Another conversation between Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump may be approaching, but the trade dispute between their countries remains far from settled. Speaking in Montreal on November 10, Carney indicated that he expects another opportunity to speak with Trump during upcoming international summits in Asia, following a brief conversation over the weekend. The potential encounter comes as Ottawa and Washington attempt to turn renewed diplomatic engagement into meaningful progress on tariffs that have strained Canadian industries and cross-border trade. Although discussions have advanced on sensitive matters involving Canadian sovereignty, language and culture, significant disagreements remain unresolved. With both leaders expected to attend major gatherings in the Philippines and China, another exchange could help maintain momentum toward an agreement, even as uncertainty continues for Canadian businesses, workers and exporters.
Asian Summits Could Provide the Next Opening for Carney and Trump
Carney’s upcoming international trip creates two opportunities for another direct exchange with Trump. Both leaders are expected at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Manila, scheduled for November 16–18, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ meeting in Shenzhen, China, on November 18–19. Speaking at a news conference in Montreal, Carney indicated that he expects another conversation with the American president at one of those gatherings. However, he did not announce a formal bilateral meeting or suggest that a breakthrough was imminent.
The distinction matters because international summits frequently bring leaders together for conversations outside their official schedules. Carney emphasized that he can communicate with Trump regularly, making an extended in-person meeting helpful but not essential. That approach allows Ottawa to maintain contact without making progress dependent on a particular diplomatic encounter. For Canadian businesses following the negotiations, the important development would not simply be another photograph of the two leaders together. It would be evidence that discussions are producing concrete changes to American trade restrictions.
Regular Conversations Have Kept Negotiations Moving
Despite months of difficult relations, communication between Carney and Trump has continued. On November 1, Carney publicly described a constructive conversation with the American president about the future of bilateral trade. He said their respective negotiating teams would continue working toward an arrangement intended to support employment, improve affordability and protect Canadian sovereignty. Trump subsequently told reporters that the two countries had developed the basic concept of an agreement, although important details remained unfinished. Carney disclosed another brief conversation with Trump over the weekend preceding his November 10 remarks.
These exchanges represent a noticeable improvement in diplomatic contact following the collapse of negotiations in August. However, the leaders have sometimes described progress differently. Trump has expressed confidence that an agreement is approaching, while Carney has been more cautious about the remaining disagreements. On November 3, the prime minister said the American side had reduced some of its demands and improved its offers, but negotiations had not reached the point of a completed agreement. The renewed dialogue is encouraging, although it does not guarantee a successful outcome.
The Breakdown in August Still Casts a Shadow
The latest diplomatic activity follows one of the most damaging periods in recent Canada–U.S. trade relations. In August 2026, Canada suspended negotiations after several days of intensive discussions failed to produce an acceptable agreement. Carney argued that Washington had introduced demands that threatened Canadian economic independence and important domestic protections. The Trump administration disputed Canada’s characterization of the breakdown, maintaining that an agreement had been available. Shortly afterward, the United States imposed 50% tariffs on approximately US$20 billion worth of selected Canadian goods, prompting Ottawa to pursue retaliatory measures.
Although those particular tariffs affected only a portion of Canada’s exports, they arrived alongside broader American restrictions on important Canadian industries. The escalation also weakened confidence that the two governments could resolve their disagreements through conventional negotiations. For manufacturers and exporters, the consequences extended beyond the immediate additional duties. Companies faced uncertainty about future orders, investment decisions and the reliability of access to their largest foreign market. The experience explains why Carney has been careful to distinguish encouraging conversations from a completed agreement. A temporary improvement in relations would offer limited reassurance if the underlying trade restrictions remained unchanged.
Canadian Sovereignty and Cultural Protections Remain Important
One of the most sensitive aspects of the negotiations has involved Canada’s ability to make decisions independently of Washington. Earlier American proposals raised concerns about Canadian control over future international trade agreements, as well as protections for French-language rights and domestic cultural programming. Those concerns contributed to the collapse of discussions in August. However, Carney indicated in early November that Washington had withdrawn some of its earlier demands. That change removed several obstacles that Ottawa had considered unacceptable.
The dispute illustrates why negotiations between two closely integrated economies can extend beyond tariffs and commercial access. Canada’s cultural policies, language protections and authority to negotiate independently with other countries are politically significant issues. Ottawa has maintained that a trade agreement must respect these interests rather than treat them as concessions available for bargaining. Carney’s November 10 comments suggested that progress had been made on some of those questions, although difficult matters remained outstanding. The distinction is important: resolving disputes involving sovereignty creates room for further negotiations, but it does not automatically settle disagreements over tariffs, manufacturing investment or market access.
Steel and Automotive Tariffs Remain Major Obstacles
Canadian steel producers and vehicle manufacturers remain among the industries most exposed to the continuing trade dispute. Reuters reported in late October that officials were discussing potential relief from American tariffs imposed under Section 232 of U.S. trade law. Those measures included duties reaching 50% on certain Canadian steel products and a 25% tariff framework affecting automobiles. The actual tariff treatment varies by product and applicable exemptions. Trump has also threatened to increase automotive tariffs to 50% beginning January 1, 2027, adding uncertainty to manufacturers’ longer-term planning.
The automotive dispute is particularly complicated because Canadian and American factories operate within highly integrated production networks. Vehicles assembled in one country may contain engines, transmissions, electronics and other components manufactured across the border. Additional costs or changes to trade rules can therefore affect companies and employees in both countries. For Canadian steel producers, access to American customers remains similarly important. Negotiators must determine whether relief would apply broadly enough to provide meaningful certainty or only cover selected products. An agreement that reduces some duties while leaving major restrictions untouched could produce an improvement without fully resolving the pressures facing Canadian manufacturers.
