Quebec and Western Canada, where separatist sentiments are gaining ground. Carney could draw from Lester Pearson’s experience when, in the 1960s, separatism was on the rise in Quebec.

Pearson actively recruited the “Three Wise Men” from Quebec to bolster the Liberal Party’s image and voice in the province: Jean Marchand, a prominent labour leader; Gérard Pelletier, an equally prominent journalist; and, most notably, public intellectual Pierre Trudeau.

All had been actively opposed to the Duplessis government in Quebec, Trudeau and Pelletier had founded a publication, Cité libre, to express their liberal views. History shows how well the experiment worked, ushering in nearly 16 years of government led by Trudeau and anchored by his two Quebec colleagues.

There are no obvious candidates in the Liberal party today, either in Ottawa or in Quebec, and that is a deficiency that could prove fatal.

The paucity of Liberal talent in Western Canada is similarly bleak, with no obvious candidates waiting in the wings there either. One solution may be to contemplate a national unity coalition with the Conservatives, particularly to bolster prospects in the West. Picking off obscure M.P.s to gain a majority in the House is not a sustainable solution.

On relations with the U.S., Carney faces a challenge similar to that facing leaders of many erstwhile American allies. Yet none is as reliant on the U.S. as Canada for prosperity and security.

A partnership defined for decades by mutual trust and mutual respect today lacks both due mainly to the mercurial antics of America’s leader. How or why should any foreign leader rely on the trust of this U.S. president on any negotiated agreement?

The administration blatantly used ‘might is right’ shakedown tactics to coerce agreements with trade partners. They euphemistically refer to this tactic as “leverage”, but it is described more appropriately by Stephen Walt in the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs as “predatory hegemony.”

The midterm elections may confuse matters even more but a deadlock between Congress and the administration could at least stymie capricious actions on trade.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a stunning verdict that sharply rebuked the administration’s use of the Emergency Powers Act to justify sweeping tariffs, but Trump has no more respect for the Court’s judgment than he does for the interests of would-be allies.

Any hope that the SCOTUS verdict and the mess it leaves in terms of possible repayment of funds extracted by the unconstitutional tariffs would change Trump’s approach is likely futile. Trump has already imposed an unhinged 10% global tariff to replace his initial scheme, with threats of an escalation to 15% still pending.

The midterm elections may confuse matters even more but a deadlock between Congress and the administration could at least stymie capricious actions on trade. Despite Trump’s marathon State of the Union address intended to convince americans that all is well, his political fortunes are waning.

Americans do not sense that they are living in a “Golden Age.” Though Trump’s sycophantic advisors are reluctant to admit it, tariffs are proving costly to American business and to American livelihoods. It was true in the 1930’s and it is true today.

In these circumstances, Canada should respond cautiously but firmly on the re-negotiation of the CUSMA. The original and current trade agreements with the U.S. were anchored on the principle of mutual benefit.

In the initial Free Trade Agreement (FTA), Canada negotiated a binding dispute settlement mechanism to offset the power imbalance. Negotiations verged on failure until we succeeded in obtaining exactly that, but no-one then or now contemplated the wrecking-ball behaviour of a rogue president.

The best advocates for the mutual benefit of our trading relationship are American businessmen, farmers and others who rely on imports from, and exports to, Canada. They have been cowed for too long and need to speak out and encourage Congress to act on its constitutional authority for trade.

Congress can, as before, grant negotiating power to the Administration with the results subject to its approval, but its guidance should be based on a mutually beneficial outcome, not a one-sided agreement favouring U.S. interests.

An unbalanced agreement would be worse for Canada than no agreement at all even if it means, as former Prime Minister Stephen Harper observed recently, that we must be ready to assume “heavy sacrifices.”

We should keep open the option of reciprocal tariffs or restrictions on energy products including oil and electricity that the U.S. needs in order to demonstrate convincingly that we are not powerless and do indeed have leverage.

Prime Ministerial trips to India and Japan — the latter is long overdue — are commendable, as is the overall goal of trade diversification, but results will not flow overnight.

Carney’s appointee to replace former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman as chief trade negotiator, Janice Charette, provides experienced, safe hands for the negotiation.

But Charette must crave the support and panache of a modern-day Simon Reisman, who often conducted trade negotiations the way the Tkachuk brothers play hockey. His expertise on trade enabled him to speak truth to power convincingly to the Americans.

Most importantly, Mark Carney desperately needs fresh cabinet talent that can deliver legislatively and politically. Words are not enough. The provinces need to commit unflinchingly to a consistent Team Canada approach.

The country needs timely, concrete actions that will help manage these two most urgent challenges. We may have the will, but we need to chart the way. Extraordinary times do indeed call for extraordinary measures.

Policy Contributing Writer Derek H. Burney is a former 30-year career diplomat who served as Ambassador to the United States from 1989-1993. He led the Canadian delegation in concluding negotiations of the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement.