Front Burner - Mark Carney and the New World Order

Episode Date: January 20, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this week, as the situation with Greenland continues to escalate. Carney’s Davos trip is coming on the heels of a visit to China and Qatar where the Prime Minister made deals with both countries. Last year, he called China the biggest threat to Canada’s security, but now he talks about a “new world order” and says “we take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”Aaron Wherry, senior political correspondent, joins us to talk about how Carney is navigating this new reality.

This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always overdelivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing. Donate at lovescarbro.cairro.ca.

This is a CBC podcast. Hey, everybody. It's Jamie. We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. Well, the world as it is seems to be changing by the moment, which is what Prime Minister Mark Kearney is faced with in Davos, Switzerland this week, where European leaders are scrambling to deal with a message Donald Trump sent to Norway's Prime Minister that reads like a Greenland Ransom Note. where Carney and others are being invited to pay a billion dollars to join the so-called Board of Peace,

whose goal is to plan Gaza's future, or is it to replace the United Nations? It's not clear. And all of this off the PM's visit to China and inking trade deals that have pleased some premiers, angered others, and made some Republicans furious. We're going to parse through Mark Carney's new world order today with Aaron Wary, senior political correspondent and very good friend of the show. Aaron, hey. Hey.

There is much to talk about. I will just say I have never seen a stretch of news like this since what's been going on since New Year's. It's one of the most extraordinary news cycles. Certainly the most extraordinary news cycle I think I've ever covered. But let's start with Greenland. Reports came out this week that Canada is considering sending a small contingent of soldiers to Greenland for military exercises with our NATO allies. You and I are talking around 3 p.m. Eastern on Monday,

and the Army is waiting for final approval from Carney. His decision is apparently supposed to be imminent. Trump has already announced tariffs that he says will come soon against eight European countries over his desire to own Greenland and their desire to not have him own Greenland and to let Greenland decide its own destiny. What do you think Carney is weighing here? So I'll lean on some of the reporting from my colleague, Murray Brewster, on the weekend, who put it this way, given the political implications of Canada joining and the potential blowback from the Trump administration, sources said they're not certain which way the government is leaning. I think that is probably a decent summation of where things stand. You know, it seems to kind of be a regular refrain, I guess, now in Canadian. actions and Canadian relations with the rest of the world is how is the United States going to react to this. In this case, you don't really even have to necessarily theorize because

you've already seen him. President Trump, that is, threatened tariffs against several European nations if they do not agree to essentially hand over Greenland to the United States. Citing the deployment of a small number of European NATO soldiers to Greenland, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, Trump says eight European countries in the United States. including Britain, will get hit with a 10% tariff on February 1st. He said the amount will rise to 25% in June and stay until there's a deal to sign Greenland over to the United States. And so when you're the Prime Minister of Canada in this particular moment, I think you probably always have to ask yourself, if we do this,

what could the blowback be and is it going to be a tariff and what kind of damage could be done? And that doesn't necessarily mean you don't do it, but I think you probably always have to consider it. It's a serious situation. And we're concerned. We're concerned about this escalation. You know, I'm sure you saw this letter sent by Trump to the Prime Minister of Norway, where he ties his acquisition of Greenland to him not winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He talks about how Norway didn't give him the prize.

And because of that, quote, I do not think purely of peace, but also of what is best for the U.S. I just give that example because this is really escalating by the day. There was also a report from NBC over the weekend, which has been making the rounds. It quotes anonymous U.S. officials. And it lays out how Trump has in private been apparently complaining to AIDS about Canada's vulnerability in the Arctic to China and Russia. There was mentioned in the article that Trump wanted to strike some kind of deal with us this year around fortifying our northern border. or, you know, talk to me a bit about how this could be influencing the Canadian government right now. Yeah, so the concerns about the Arctic from the United States, from Canada, they're not new.

And, you know, I think in other contexts, the Americans having concerns about the Arctic wouldn't necessarily be caused for alarm. Of course, in this case, you know, given what Trump has said about Greenland, given what Trump has said about Canada in terms of the 51st state, I think people get understandably concerned when they hear that the United States is eyeing the Arctic and is worried about our ability to defend it. And I thought Philippe Lagasse, a professor who focuses on defense policy, had an interesting post over the weekend where he said, you know, there's this concept of kind of defending against help. And he said, quote, essentially Canada must do all it can to ensure its own security and defense, lest our larger ally declare that they have to do it for us. you can sort of see the conversation moving in that direction or could see it moving in that direction is, you know, part of the reason Canada needs to invest in national defense, part of the reason Canada needs to reinforce Arctic defense specifically is because we don't want to give the United States the excuse that it needs to step in because we can't do it. You know, you see the president already making that argument with Greenland, right? That the reason the United States needs to be there is because, because, you know, the United States is needed to defend against Russia and China. Now, there's all sorts of problems with that argument.

