Carney showed Canadians his weakness by paying “ransom” to Trump over Gordie Howe Bridge opening

If the US can extract concessions on a bridge it did not pay for, what will stop it from doing the same on pipelines, rail corridors, or energy grids?

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can be found on Substack

Mark Carney’s government has now provided the clearest evidence yet that Canada’s “elbows‑up” strategy, which he promoted after becoming prime minister, is over. The prime minister who promised Canadians that their country would no longer be pushed around or intimidated by the United States under Donald Trump has instead delivered a humiliating concession over the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge—an infrastructure project that Canada fully funded, managed, and built. And yet, when the moment of truth arrived, Carney folded.

To understand the scale of this capitulation, Canadians need to revisit the history of the bridge itself. The Gordie Howe International Bridge was conceived as a long‑overdue modernization of the Windsor–Detroit crossing, a corridor responsible for on average US$360 million in daily trade between Canada and the US. The existing 96-year-old  Ambassador Bridge—owned by the Moroun family, a private US business dynasty—had long been a chokepoint, a monopoly crossing plagued by aging infrastructure and political interference.

In 2012, after years of obstruction from the Ambassador Bridge owners, Canada and the Obama administration signed a binational agreement, that began construction of a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.  Under the arrangement Canada would pay the full cost of the new bridge—$6.4 billion—and in return Canada would collect 100% of toll revenues until its investment was recouped. Only after Canada recovered its costs would profits be split 50/50. It was a fair deal, a rational deal, and a deal that was supposed to protect Canadian taxpayers.

Then Donald Trump entered the picture.

According to multiple investigative reports, the owners of the Ambassador Bridge donated $1.5 million to a Trump‑aligned MAGA PAC shortly before the Trump administration began obstructing the bridge’s opening with claims of a bad deal for the US. The timing was not subtle and the intent was not hidden. The Ambassador Bridge owners wanted to delay or derail the Gordie Howe Bridge, and they were willing to pay whatever it took to do it.

Being the corrupt, transactional thug that he is Trump delivered.

The Trump administration signaled that the bridge would not open unless Canada renegotiated the financial terms of the original deal. In other words: the United States demanded a ransom, and Mark Carney paid it.

The new arrangement—forced on Canada under threat of indefinite delay—hands the United States benefits it never earned and concessions it never paid for. The US contributed nothing to the bridge’s construction. Yet Carney agreed to a deal that gives Americans a share of profits, a veto over toll increases of more than 10%, and access to a US‑only economic development fund financed by toll revenue.

The specifics of the “ransom” Canada paid include:

• 15‑Year Profit Sharing: Canada still collects toll revenue, but 50% of net profits for the first 15 years will be diverted to a US regional development fund—money to which Canadians will not have access;
• US Toll Governance: Canada must obtain US consent to raise tolls more than 10% or lower them below regional averages. In other words, Canada no longer controls the pricing of the bridge it paid for.
• US‑Only Reinvestment: The diverted profits will be spent exclusively on American infrastructure and economic projects. In other words, Canadians will fund it but only Americans will spend it.

This is not partnership, or diplomacy, or respect between two sovereign nations.  It is extortion and blatant gangsterism.  And Carney’s response to Trump’s thuggery was not “elbows up.” It was “hands up.”

The prime minister who once declared that Canada would no longer be intimidated has now demonstrated the opposite. Canada can be taken into a back room by a gangster‑style US president and beaten until it agrees to whatever Washington demands. Trump threatened to block the opening of a bridge Canada built, and Carney surrendered.

This is not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern we have seen since Trump returned to office, one where Trump threatens and Canada capitulates.

Carney has repeatedly shown weakness in the face of US pressure. His government’s digital services legislation—originally intended to ensure fair taxation of tech giants like Amazon, Google and Meta operating in Canada—was rescinded on June 30, 2025 in order to restart trade talks with the US. The result was that Canada gained little given that trade talks are still effectively halted.  It conceded much to the detriment of Canadians, and once again demonstrated that US threats and intimidation can bend Ottawa’s spine.

