Carney should know that appeasement never works when dealing with a bully like Trump

Bullies like Trump exploit perceived weakness because their goal is not mutual benefit but dominance . . . History offers stark warnings about the dangers of appeasing coercive actors. 

 
By Fareed Khan

 

Yesterday the Canadian government announced it would remove retaliatory tariffs on US goods compliant with the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), a move framed as an effort to reset stalled trade negotiations with the United States. Prime Minister Mark Carney described this as a strategic shift, likening it to a hockey game where Canada moves from “elbows up” to deft stick handling. Yet, this decision reeks of appeasement—a concession to Donald Trump, a president who has relentlessly bullied Canada with escalating tariffs and provocative rhetoric about annexing it as the 51st state. 

History and psychological studies warn us that appeasing bullies rarely ends well, and Canada’s current path risks repeating the mistakes of those who have caved to coercion before. By softening its stance, Canada is not outmanoeuvring a bully, it is inviting further aggression from a leader with a well-documented history of breaking promises and exploiting perceived weakness.

The psychology of bullies: Why appeasement fails

Psychological studies on bullying provide a clear framework for understanding Trump’s tactics and why appeasement is doomed to fail. Bullies thrive on power imbalances, using intimidation to assert dominance and extract concessions. According to the American Psychological Association bullies target those who display submissive behaviours, interpreting acquiescence as an invitation for further aggression. Appeasement, far from de-escalating conflict, signals to the bully that their tactics are effective, encouraging escalation.

This dynamic is evident in Trump’s trade war. After Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs on US goods in response to Trump’s 25% tariffs on Canadian exports (and 10% on energy), Trump raised the stakes, increasing tariffs to 35% on non-CUSMA-compliant goods and 50% on steel, aluminum, and copper. Canada’s decision to lift tariffs on CUSMA-compliant goods, while maintaining levies on key sectors like steel and autos, appears conciliatory—a move that risks emboldening Trump to push for more concessions.

Bullies like Trump exploit perceived weakness because their goal is not mutual benefit but dominance. A 2020 study in Personality and Individual Differences noted that individuals with narcissistic traits—such as grandiosity and a need for admiration—often engage in bullying to maintain control and suppress challenges to their authority. Trump’s public persona, marked by boastful rhetoric and personal attacks, aligns with this profile. His repeated references to Canada as a potential 51st state and his dismissal of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a mere “governor” reflect a desire to humiliate and subordinate, not negotiate as equals. Canada’s tariff rollback, intended to foster dialogue, may instead signal to Trump that Canada is willing to bend under pressure, inviting further demands.

Historical lessons: The perils of appeasement

History offers stark warnings about the dangers of appeasing coercive actors. The most infamous example is the 1938 Munich Agreement, where Britain and France allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in hopes of securing “peace in our time.” This concession, driven by the desire to avoid conflict, emboldened Adolf Hitler, who interpreted it as a sign of weakness. Within a year, Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland, triggering World War II. The lesson is clear: appeasing a bully who seeks dominance does not lead to peace but to escalation.

To Americans from Canadians: The bully you elected as president started a fight we’re going to finish

Canada will not be your 51st state. We will not be bullied, and we will not back down . . . we are prepared to endure any economic pain to protect who we are. 

 

By Fareed Khan 

 

A letter to America:

 

For the better part of a century, Canada has been your steadfast ally, your unwavering partner, and your friend through the trials of history. We have stood shoulder to shoulder in wars and times of crisis, opened our homes to Americans in moments of need, and built an economic relationship that has enriched both our nations. But today, under the leadership of Donald Trump, that relationship has been betrayed (again).

 

Your leader has chosen the path of a bully, wielding tariffs as weapons and threatening annexation masked as a jest that hides dangerous intent. America's actions—most recently the escalation of tariffs on Canadian goods to 35% on August 1, 2025—have made it clear that you see Canada not as a partner, but as a target to be subdued. Let us be unequivocal—Canada will not bend, we will not break, and we will not be bullied.  Canadians are prepared to endure whatever pain is necessary to protect our sovereignty and to ensure that your economic aggression costs you dearly.