And as Mark Carney said on the weekend himself, the security of Greenland very much falls within the responsibilities of NATO. But when you see a news report that Trump is worried about the Arctic, I think you have to kind of connect it to Greenland and say, okay, what do we have to do to sort of head this off? Yeah. And, you know, the article said that the president is not currently talking about annexing Canada in private or stationing American troops on our land at the moment. So I guess there's that.

But, you know, I do just want to point out that there are people in his orbit, right, who are kind of ramping up the language here. I was listening to mega-strategist Steve Bannon over the weekend. Talk about how. When you talk about the Arctic North, which used to be Canada's great barrier, it's now their biggest. biggest exposure. This is why I say they could be the next Ukraine. And that we, Canada, are in the vital national security interest of the United States. He talked about how... Right now, Canada is rapidly changing. And I'm going to tell you, if you look at Parliament, if you look at some of these papers, you look at the discussion on TV there, these people are hostile to the United States

of America, not neutral. They're hostile to the United States of America, sir. So I mean, this was a real ratcheting arm. Yeah. Look, I can't speak to how much influence Steve Bannon. and has in the White House at this point. Although it's, you know, useful to remember he was in the White House for the first Trump term. But given everything else that's going on in the world, giving everything else that the United States is doing on foreign policy, on, you know, trying to extend its sort of sphere of influence, it's hard to just brush that off, I guess. Mine is the first visit of a Canadian Prime Minister to China in nearly a decade. The world has changed much since that last visit.

I believe the progress that we have made in the partnership sets us up well for the new world. order. So contending with this escalating situation with Greenland and our Arctic is one of several needles that Carney is trying to thread right now as he operates in this new world order. I mentioned in that intro, that quote from him that's actually been getting a lot of attention where he says we take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. He said that in response to a question about a deal that Canada has struck with China, despite its human rights track record and despite the fact that nearly a year ago, Carney himself called China, the biggest security threat facing Canada. And let's talk about that deal now. Today, Canada and China have reached a preliminary but landmark, a landmark trade agreement to remove trade barriers and reduce tariffs. A lifting of Chinese tariffs on our canola pork seafood in exchange for us opening up our market to Chinese EVs somewhat. Longer term, Ottawa is holding out the possibility of Chinese investment in our auto industry. Canada now has set the goal of doubling our exports to China by the end of this decade.

What kind of reactions have we seen to the deal here at home? I think we have predictably seen a pretty divided reaction. What had happened was that two sectors of the Canadian economy were essentially being pitted against each other. We had put tariffs on Chinese EVs in the name of protecting the North American auto industry, and China had responded by putting tariffs on Canadian canola. that industry is primarily based in the West and particularly in Saskatchewan. And so Carney comes back with relief on canola tariffs and exchange, essentially in exchange, for allowing a certain number of Chinese-made electric vehicles into Canada.

And somewhat predictably, you know, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is quite happy with that arrangement. I think it's a great day for Canadians. Notwithstanding some discussions that I'm sure we'll have in the next number of days and weeks. but all in all it is going to be a net positive with the Canadian economy and going to provide us some opportunities to really engage on what our future looks like over the next 5, 10 and 15 years. And Ontario Premier Doug Ford,

where the auto industry is based, is quite unhappy about it. They say it's only 49,000 vehicles. Folks, it's really 33% of the EV sales in Canada. And once the camel gets his head in the tent, his whole body's in the tent. and you aren't getting rid of them. Remember this speech.

And I think that is, you know, one of the things that it was always, and I think we've talked about this before, was always going to be hard for the prime minister, any prime minister to do, was to keep everyone on the same page and keep everyone together because there were going to be difficult choices to be made and things were going to affect different parts of the country in different ways.

And this is a reminder of how hard that's going to be. And I think you have to kind of now wait to see, you know, is there more he, Mark Carney, the federal government can do to support the auto industry to address Doug Ford's concerns? Because dealing with this new world as it is right now is going to be hard no matter what, but it only gets harder if this country, if the different parts of this country are fighting with each other. The EV deal is to allow 49,000 EVs into Canada over a period of time, right, at a low tariff. Just put that into context for me a little bit more. Yeah, so Mark Carney's argument on this is that... 49,000 vehicles, which is the cap on Chinese electric vehicle exports to Canada, that's part of this agreement.