The Gordie Howe Bridge fiasco is not an isolated embarrassment—it is the clearest, most visible symptom of a deeper structural failure. Carney’s decisions have not fortified Canada’s sovereignty in its relationship with the United States; they have steadily eroded it. No matter how loudly the Carney government advertises its other international “wins,” the reality is unavoidable: Canada is emerging from these confrontations with the Trump administration weaker, more vulnerable, and more dependent on the goodwill of its single largest trading partner.

Consider the symbolism. The bridge was meant to be a triumph of Canadian initiative, a strategic investment in national economic security. Instead, it has become a monument to American coercion and Canadian capitulation. The country that paid for the bridge now needs permission to operate it from the country that paid nothing.

Carney’s defenders will argue that the deal was necessary to avoid further delays. They will say that opening the bridge is vital for trade, for jobs, for the economy. And they are right about the importance of the bridge. But they are wrong about the price paid.

Canada could have stood firm. Canada could have insisted that the original agreement be honoured, and even sued in US and Canadian courts. Canada could have refused to renegotiate under duress. Instead, Carney rewarded extortion with concessions.

The consequences will echo far beyond Windsor and Detroit.

First, Canada has signaled to the United States that bullying and extortion works. If Trump—or any future US administration—wants something from Canada, they now know the formula: threaten economic disruption, apply political pressure, and wait for Ottawa to fold.

Second, Canada has undermined its own credibility. A country that cannot defend a $6.4‑billion investment it fully funded cannot credibly claim to be a sovereign equal in North American negotiations.

Third, Canada has set a dangerous precedent for future infrastructure projects. If the US can extract concessions on a bridge it did not pay for, what will stop it from doing the same on pipelines, rail corridors, or energy grids?

Carney’s failure of resolve isn’t merely a political misstep. It is a direct threat to Canada’s national security posture.

This nation’s prosperity depends on cross‑border infrastructure. If that infrastructure becomes a bargaining chip for US political actors, Canada’s economic future becomes hostage to American domestic politics. And if Canada’s prime minister cannot stand up to a US president who openly uses extortion as a negotiating tactic, then Canada is not negotiating—it is submitting.

The Gordie Howe Bridge should have been a symbol of Canadian strength. Instead, it has become a symbol of Canadian vulnerability.

Carney promised Canadians that he would lead with strength. He promised that Canada would no longer be pushed around. He promised an “elbows‑up” foreign policy.  But when Donald Trump came knocking, Carney didn’t put his elbows up. He raised his hands in submission. And  for that Canada has paid the price, and will continue to for decades.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

It’s unthinkable, but Trump could resort to military force in his bid to annex Canada

Before Russia’s 2022 assault on Ukraine, the Russian president spent years laying groundwork — claiming historical rights, questioning borders, and using economic pressure to destabilize Kyiv.  Trump is taking a similar approach . . . 
 

By Fareed Khan

 
For a century and a half, Canada and the United States have shared a peaceful border, rooted in mutual respect, economic ties, and democratic values. The last hints of American aggression toward Canada faded after the Civil War, when fear of invasion helped unite British North American colonies into Canada in 1867.  Now, that dormant threat has reemerged under US President Donald Trump. His erratic behaviour, inflammatory rhetoric, and willingness to unravel longstanding treaties signals a danger that Canada cannot ignore.  As a result, Ottawa must prepare for the unthinkable – a military incursion from the south, driven by a deranged leader whose actions echo Russia’s prelude to invading Ukraine.

© Image Comics.  SOURCE: https://gizmodo.com/us-canada-invasion-comic-trump-tariffs-sales-image-2000561632

 

Trump seems to be following Vladimir Putin’s playbook.  Before Russia’s 2022 assault on Ukraine, the Russian president spent years laying groundwork — claiming historical rights, questioning borders, and using economic pressure to destabilize Kyiv.  Trump is taking a similar approach by challenging the 1908 Canada–US border treaty, calling it outdated and asserting American claims to Canadian land, water, and the Great Lakes.  On March 4, 2025, he launched a trade war by imposing a 25% tariff on Canadian goods despite a free trade agreement he signed with Canada in 2020.  Following a tense phone call with Trump the following day Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided to warn Canadians that the tariffs were a prelude aimed to weaken Canada’s economy with the goal of annexation by the US.