The history of Donald Trump is one of betrayal, a pattern as old as the parable of the scorpion and the turtle. In that tale, the scorpion promises not to sting the turtle that carries it across the river, only to betray that trust because it is in its nature. Your president has shown his nature time and again in the business world and during his first presidential term—through broken promises and broken contracts with business associates, political allies, and now entire nations. Since November 2024, his repeated calls to make Canada the “51st state” have not been taken as mere rhetoric in Canada but as a direct threat to Canada’s sovereignty. His tariffs, which began at 25% and now stand at 35% on many Canadian goods, are not just economic policy, they are an attempt to bring Canada to its knees. But your president underestimates Canadian resilience. Canada is not a nation of weakness, we are a nation of tough, innovative, and resolute people who will fight back with every tool at our disposal.

The relationship between Canada and the United States stretches back well over a century, forged through shared challenges and mutual respect. In World War One, Canada sent over 600,000 troops to fight for freedom while the US remained neutral until 1917. In World War Two, we joined the Allies in 1939 at the start of the conflict, two years before America entered the fray. When the tragedy of 9/11 struck, Canada opened its skies and homes, welcoming over 33,000 US bound passengers onto its soil, with almost 7,000 hosted by families in the town of Gander, Newfoundland (a community of approximately 10,000).  Canada hosted our guests with kindness and patience until the passengers could return home. We stood by you in Afghanistan, sacrificing 158 Canadian lives in a shared mission. Yet, when you pursued the Iraq War on false pretenses, we held firm to our principles, refusing to join a conflict built on deception.

This is the Canada your president now threatens—a nation that has proven its loyalty, its courage, and its moral compass. In contrast, your government has chosen chaos over cooperation, taking a wrecking ball to the post-World War Two order that both our nations helped build. The US-Canada trade relationship, the largest in the world, with over $2.7 billion in trade across our border daily, is a cornerstone of prosperity for both nations. Three-quarters of Canada’s exports go to the US, and Canada is the top destination for exports from 34 US states, with Canadians purchasing $349 billion in American goods last year. Yet, your president has chosen to disrupt this mutually beneficial partnership with tariffs that economists warn will harm both our economies.

Trump’s tariffs are not just an attack on Canada, they are a self-inflicted wound on the American economy. Stephen Tapp, Chief Economist at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, has stated that these tariffs will “raise costs for businesses, make American production less competitive internationally, and raise prices even more for US consumers, who have recently suffered through the highest inflation in generations”. The Tax Foundation estimates that US tariffs will amount to an average tax increase of $1,219 per US household in 2025, with market income dropping by 1.3% in 2026. The Yale Budget Lab projects that Canada’s economy could shrink by 2.1% in the long term, but the US will also suffer long-term damage as supply chains falter and prices rise.

Canadians are not standing idly by. In response to Trump’s aggression against Canada, 71% of us have pledged to buy fewer American products, a boycott that is already hitting US exporters hard. In 2024, Canada was America’s  second-largest food export market, valued at $28.4 billion. That market is shrinking as Canadian supermarkets label domestic products and consumers willingly pay 50% more for fruit and vegetables from Mexico, Latin America and other nations rather than buy produce from the US. Liquor stores in the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, and Ontario have pulled American wines and spirits from their shelves, replacing them with Canadian alternatives. Tourism, a $20.5 billion contributor to your economy from Canadian visitors, accounting for 140,000 jobs, has plummeted, with a six-month decline in cross-border travel costing the US an estimated $12.5 billion in 2025 alone. These actions are not mere gestures, they are a calculated response to your president’s economic bullying, and they are working.

Furthermore, your president’s threats of annexation have only strengthened the resolve of Canadians. Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau captured the national sentiment when he declared, “We didn’t ask for this, but we will not back down.” Polls have shown a surge in Canadian pride, with 44% of Canadians expressing they are “very proud” of their country, up 10 points since December 2024. The idea of joining the US as a state has been rejected by 90% of Canadians. From small business owners to everyday consumers, people across the country are uniting to protect the Canadian economy and our sovereignty. Across Canada grocery stores now feature products made in Canada, and shoppers choose Canadian products even when it’s less convenient, calling your tariffs an “economic attack”. But this is not just about economics; it is about identity.

