海角社区官网

We heaved a national sigh of relief when his initial executive orders merely instructed U.S. officials to study bilateral trade issues, reporting back by April 1.

Hours later, we were back in the abyss, after Trump casually repeated his 25 per cent tariff pledge, now for Feb. 1.

Is there any method to Trump鈥檚 to-and-fro madness? The optimistic view is that he鈥檚 creating leverage to bargain on other issues: border security, defence spending, our Digital Services Tax (hated by the tech billionaires hogging the front row at inauguration).

The pessimistic view is that Trump has bigger, nefarious ambitions: to go down in history as the first president in 65 years to enlarge America.

Either way, Canada is in big trouble.

Even in the optimistic scenario, and we avoid the tariff through concessions on other issues, we鈥檝e learned where we stand. More importantly, global businesses have also learned where we stand. The usual sales pitch that Canada offers low-cost guaranteed access to U.S. markets is no longer credible.

Indeed, the flight of business investment following Trump鈥檚 threat (even if he doesn鈥檛 follow through) will likely be the worst consequence of this chaos. And that is probably his main goal: to show companies if they want to sell in America, they need to be in America.

If Trump鈥檚 strategy works, he will use it again. The idea of a rules-based trading system (whether in North America, or globally) is out the window. We are back to an era in which brute force rules. And Canada needs to get ready.

Bluntly, Canada once again confronts the fundamental challenge of preserving a viable economic and democratic entity that is more than the northern hinterland of an integrated continental behemoth.

The border is not an 鈥渁rtificial line,鈥� as Trump claims. And it is not just a 鈥榝riction鈥� interfering with efficient trade.

understand that borders can foster investment, development, and prosperity in places where they wouldn鈥檛 have occurred otherwise.

Of course, that鈥檚 on top of the even more important dimensions of sovereignty that borders facilitate.

To preserve our viability as a going concern in the face of Trump鈥檚 aggression, Canada needs an emergency national response. This should include:

• Emergency aid for export industries while they retool and reorient marketing to both other countries and domestic consumers.
• Expanded access to employment insurance and other supports to help workers survive a disruption that will likely destroy one million direct jobs (and many more spillover impacts).
• Redirect the main thrust of our economic development strategy away from trade, and toward doing things by Canadians for Canadians. There鈥檚 lots to do in that regard. An emergency plan to build affordable housing, infrastructure, renewable energy, and domestically-oriented manufacturing could more than replace the jobs destroyed by Trump.

The content and context for this emergency strategy are both reminiscent of the original National Policy聽implemented by John A. Macdonald鈥檚 Conservative government in 1878. That plan included high tariffs on manufactured imports, tariff reductions on imports of raw materials and unfinished goods, and extensive financial and other assistance to develop Canadian industry.

A modern National Policy would likely use different tools (with more focus on innovation, capital investment, and sustainability). But the overarching goal聽鈥� to develop a diversified, self-reliant national economy with critical mass to exist independently from the U.S.聽鈥� is identical.

Moreover, the original National Policy followed a failed attempt by Alexander Mackenzie鈥檚 Liberals to negotiate free trade with the U.S. It was fundamentally motivated to resist America鈥檚 19^th-Century expansion.

Fast forward to 2025, and it鈥檚 d茅j脿 vu all over again. Yes, we had a trade deal with the U.S., but it was useless (Trump unabashedly ignores it). And expansionism is clearly on the agenda again: Trump鈥檚 inauguration speech pledged to 鈥渆xpand our territory,鈥� days after he proclaimed using 鈥渆conomic force鈥� to absorb Canada.

The threat is existential, the coming debates will be fierce, and the burden of adjustment will be high.

But if we stand up as we did at other defining moments in our history, Canada could emerge as a more independent country than we have recently imagined.