If one looks closely Trump’s actions fit the pattern Putin used – economic leverage and territorial claims to justify aggression.  His concerns about illegal migrants and fentanyl originating from Canada have evolved into trade warfare and hints of military action. Should Trump escalate his approach, he might consider deploying US troops to “secure” what he perceives as American interests on Canadian soil.  This potential aggression necessitates that Canada begin preparations for a possible military incursion.

While the likelihood of a US military incursion into Canada is remote, it is not outside the realm of possibility. Speculation about a potential US invasion has emerged in both Canadian and US media.  History has shown that trade wars can escalate into military conflicts, with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 serving as a prime example.  This series of tariffs aimed to protect the US economy resulted in retaliatory tariffs that severely hampered global trade and played a significant role in the onset of the Great Depression.  Ultimately, this paved the way for protectionism, nationalism, and the conditions which led to the outbreak of World War II.

If the US occupied Canada it would be disastrous for both nations according to defence experts.  It could provoke a prolonged insurgency, as the sheer size and resilience of the Canadian population would make it difficult for US forces to maintain control.  If just 1% of Canada’s 41 million citizens took up arms – 410,000 people – that would dwarf the Taliban’s forces in Afghanistan.  Guerrilla tactics, engaging in hit-and-run operations rather than conventional warfare, against American targets would define the Canadian resistance

Canadians, despite our reputation for politeness, possess a resilient spirit, which is already surfacing amid a wave of patriotism.  Historical precedents, such as the American experiences in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, show that occupations often ignite defiance instead of submission.  An invasion of Canada could turn into a quagmire for the US, diverting resources while emboldening Russian and Chinese expansionist ambitions.

Furthermore, Canada cannot assume it would stand alone.  As a NATO member, the expectation would be for allies such as the UK, France, and Germany to respond.  However, NATO is already strained by tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe, and in recent meetings with the leaders of France and the UK, the new prime minister Mark Carney did not get any overt statements of support, suggesting that a North American crisis could weaken the alliance and potentially fracture it in the face of a US attack on Canada.  While Commonwealth countries such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand might offer support, their capacity to assist Canada militarily would be limited.

The circumstances in which Canada finds itself demands self-reliance.  Ottawa should move immediately to fund modernization of the military, increase military recruitment and troop readiness, and stockpile supplies while strengthening infrastructure, energy independence, and civilian defence.  In addition, Canadian leaders must rally global condemnation of Trump’s annexation threats to isolate the US politically.  But preparation must go beyond words, because if tariffs are Trump’s opening salvo Canada should not wait to see what comes next.

Canada would suffer greatly but it would endure.  Trump seems blind to the prospect of mutual destruction.  But Trump’s actions suggest he is unbound by sanity or history.  Canada can’t dismiss him as eccentric, and based on his words and actions over the past few months, must now treat him and the US as an aggressor.  The US hasn’t been Canada’s enemy since the 19th century, but under Trump, that has changed in the span of a few months.

The Canadian government must act to strengthen the country’s defences, rally allies, and prepare Canadians for a fight we hope to avoid.  Failing to do so would further risk our sovereignty and Canada’s survival as an independent nation.

  

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

There was once a proposal to merge Canada and the US. It was a horrible idea then and it's a worse idea now.

An Angus Reid Poll released on January 14th showed that 90% of Canadians are opposed to Canada becoming part of the US.

 

By Fareed Khan

 

It's time for Canada to merge with the United States and create one giant capitalist economy on the top half of North America in order to be competitive globally in a 21st Century that will likely to be dominated by China.

That was the argument put forth by National Post columnist Diane Francis in her 2013 book Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country.

But there were many problems with the idea of a Canada-US merger more than a decade ago, and there are even more problems today with the US about to be led by a violent sociopath like Donald Trump who has threatened to annex Canada by imposing tariffs on Canadian exports to the US.