That's a return to levels last seen in 2023, the last full year before the Canadian tariff actions. I don't know that that necessarily, you know, appeases anyone in the North American auto industry. you've seen, you know, both industry and union voices say they're deeply concerned about this. I think it's tied up in a much larger conversation about where the industry is going, you know, both in terms of the cars it makes and in terms of the North American industry writ large with obviously the comments that Donald Trump has made. You know, I won't claim to be an expert in the automotive industry or, you know, in particular of EVVs, but it feels like it's one step in a much larger conversation, I think.

And just on the deal with China writ large, I think there are tons of people in this country that realize that we're in a very precarious position because of the United States. But there was also criticism of the deal, right? And just what kind of caution signs or red flags are people holding up since the deal was announced? And what are their arguments behind it? So I think there's a couple. One is, in particular, on electric vehicles, where is this going to leave the Canadian North American industry? And is this going to undercut that industry in particular? I think there's also, you know, concerns are raised about Chinese EVs in terms of security of information, in terms of security, you know, for people who are using these vehicles. I find it ironic that the prime minister is using a burner phone and all the staff over in China. But we're making a deal. It's Huawei 2.0. to come back into Canada and we get nothing but potential job losses in our factories right across the board. I think there's also, you know, always concerns about dealing with China. It is a remarkable sort of change from where we were, right? Relations with China were about as bad as they could get after the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavar.

various other issues had come up foreign interference by agents of the Chinese government had been raised as a big concern in the last few years. Justin Trudeau was probably not in a position to go and make this kind of deal, but I think the world is a very different place right now. Ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always over delivers.

You've got to be six thousand. 500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors, all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing. Donate at lovescarbro.cairbo.ca. Why BDC for my business? The timing's right. Everything's in motion. Economy's changing. It's all about automation, AI. So I said to myself, take the plunge. Yes, I need a loan, but I also need a hand.

from a partner who's truly working with me, helping me, no matter what comes next. Not later. Now. Get ready for what's next. With BDC, you get financing and advice adapted to your projects. Discover how at bDC.ca.ca slash financing. BDC, financing, advising, no-how.

Trump's reaction to the deal with China. I don't know about you. I did not think that he was going to react like this. He's asked about it and he just says, Well, that's okay. That's what he should be doing. It's a good thing for him to sign a trade deal. If you can get a deal with China, you should do that.

Why do you think he responded that way? Is it a psych? Does he actually think that? I mean, there's maybe part of him that just appreciates dealmaking and sees Mark Carney doing something to make a deal and thinks, well, that's good. You should do that. I guess the doubt that creeps in is, if you remember back a few months ago,

when Ontario started running that ad in the United States with Ron Reagan criticizing tariffs, his initial reaction to that was essentially, well, yeah, that's what they should be doing, you know, they're putting up a fight kind of thing. And then days later, he was quite upset about the whole thing and he was breaking off talks. So I guess it's interesting to see him praise or say that he likes the idea or that he, you know, thinks it's fine that we're doing this. I think the question then becomes like, is that going to hold? or, you know, a week or two from now, are we going to have to worry about the American administration finding a reason to be mad about this? Right. And just on that note, that he could change his tune at any moment, like, we are seeing reactions in the United States that are absolutely not as magnanimous as this.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Canadians will, quote, live to regret the day. They let the Chinese Communist Party flood the market with their EVs and the Select Committee on China. led by a Republican congressman put out a statement saying that we are threatening thousands of jobs and that we should essentially reconsider, given the USMCA renewal that is coming up. So, of course, this could have an impact on those negotiations. Worth noting, I guess, that the president called USMCA irrelevant last week. Less headline making than the trip to China. Carney also is in Qatar this weekend, where we saw a commitment for investment in our national

building projects, plans to work together on AI, quantum defense technologies, and anything from this deal and trip that you want to home in on? Or do you see this is really just like another example of this larger strategy to get out there and diversify our trade? Yeah, I think there's a lot in there that will be picked through in the days and weeks ahead and we'll see what comes of it. But it does seem to fit within the larger pursuit of finding new partners finding new alliances. I believe the prime minister said it was the first time a prime minister of Canada had been to that country. I think it fits within the larger effort by Carney to really get out there and make as many alliances, build as many relationships as possible

because we're facing a situation where our largest partner is maybe not our most predictable partner at this point. What did you make of Carney's comments where he essentially conceded? that China was a more predictable partner than the U.S. But yes, in terms of the way that our relationship has progressed in recent months with China, it is more predictable. And you see results coming from that. Yeah, it's a very interesting comment. It's also, at least from the outside, hard to argue with.