Canada is the nation that gave the world insulin, the electron microscope, IMAX, the smartphone, the pacemaker, and yes, even peanut butter. We are the birthplace of hockey and basketball, and the home of cultural icons like Drake, Shania Twain, and Gordon Lightfoot. We are a nation of innovators, creators, and peacemakers, and we will not allow our legacy to be erased by your bully president who sees Canada as a prize to be claimed.

However, we know that standing up to your president’s deranged tariff policy will come with costs. Economists predict that the Trump tariffs could lead to a million job losses in Canada and push our economy into recession. But we are prepared to endure this pain to protect our sovereignty and to send a message that US bullying will not go unanswered. Our government has already imposed retaliatory tariffs on $20.8 billion of US goods, and Canada is exploring further measures, such as export taxes on resources like oil, gas, electricity and critical minerals which the US relies on for its industrial and defence sectors. As Prime Minister Mark Carney has said, “We’re their number one customer. I’m not too sure if they fully understand the impact on both sides of the border.”

Your own economists are sounding the alarm, warning that the boycott and retaliatory tariffs will cause a “drop in US exports,” particularly in food and alcohol. A “stagflationary shock” is also predicted in the US, with growth reduced by 1.5% and rising consumer prices. Even General Motors has reported a $1.1 billion loss in quarterly earnings due to the Trump tariffs on Canadian auto parts.

These are not abstract numbers; they are the real-world consequences of your president’s reckless policies, felt by American businesses and consumers alike. He seems to have mistaken Canada’s politeness for weakness, but we are a nation forged in resilience. We have faced external threats before and emerged stronger, and we will do so again. Our boycott is not temporary. It is a commitment to reshape our economy, reduce our reliance on US trade, and strengthen ties with Europe, Asia, and beyond. We are taking action to boost our domestic economy by an estimated $200 billion annually and undertaking nation building projects in support of that objective. We are united and we will not relent until the Trump administration ceases its attacks on our economy and our sovereignty.

This is our declaration of independence from the US as our main trading partner. Canada will not be your 51st state. We will not be bullied, and we will not back down. If Trump persists in this insanity, the economic pain will be felt on both sides of the border, but we are prepared to endure it to protect who we are. The scorpion may sting because it is in its nature, but Canada will not drown from the scorpion you have installed as your president. We will rise, stronger and prouder than ever, and you will learn that a true friend, when betrayed, becomes an unyielding force.

Sincerely,

Patriots Across Canada
 

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

Trump’s tariff policies are a path to economic chaos and potential global conflict

Trump's tariffs echo the catastrophic 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and risk a global recession or depression, could destabilize political systems, and potentially ignite military conflict.

  

By Fareed Khan 

   

Since Donald Trump’s re-election as president of the United States, a storm of economic and geopolitical turmoil has engulfed the world, driven by his antagonistic tariff policies targeting America’s closest allies and trading partners. On March 4, 2025, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% on Chinese goods under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On July 10, 2025, he escalated tensions by threatening a 35% tariff on Canadian imports beginning in August, with 30% on Mexico, and blanket tariffs of 15% to 20% on most other trading partners.

These policies, echoing the catastrophic Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, risk plunging the global economy into a deep recession or depression, destabilizing political systems, and potentially igniting military conflict between the US and some of its trade partners and allies. If this were to happen Canada—a nation rich in oil, critical minerals, and freshwater which the US covets—could potentially be the frontline in such a conflict. The resulting consequences will harm hundreds of millions globally, but American consumers will bear the steepest costs through higher prices, job losses, and eroded global influence.

The historical parallels of Trump’s tariff policies to the Smoot-Hawley legislation are stark. Enacted in 1930, the act raised duties on hundreds of imports, prompting retaliatory tariffs that crippled global trade and was a major factor in transforming a recession into The Great Depression. By June 2025, Trump’s tariffs raised the average US rate to 15.8%, the highest in over a century, threatening a similar outcome.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and World Bank have slashed 2025 global growth forecasts, warning of a US-triggered recession. Given that modern global economies are far more interconnected than in the 1930s, these risks will be greatly amplified. Disruptions in one market, particularly one as large as the US, will cascade worldwide, threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of millions. We also have to remember that the Great Depression fuelled nationalist and fascist movements, paving the way for World War II, and today’s escalating trade tensions could similarly destabilize global peace.