As the editor for the Financial Post and then columnist for the National Post newspapers over the years Francis never made any secret of her desire for a less regulated Canadian economy that more closely matched what exists in the United States.  Having more freedom to conduct business would be better for the bottom line and better for Canada according to Francis, even if it would be worse for workers and the bottom 90% of Canadians who would ultimately pay the price for the so-called economic freedom that corporate CEOs and billionaire oligarchs would be given.

As an American-Canadian Francis wrote passionately at the time about the many historical and cultural ties that bind her country of birth and her adopted country. Merger of the Century tried to make the case for erasing the formal distinction between the two entirely.  The key justification she put forth for the merger was that this would be the best way for Canada to counter the economic threat of countries like China and Russia which use state-controlled sovereign wealth funds to buy control of resources and key industries of other nations.  "The best option for the US and Canada to survive the new economic reality would be to devise protective policies and to merge into one gigantic nation," Francis argued at the time.

 

A similar argument is being made by Canadian businessman and media personality Kevin O'Leary, who said he likes the idea of a Canada-US union.

 

However, the situation is different today.  Rather than a merger as Francis proposed Trump's idea is for a hostile takeover of Canada via economic warfare, which is what the proposed 25% tariff on Canadian exports would be.  In Ontario alone the tariffs could result in the loss of up to 500,000 jobs and a decline in Canada's GDP of up to 2.5% ($77.46 billion).

However, if you examine the online responses to the suggestion that Canada becoming part of the US they have been overwhelmingly negative.  An Angus Reid poll released on January 14th showed that 90% of Canadians are opposed to Canada becoming America's "51st state".  In addition, American's oppose Canada joining the US by a margin of two to one.

 

To get a better understanding of being next door to the US and how it defines Canada, people should read the 2003 book written by Canadian political economist, professor and author James Laxer.  The book was titled The Border: Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches from the 49th Parallel and examined the Canada-US relationship in the context of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  During that politically volatile period there were voices (mostly from business and right wing politicians) calling for greater integration and lowering of security barriers between Canada and the US for the sake of economic security.  But the arguments put forth by Laxer made a very compelling case for why Canada and the US should never consider giving up its independence, and remain separate nations.

He contended that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state and allow divergent ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow.  In the post-September 11th world, it asked pointed questions.  Will Canadians acquiesce to US pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal values?  Are Canadians willing to allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the US?  Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

All these questions are more relevant now in the context of Trump's economic threats than they were in 2003 or any other time during the intervening years.

Of course in the years since Laxer wrote his book some of those questions have been answered.  Under both Liberal and Conservative governments the answers to those questions have respectively been “no", “no" and “yes”.

Given the questions and discussions that have been raised by the current debate about defending Canadian sovereignty against an imperialist American president, it is only appropriate that James Laxer's views on the importance of maintaining a division between Canada and the United States be given a second look, so that Canadians can see the counter arguments to the idea of a Canada-US merger, and especially so in light of threats by the incoming US president who believes that all nations should be subservient to American interests.

 

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

*********************

T  H  E      B  O  R  D  E  R  :  

Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches 

from the 49^th Parallel

 

A Critical Analysis

 By Fareed Khan

March 2005

______________________________________________________________

“If good fences make good neighbours, do we have the sort of fence that will allow us to maintain neighbourly relations with the world’s only superpower?”

With this question highlighted on the inside cover of his new book The Border, noted Canadian political scientist James Laxer sets out on a journey to discover what it means to be Canadian when you share a frontier with the political, economic, military and cultural behemoth that is the United States.

In The Border, Laxer paints a complex picture about the boundary separating Canada from the United States. Using personal experiences and observations from travelling back and forth across various border points over an eighteen month period, Laxer raises important questions about Canada’s historic relationship with our continental neighbour, as well as how that relationship will evolve in the 21st century.  In a journey that takes him from Campobello Island on the east coast to Point Roberts on the west coast and up to the Yukon-Alaska boundary, Laxer illustrates that sharing a border with the U.S. has been an exercise in fear, frustration, tolerance and patience whether you are talking about the decades following the American Revolution or the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  In addition, by recounting the historic and contemporary political, economic, social and cultural factors that led to the defining of the Canada-U.S. border he further illustrates how an invisible line can define the past, present and future of the northern half of this continent.

