Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Chinese Communist Party Leader Xi via Carney’s Facebook

Canada’s globalist Prime Minister Mark Carney’s long-anticipated trip to Beijing appears to be marked by a striking pivot away from Canada’s traditional alliances and toward deeper engagement with Communist China.

Claimed by Carney as a necessary adjustment to a “new world order,” the visit instead underscored Ottawa’s growing willingness to accommodate Beijing—and push away the United States—at a moment of geopolitical upheaval.

The prime minister of America’s neighbor to the north gushed over Chinese President Xi Jinping, praising his “leadership” during public remarks—language that raised eyebrows both at home and abroad.

For a North American leader—and the head of state of a 5 eyes country—to laud the head of a one-party authoritarian state was seen as slightly more than mere diplomatic courtesy. It looked like deference.

The visit was the first by a Canadian prime minister to China in eight years and comes amid deeply strained relations with America.

Rather than attempting to mend ties with Canada’s closest ally and largest trading partner, Carney seemed eager to showcase Beijing as a strategic alternative—a move that looks like the application of globalist pressure on the Trump administration.

Speaking alongside Chinese officials in a press conference, Carney celebrated what he called “rapid progress” in Canada-China relations. He pointed to cooperation across energy, agriculture, finance, and so-called people-to-people exchanges, hinting at a broad re-alignment of Canadian economic priorities.

I would like to know exactly what Mark Carney means when he says Canada’s partnership with China “sets us up well for the New World Order.”

“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.

“And… pic.twitter.com/B8NDoa4QM7

— Billboard Chris (@BillboardChris) January 15, 2026

Carney’s invocation of a “new world order” was especially controversial. While offered a neutral language of global transition, critics noted that it echoed Beijing’s preferred framing of a world less anchored in Western norms and democratic accountability.

Make no mistake, the timing of the trip was no accident. Carney has repeatedly described Canada’s relationship with the United States as having suffered a historic rupture, particularly after trade disputes and President Trump’s rhetoric toward Ottawa.

Rather than negotiate from strength, however, Carney arrived in Beijing signaling accommodation. He cast China as a stable, predictable partner—an assertion that holds little, if any, meaning given Beijing’s history of coercive trade practices and political retaliation.

Chinese state media, viewing the meeting as a massive foreign policy win, of course wasted no time exploiting the optics. Commentaries openly portrayed Canada as a country seeking “strategic autonomy” by loosening its alignment with the United States and embracing Chinese markets instead.

Behind the scenes, Carney, a globalist whose private career in finance was marked by extensive dealings with China, met with executives from major Chinese state-linked firms, including energy giants and battery manufacturers. These meetings reinforced perceptions that economic expediency was taking precedence over national security concerns.

Those concerns are not theoretical. Canada’s relationship with China deteriorated sharply after the 2018 arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, followed by Beijing’s detention of Canadian citizens on dubious espionage charges—a stark reminder of how Beijing weaponizes access and leverage.

Carney, however, seems eager to put that history behind him. His government has expressed hope of easing Chinese tariffs on Canadian agricultural exports while reconsidering its own tariffs on Chinese EVs.

What made the visit particularly controversial were renewed questions about Carney’s past business dealings in China. During his private-sector career, Carney cultivated extensive ties to Chinese financial and corporate interests, relationships that critics argue now cast a long shadow over his policy choices.

Throughout his political rise, Carney has of course insisted those ties pose no conflict of interest. Still, his conspicuous warmth toward Beijing has fueled skepticism that Canada’s national interests are being subordinated to globalist economic instincts.

Even members of Carney’s own delegation appeared uneasy. Observers noted visible surprise when the prime minister spoke glowingly of Xi’s leadership, while journalists accompanying the trip were reportedly advised to carry burner phones due to surveillance concerns.

Canada’s industry minister, for his part, attempted to reassure reporters that Ottawa is approaching China with “eyes wide open.” The contrast, however, between those assurances and the tone of Carney’s remarks was difficult to miss.

Meanwhile, Chinese officials remarked that the visit was undeniable proof that Western resistance to Beijing’s influence is eroding. Its state-run media outlets openly warned Canada not to return to a China policy shaped by America’s priorities.

The episode appears to highlight a deeper problem. In the face of pressure from the United States, Canada’s leadership chose not to defend sovereignty or democratic alignment, but to shop for alternatives among authoritarian powers.