Economists warn that Trump’s tariffs will hit American consumers hardest. The Tax Foundation estimates that tariffs imposed as of April 2025 will cost US households $1,200 annually as businesses pass on the higher costs of imported good. The automotive industry, reliant on Canadian and Mexican parts, also faces production cost increases of $3,000 per vehicle, while grocery prices will rise due to Mexico supplying over 60% of US vegetable imports and nearly half of its fruit imports.

Trump’s claim that tariffs boost domestic manufacturing and will grow the economy are dubious claims and have been refuted by the vast majority of economists. His first-term tariffs led to job losses in agriculture outweighing manufacturing gains. Retaliatory tariffs from Canada, Mexico, and China—targeting US exports like agricultural products, alcoholic beverages, and other items—have cost American farmers, wine makers and distillers billions, with China’s 15% tariffs further eroding market access. These measures create an inflationary spiral, reducing purchasing power and pushing the US and global economies toward recession. With the US accounting for 26.1% of global GDP the impact of Trump’s tariffs will have a world-wide impact. The economic fallout is already evident. The US economy contracted in the first quarter of 2025, and Canada’s exports to the US, which account for approximately 14% of its GDP, have declined substantially, with the Bank of Canada warning of a “substantially weaker” economy.

The president’s tariff policies had a devastating impact on the stock market with a crash in April 2025 that erased trillions of dollars in value after Trump announced a 10% universal tariff and “reciprocal” tariffs on 57 countries. Inflation is also projected to surge as businesses deplete pre-tariff stockpiles, with significant price increases expected on imported products by late summer 2025. American families, already strained by inflation, are facing higher costs for essentials like food and fuel, while export-dependent sectors shed jobs. Canada’s retaliatory measures, including Ontario’s threatened 25% electricity export surcharge, are sure to exacerbate cross-border tensions. Furthermore, people in the US Midwest, reliant on Canada for 60% of their crude imports, could see gas prices rise by as much as 50 cents per gallon, should Trump decide to apply tariffs to crude oil, or if Canada applies export tariffs as a punitive measure.

Beyond economics, Trump’s trade war risks geopolitical catastrophe, with Canada as a potential flash point. His July 10, 2025, threat of a 35% tariff on Canadian goods, coupled with provocative calls to annex Canada as the “51st state,” has inflamed tensions. Posts on X reveal growing US nationalist sentiment, with some MAGA supporters eyeing Canada’s one-tenth of global oil reserves, its critical mineral resources, and fresh water as strategic assets for US energy security and its technology sectors. Canada’s resources make it a prime target, as the US seeks to secure oil for energy, minerals for electric vehicles, and fresh water amid growing domestic water shortages.

The link between trade wars and military conflict is well-established. French economist Frédéric Bastiat’s maxim, “when goods do not cross frontiers, armies will,” resonates today. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs exacerbated tensions that then fuelled global militarization in the 1930s. Trump’s rhetoric, casting allies like Canada as possible enemies while extending an olive branch to Russia—a nation with a history of undermining Western security—creates a dangerous diplomatic inversion.

His suspension of trade talks with Canada on June 27, 2025, over its digital services tax, and threats to dissolve agreements related to NORAD and Great Lakes management, signal a dismantling of decades of cooperation. This erosion of trust and Trump’s frequent criticisms of Canada could embolden US nationalist factions in his MAGA movement, particularly if economic hardship intensifies as a result of his tariff policies. This raises the spectre of military posturing by the US to secure Canadian resources. Such a conflict would disrupt North American stability and have global repercussions.

The economic damage extends to global supply chains, particularly in North America’s integrated automotive and sector. Canada supplies critical components for US vehicle production, and tariffs could disrupt just-in-time manufacturing, leading to factory slowdowns and job losses. Mexico’s shift toward domestic corn and fuel production to counter tariffs also threatens US agricultural exports, deepening rural America’s economic woes. Small businesses, already struggling with inflation, face higher input costs, forcing layoffs or closures, while consumers grapple with reduced purchasing power. Emerging markets, dependent on trade with the US face secondary effects as global trade networks falter, potentially triggering currency devaluations and social unrest in vulnerable economies.