The Border can be divided into two sections.  The first section mostly deals with the Canada-U.S. relationship before the September 11, 2001, while the second section deals with the period after that date.

Laxer provides this frame of reference by explaining in the preface his intentions when he set out to write this book.  He states that it was, “. . . in an age that has now passed – the less fearful time prior to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C.” (p. 1)

However, he ends the preface by noting that, “My approach to the book changed after September 11.  In the end I was afforded a unique perspective on the border before and after a date when the world changed.  For North America, September 11 brought on a twin crisis, that of the role of the Unites States in the world, and that of Canada’s relationship with the Unites States. The Border addresses that twin crisis.” (p. 3)

 

By declaring this at the outset Laxer establishes a moment in time which he uses to focus the analysis of the relationship that has existed between Canada and the U.S. over the past two centuries.  This reference point itself acts like the border between Canada and the U.S., becoming the doorway between a “simpler” more “innocent” period of the cross-border relationship and a new period of the relationship  after “the world changed”.

However, this perception must be viewed as a paradox.  By relating various historical and contemporary events, interspersed with personal border anecdotes of his journey, Laxer reveals that simplicity and innocence can hardly be the terms used to describe the history of the Canada-U.S. relationship whether before or after September 11, 2001.

Although the terrorist attacks are a defining event in the history of the U.S. and how it has affected its relationship with Canada, I believe that Laxer demonstrates there have been many more important defining moments in Canadian and American history that have had a greater impact on the relationship between the two countries.  Throughout the book he relates some of these major events including: the Loyalist experience after the American Revolution, the outcome of the War of 1812, the Canadian view of the U.S. Civil War, Confederation, Prohibition, the Cold War, Quebec separatism, and more recently the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

 

All of these are seminal events that have defined the Canada-U.S. relationship and they are all events that begs the question, what does the border mean and what does it mean for Canadians?  In a strictly technical sense the Canada-U.S. border is a mutually agreed upon arrangement between two parties that define the limits within the geographic mass of North America based on a set of historic, political, social, cultural, economic and physical circumstances.  This arrangement exists only as long as each party remains committed to it.  In a broader sense, however, Laxer demonstrates that the border means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

For many Canadians the border is an abstract political concept that guarantees the sovereignty and independence of the political entity that is Canada.  It has allowed this country the freedom to become a society that, despite assertions (legitimate and otherwise) about the dominating nature of our southern neighbour, is separate from the U.S., and definitely different.  As Laxer states, because of the border Canadians can control their own political, economic and cultural destiny.  It is essential to who we are as a people and because of it the quality of life of the average Canadian is superior to that enjoyed south of the border.

For others, however, the border has a totally different meaning.  For these people (primarily Canada’s business and economic elites and the political right) the border is seen as a barrier to Canada’s economic growth and prosperity.  Laxer refers to these as the “deep integrationists” – those interested in the integration of Canadian policies with those of the U.S.   Although not a new idea, this idea seems to have more advocates today than in past decades.

These Canadians call for the elimination of Canadian customs and immigration controls, harmonized visa, refugee and security policies, taxes lowered to the same levels as those in the U.S., and less government restrictions on the way businesses can operate.  In effect these Canadians call for policies that would result in the loss of Canadian nationhood, and would lead to an effective loss of Canada’s independence resulting in the Canadian Parliament merely being a rubber stamp for policies made in Washington D.C.  According to Laxer, these are the same elites that supported the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement – two policies that have led to a diminishing of Canadian sovereignty.  He also refers to these Canadians as a potential “fifth column” – Canadians who are active in promoting the merging of Canada with the United States.

As an example of the lack of commitment these Canadians have to their country, Laxer cites the fact that the smoke had barely cleared after the September 11th terrorist attacks when Canada’s political right and corporate interests were, “. . . quick off the mark making the argument that the world had changed and that Canada needed to press for a wide-ranging deal with the United States to promote much closer North American integration.” (p. 259)

These arguments are based mainly on economic factors and do not appear to take into consideration that nationhood is about more than just the bottom line, and that the border is not there as a mere inconvenience for Canadian business elites.