Canadian Workers Are Already Feeling the Consequences
The economic consequences of the dispute are particularly visible in Canada’s automotive industry. On November 9, Stellantis announced an agreement to sell its idled Brampton, Ontario, assembly plant to Canadian defence manufacturer Roshel. The facility had previously been designated for Jeep Compass production, but Stellantis shifted those plans to Illinois. More than 2,000 employees were laid off after operations stopped in 2023. Carney criticized the sale, arguing that the automaker had failed to honour commitments to Canadian workers. Roshel has discussed potential new manufacturing opportunities, but the future of employment at the facility remains uncertain.
Smaller manufacturers are also experiencing significant pressure. Reuters reported in November that Canada’s kitchen cabinet industry, which employs nearly 25,000 people, had already lost more than 10% of its workforce amid difficult trading conditions. Quebec manufacturer Cabico reportedly experienced a 25% reduction in shipments and laid off more than a quarter of its approximately 700 employees. These examples demonstrate how trade restrictions can influence decisions about hiring, production and investment. For affected families, the negotiations are about more than diplomatic relationships. They could influence whether manufacturing jobs remain in Canadian communities or move elsewhere.
U.S. Election Results Have Changed the Political Landscape
The November 3 American midterm elections introduced another significant factor into the negotiations. Democrats secured major victories and are preparing to challenge elements of Trump’s tariff policies when the new Congress takes office in January. Senator Ron Wyden, a leading Democrat on trade and taxation matters, has identified tariffs against Canada as a priority for potential repeal. The issue has attracted attention because American businesses and consumers also face costs associated with the restrictions. However, congressional opposition does not guarantee that existing tariffs will disappear.
Carney has emphasized that the Trump administration remains Canada’s principal negotiating counterpart, regardless of changes in Congress. Speaking in Montreal, he indicated that the American executive branch would continue to make the crucial decisions about trade agreements. His comments also addressed Quebec’s plans to contact American lawmakers and state officials directly. Although such outreach could build political support for Canada, Carney stressed the importance of maintaining a coordinated negotiating position. Trump also retains the ability to veto legislation that would repeal his tariffs, creating substantial obstacles for Democrats. Ottawa must therefore weigh the benefits of negotiating an imperfect agreement now against the uncertain possibility of broader tariff relief through Congress.
The Future of CUSMA Adds Another Layer of Uncertainty
The immediate tariff dispute is unfolding alongside a larger disagreement about the future of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, commonly known as CUSMA. The trade pact entered into force in July 2020 and underwent its first mandatory six-year joint review on July 1, 2026. During that review, Washington declined to renew the agreement in its existing form. Importantly, this decision did not terminate CUSMA. The agreement remains legally in effect, with further annual reviews required unless the participating countries agree to an extension. Without renewal or another legal change, its current term runs through 2036.
The scale of North American commerce explains why this uncertainty matters. According to the Canadian government, Canada and the United States exchanged approximately C$3.5 billion in goods and services daily during 2025. Statistics Canada also reported that the American market accounted for 71.7% of Canadian merchandise exports that year. Businesses rely on predictable trade rules when making investments in factories, transportation networks and long-term supply arrangements. A limited bilateral tariff agreement could provide immediate relief without resolving broader disagreements over CUSMA’s future. Consequently, Carney’s negotiations with Trump involve both short-term commercial pressures and questions about the long-term structure of North American trade.
Asian Trade Agreements Could Help Canada Reduce Its Dependence on the U.S.
Carney’s international trip has a broader purpose than maintaining diplomatic contact with Washington. Between November 11 and 19, the prime minister is scheduled to visit Ireland, the Philippines, Cambodia and China, seeking stronger economic and political partnerships. In Manila, Canada hopes to advance a free trade agreement with ASEAN that Ottawa estimates could unlock more than $3.5 billion in Canadian exports. The government is also pursuing a separate agreement with the Philippines, which it projects could triple bilateral trade by 2035. Both initiatives represent potential opportunities rather than completed agreements.
Diversification has already become a measurable part of Canada’s trade performance. Statistics Canada reported that merchandise exports to countries outside the United States increased 17.2% in 2025, although the American market remained overwhelmingly important. Carney also expects to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping during the APEC summit, where he plans to discuss economic cooperation and concerns about foreign interference. Building stronger international relationships could improve Canada’s negotiating position over time. Nevertheless, replacing the scale, proximity and established supply chains of American trade would be exceptionally difficult, making an agreement with Washington economically important even as Canada pursues new markets.
The Next Conversation Will Be Judged by Results
As Carney prepares for another potential exchange with Trump, the central question is whether renewed diplomatic engagement can produce measurable improvements. Progress could include lower tariffs on Canadian steel and automobiles, clearer rules governing cross-border shipments, or commitments that reduce uncertainty about future trade restrictions. Any agreement would also need to address Canada’s concerns about sovereignty and the stability of its economic relationship with the United States. With Trump having threatened additional automotive tariffs beginning in January 2027, delays could become increasingly costly for affected industries.
The upcoming summits provide an opportunity for both leaders to maintain momentum, but expectations should remain measured. Carney has emphasized that direct meetings are beneficial without being indispensable, reflecting the importance of continued negotiations between government officials. Even a productive conversation may result in additional technical discussions rather than an immediate announcement. For Canadian workers, manufacturers and exporters, the strongest indication of progress would be a documented agreement with clear provisions and implementation dates. Until such an outcome emerges, Canada’s trade relationship with its largest economic partner will remain uncertain, despite signs of improving communication between the two governments.
