EventStatement
CFR (Alden and Manak): Carney has promised to diversify Canada's trade with new infrastructure, but Canada's alternatives to the US are few
The day after Canada's Apr 28, 2025 election, Edward Alden and Inu Manak of the Council on Foreign Relations noted Carney's promise 'to diversify Canada's trading relationships with new infrastructure investments' but judged that the strategy 'faces strong headwinds': 75% of Canada's exports go to the US, and China and India are both difficult partners. They concluded, quoting Canadian diplomat John W. Holmes, that Canada 'can disagree with the United States but not reject it.'
- Date
- Kind
- Statement
- Where
- United States
- Evidence
- Statement: Something was said. Weighted lowest: words cost less than actions. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (acted); Edward Alden (acted)
Articles that cite this record
Sources
- CFR, “What Mark Carney's Election Win Means for Trade and U.S.-Canada Relations” (external site), . source record
Quotes
“He has also promised to diversify Canada's trading relationships with new infrastructure investments”
From CFR: What Mark Carney's Election Win Means for Trade and U.S.-Canada Relations, paragraph beginning "It is notable that Carney's first foreign trips"
Claims that rest on this event
- Canada's build-out was not obvious in advance. The US Energy Secretary said new Canadian pipelines were hard to build and did not expect the oil trade to change; conservative US analysts expected only a Conservative government to unleash oil and gas; and after Northern Gateway and Energy East fell through, 'Canada won't build' was a reasonable default. Some analysts foresaw Canada selling elsewhere, but in the US public record we found no one who predicted it would build fast and keep supplying the US. It is a surprising result that needs explaining.
Analysts expected Canada to try to diversify its trade with new infrastructure, while noting its alternatives to the US were few.
Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment
Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.
Non-discriminating: this event fits the plain self-interest reading and the foresight reading equally. It does not tell them apart. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Commentary that Canada's diversification faces headwinds fits all intent and rival readings equally. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Commentary that Canada's diversification faces headwinds fits all intent and rival readings equally. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Commentary that Canada's diversification faces headwinds fits all intent and rival readings equally. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Commentary that Canada's diversification faces headwinds fits all intent and rival readings equally. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | Commentary that Canada's diversification faces headwinds fits all intent and rival readings equally. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Neutral weak | Commentary that Canada's diversification faces headwinds fits all intent and rival readings equally. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Neutral weak | Commentary that Canada's diversification faces headwinds fits all intent and rival readings equally. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Neutral weak | Commentary that Canada's diversification faces headwinds fits all intent and rival readings equally. |