I mean, again, to maybe pick up on a theme we've talked about a few times now already, is you always wonder when a comment like that gets made, what's the American reaction going to be? And I think, you know, Mark Carney attaches a lot of caveats to the Chinese relationship in terms of, you know, guardrails and things they don't agree with and, you know, areas in which Canada and China aren't in a position to work together. You know, he talked about how the United States was, it's a much bigger, multifaceted relationship and it obviously is. but it's still remarkable to think that, you know, a prime minister can go to China and say that that country is at least, you know, he didn't put it this way, but is at least more predictable than, you know, our closest ally and partner who we've, you know, share a border with and have had this relationship with for decades, if not centuries. Let's move on to the Board of Peace, shall we? So as Carney navigates this relationship with Trump, where he is at the moment patting him on the back for his deal with China, but at the same time calling U.S.MCA irrelevant, reportedly complaining to his aides that were too vulnerable in the Arctic and continuing to threaten a fellow NATO member, he also invites Congress. Carney to join his Gaza Board of Peace, which is ostensibly designed to solve conflicts around the world, starting with Gaza.

First, what do we know about how this invitation went down? And why do you think he asked Carney to be on it? So it sounds like it was a direct request or that Donald Trump raised it with Mark Carney directly. It's not clear, I guess, from the outside at least, how much was sort of laid out at that point. because I think if you follow the sequence of events, Canadian officials say Prime Minister Carney has been invited to participate in this Board of Peace. Then reports come out that say, oh, actually, it's, you know, a billion dollars to participate. Then there were sort of, then there are sort of subsequent reports from CNN that say, well, it's a billion dollars to participate if you want a lifetime membership. But if you don't, then it's a three-year term. You can look at it and say that it seems to suggest perhaps that, you know, Donald Trump,

Trump has some kind of personal respect for Mark Carney. I think, though, the question then becomes whether Mark Carney wants to participate. You know, we've seen reports now that Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, is going to take a part, which obviously raises questions about, you know, whether Western allies who are essentially supporting Ukraine against Russia right now would want to be involved in that. You know, if you listen to Mark Carney in his comments this weekend, said, well, there's a lot of things. we agree in principle to participate, but there's a lot that has to be worked out. The president raised it with me a few weeks ago. I said, you know, in principle, yes, obviously, consistent with what I just said, I will do what I can do.

We will do as Canada, what we can do to achieve those core humanitarian objectives. And I think that's, you know, another moment where Canada is going to have to decide exactly how it engages with this because I think you can you can see the argument that if you're Mark Carney, you want a seat at the table, you know, if the president has invited you, you know, it's maybe a good idea to participate. But if you're participating in something that, you know, you're going to be sitting around a table with Vladimir Putin, is that necessarily something you want to be part of? Yeah. And, you know, you're this country that touts the importance of multilateral institutions and like, here's the President of the United Nations

General Assembly saying that the UN is the only institution with the moral and legal ability to bring together every nation, right? And so something like this kind of would undercut that. You know, just to come back to these comments, the Kearney made, we take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. It's not lost on me that former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is supposed to be in Davos this week as well, and he's supposed to be giving a talk on soft power. And of course we are in a different moment, but I do think it's worth marveling at the shift here. If you could give a heading or descriptor to the foreign policy we saw under Trudeau versus the foreign policy or is he now under Carney. Like, what would they be to you?

You know, it's hard to sum up foreign policy because there's always exceptions to every sort of doctrine. And, you know, I think you could debate for a long time. Justin Trudeau's foreign policy record sort of amounted to. But I think, you know, there was a certain amount of values-based foreign policy with Justin Trudeau that he wanted to project certain values on the world stage, gender equality, diversity, concern for climate change, belief in democracy in human rights, belief in multilateralism. And that's what kind of defined his approach to foreign policy and sort of the image Canada was projecting to the world. And I don't think Mark Carney has dropped all of those things necessarily, but it feels like a much more, you know, realpolitik approach to say we deal with the world as it is.

I think actually Mark Carney has used the phrase values-based realism. And it feels like this is Mark Carney. You know, look, he was asked the question in the context of human rights in China and he said, look, we have concerns. We've raised them. But, you know, that statement felt like a kind of. argument that, look, the world is the way it is right now and we need to deal with it. And it also felt like a bit of a statement of the world that we have right now is not the world we had a year ago. And we have to deal with that. And, you know, I think you can see that in all sorts of things,

right? Like wanting to build a new pipeline and even going to China on its own, you know, that's not necessarily something that people would have been looking for the prime minister to do a year ago. And maybe they wouldn't be doing it if a Democrat was in the White House. Maybe the situation would be so different that we wouldn't need to. And so there's always the sort of push and pull and I think informed policy between sort of realism and values and can you do both and so on and so forth. But I think he's leaning on the realism and it's a big test of where he can go with that and what it looks like. But I think it's also just a reminder of how different a world we're in right now and what that means and what that requires.

Erin, thank you. Anytime. All right. That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.