“I expect Ottawa will quietly fold shortly after the vote.”

Why is a firm closely related with Mark Carney and the Liberals telling the world to expect that Canada will acquiesce to American demands after the election?

This morning, Ian Bremmer, the President of the Eurasia group—an American, high-powered consulting firm—published a detailed analysis of the state of the United States' transatlantic relationship under President Donald Trump's administration.

The piece included a blunt assessment of Canada's path forward:

"America's largest trade partners, Mexico and Canada, are facing more significant trade pressures from the Trump administration, but the imbalance of power is such that they have no credible strategy to push back. Everyone understands they'll have to accept Trump's terms eventually; the only question is whether capitulation comes before or after a costly fight. Riding an 85% job approval, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has enough domestic political space to yield to Trump's demands to keep Mexico in his good graces, as she is already doing. By contrast, Canadian leaders have a political incentive to put up a bigger fight because Trump's threats toward Canada's economy and sovereignty have sharply inflamed nationalist sentiment north of the border in the run-up to the April 28 elections. However, I expect Ottawa will quietly fold shortly after the vote to ensure that ongoing relations with the US remain functional."

Suggesting that the war for reasonable trade terms with the Americans is already over is quite the assertion, particularly given the breadth of Canada's economic potential and strategic geopolitical importance. So how did Bremmer so confidently arrive at this remarkably negative conclusion about the Canadian government's future strategy with the Americans?

The article itself was silent on any specific rationale, but a quick scan of Bremmer's company's senior staff could answer that question. Gerald Butts, one of the governing Liberal Party's most senior advisors, is Eurasia's Vice-Chairman. Evan Solomon, the publisher of GZERO media (Eurasia's media arm), was announced as a 'star' candidate in a seat historically held by the Liberals last week. Diana Fox Carney, Liberal Party leader and Prime Minister Mark Carney's wife was, until very recently, listed as a senior advisor on Eurasia's site (it's unclear if she still works for them).

So, did Bremmer arrive at his conclusion that Canada would "have to accept Trump's terms eventually" and that "Ottawa would quietly fold shortly after the vote" from discussions with any of these people? Should it be taken as the Liberal’s post election plan for tariffs should they form government? Given the lack of specific plans from the Liberals on how they plan to counter the threat of American tariffs and the cozy relationship between them, it's a question worth asking.

That's because, as Bremmer suggested, it's not a stretch to imagine that after tricking the Canadian electorate into giving them a fourth term, the Liberals would, in fact, simply capitulate to Trump's demands. That’s because to date, the Liberal campaign has been heavy on "elbow's up" rhetoric and light on details on how they functionally plan to reverse the economic damage inflicted upon the country after a decade of government. Years of opposing the development of national resources, driving up government debt, and allowing Canada's military to atrophy left the country in a weakened state vis a vis its ability to fight significant external threats such as the Trump administration's tariffs. Being short on short on new ideas and political ability to reverse course, the Liberals left a lot of space for Donald Trump's recent comments that he'd prefer the Liberals to win because it would be better for him to ring true.

To be clear, the tariffs proposed by the Trump administration are completely unjustified and are an affront to the positive relationship Canada and the United States have enjoyed under the auspices of mutually beneficial agreements for decades. They are creating uncertainty and negative economic impacts on both sides of the border. But these tariffs have also presented the Liberals with a convenient political scapegoat upon which to blame a series of Canadian crises that festered under their past decade of government. The tariffs will undoubtedly exacerbate existing affordability problems and further weaken Canada's ability to create jobs. These structural economic problems need to be solved simultaneously with a smart, salient plan to address the American tariff crisis.

This is why Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre's announcements designed to create resilience in the Canadian economy are so important. Aggressively cutting personal income tax, incentivizing investments in Canadian businesses, and accelerating the development of Canada's natural resources are all steps in the right direction on that front.

At a bare minimum, the Liberals should explain why a man so closely tied to senior members of their apparatchik is publicly pronouncing Canada's prospects of surviving American tariffs as dead on arrival. But alas, crickets.

Elbows up, indeed.