Laxer counters the integrationist argument by stating that in light of U.S. government actions after September 11th that have curtailed American civil liberties and violated the U.S. Constitution, Canada needs the protection of our border with the U.S. now more than ever.  By describing the damage that has occurred to some of the key pillars of America’s liberal-democratic traditions, he makes us witnesses to what could be the nascent footsteps of  neo-fascism in the U.S. that  can only be kept out of Canada by ensuring that our southern border remains intact and our sovereignty protected.

Since that fateful September morning, as issues related to “homeland” and border security have dominated discussions between the two nations, Laxer also notes that there are voices that have been and still are opposed to greater Canada-U.S. integration.  These voices see Canada heading down the road of “Finlandization” – where Canada would need U.S. agreement to implement policies that impact on American interests – a situation similar to the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The Border cuts across a wide field of history and politics, and it illustrates the left-wing bent of its author on political, economic, social and cultural issues.  It is a book authored by an academic that is not an academic book.  This is clearly evident by the dearth of references and footnotes, and by the unwillingness to offer a fair criticism of Canada on matters where there is heavy criticism of the United States (e.g. slavery, civil rights violations).  It is also illustrated by the ample of use of personal anecdotes and experiences – writing styles that are not necessarily compatible with a written work that is intended for academic reference.

This aspect of the writing jumps out at the reader in the introduction when Laxer begins by describing the view outside a railway car as he travels across the Prairies by train en route to Toronto.  He uses the same style in several later chapters.  This use of a travelogue style of writing is more indicative of someone writing for a travel publication, and although it might be disconcerting to some, I believe that this non-academic and unpretentious style makes the book accessible to a wider audience.

Laxer contends that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state.  By being written in a style that is more accessible to the general public, The Border also acts as a brake on those who argue for fewer border limits between Canada and the United States.  It allows these ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow.  In the post-September 11th world, it asks pointed questions.  Will Canadians acquiesce to U.S. pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal-democratic traditions?  Are Canadians willing to reassert our nationhood and defend our borders, or do we allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the U.S.?  Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

In a steel plant the workers who work closest to the blast furnaces require extra protection to protect them from the intense heat of the steel-making process.  The Border illustrates that similar to the steelworker, Canada’s physical closeness to the political heat of the U.S. requires that we maintain the protection of the border in order to protect this country’s sovereignty, society, economy, and culture.

The Border is an enjoyable if controversial read, and it should be on the bookshelves of anyone who feels that Canada needs to be protected from the overwhelming presence of the our neighbour to the south.

© Fareed W. Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

______________________________________________________________

 

It should be noted that since the publication of Laxer's book in 2003 a number of events have taken place that raise the question of whether in a globalized and technologically integrated world where trade is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy, can a nation as small as Canada ever be truly protected within its borders and pursue policies independent of the interests and pressures of its largest trading partners and international corporations.  Some of those events in addition to Donald Trump being re-elected to a second term as president include the following:

• negotiations to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership in North America;
• Canada's discussions to ratify the FIPA treaty with China;
• revelations that the American National Security Agency illegally spied on anyone communicating with those living in the U.S. and bugged the foreign missions of allies in Europe and at the United Nations;
• possible collusion by Canada's Communications Security Establishment with the American NSA to spy on Canadians;
• the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline and further developing the Alberta tar sands despite it's greenhouse gas footprint;
• The Trans Pacific Partnership trade treaty and how it would give corporations leverage to bully governments; and 
• numerous other public policy issues too numerous to mention.

This begs the question, what do Canadians need to do to ensure that what is done in the name of Canada to protect its borders is done in such a way that those who benefit are not just the rich, the connected and the powerful, but also the more than 95% of Canadians who fall into the category of middle and lower income earners -- people who have seen their incomes essentially stagnate since the 1990s as the rich have gotten richer and the gaps in wealth and income have reached historic levels.

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.