Canada’s strategic vulnerabilities heighten the stakes. Its oil reserves, critical minerals, and fresh water are increasingly sought-after as global resource scarcity intensifies. The US, facing domestic water shortages and pressure to secure minerals for green technology, may view Canadian resources as a national security priority, fuelling increased nationalist fervour. Canada’s relatively small military and economic size compared to the US make it vulnerable to coercion, yet its retaliatory measures, like restricting oil and electricity exports, could destabilize US regions like New York, Michigan and the Mid-West states, which rely on Canadian energy. This tit-for-tat escalation risks turning economic disputes into broader conflicts, with Canada as the front-line due to its proximity and resource wealth.

The global economic consequences extend beyond North America. Developing nations, reliant on exports to the US and Canada, face declining demand as tariffs disrupt trade flows, potentially leading to economic stagnation in regions like Southeast Asia and Latin America. The World Bank warns that a prolonged trade war could push 50 million people into poverty by 2026, as global supply chains unravel and commodity prices spike. In the US, the ripple effects will be felt in urban and rural communities alike, with rising costs for goods like electronics and clothing, which depend on imported components, eroding middle-class savings and exacerbating inequality. These pressures could fuel domestic unrest, as economic hardship amplifies political polarization.

The geopolitical ripple effects are equally dire. Trump’s threatened tariff on the EU, delayed to August 1, 2025, has strained NATO alliances, with EU leaders approving retaliatory tariffs. China’s response—imposing up to 84% tariffs on US goods—further isolates America from the nations that have helped create the post-World War Two trade network.

This fragmentation undermines efforts to counter China’s growing global influence, as Canada, Mexico and other allies may seek alternative trade partners, even potentially aligning more closely with Beijing as a counterbalance to the US. In addition, Trump’s pivot toward Russia, evidenced by his reluctance to forcefully criticize Moscow for its actions in Ukraine, and fully support that country in its war with Russia, risks destabilizing the post-World War II order that has maintained relative peace through economic interdependence. Furthermore, America’s $748.9 billion trade deficit, along with how it has alienated and angered allies and trade partners, will make this isolation economically perilous.

Long-term diplomatic solutions also face significant hurdles. The fractured political landscape in the US, with Congress divided along partisan lines, limits the prospects for repealing Trump’s tariff authority, despite legal challenges to his policies. Canada’s efforts to build coalitions through the G7 and other international forums are hampered by Trump’s withdrawal from multilateral frameworks, leaving allies scrambling to maintain global trade norms. Rebuilding trust will require years, and possibly decades, of sustained diplomatic engagement, as nations like Canada pivot to diversify trade with Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America, reducing reliance on the US market.

Whether this trajectory can be averted is up in the air? The US Congress holds the authority to curb Trump’s tariff powers, especially after federal courts ruled his actions unconstitutional. However, political polarization and Trump’s influence over the Republican Party make bipartisan action challenging, and only courageous leadership would restore free trade principles.

Canada, led by newly elected prime minister Mark Carney, sought to rally allies at the G7 Summit in Alberta in June, but Trump’s early summit departure and his unpredictability have stymied progress. What Canada and other nations targeted by Trump need to remember is Immanuel Kant’s assertion that “the spirit of commerce . . . sooner or later takes hold of every nation, and is incompatible with war,” a sentiment that remains relevant today.

Moving forward global leaders must prioritize diplomacy and free trade to avert economic and geopolitical catastrophe. Canada’s resource wealth and economic potential positions it to forge new alliances, but this risks further alienating the US, potentially escalating tensions.

The world stands at an inflection point in history. Without decisive action by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and other nations in Trump’s cross hairs, Trump’s tariffs could spark a global economic catastrophe and even armed conflict. This will affect people around the world but Americans will face the harshest consequences—higher costs, unemployment, and diminished global influence.

It’s up to political leaders to do what’s needed to ensure that the world doesn’t fall down the black hole of global depression and possible armed conflict, and keep it from regressing economically and politically, as one man’s actions disrupt and destabilize the world.

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

What if Pierre Poilievre manages to eke out a win despite what polls are saying?

If Poilievre manages to defy the polls and pull out a win, Canada risks entering negotiations with Trump led by a leader untested in international diplomacy and viewed as too similar to the US president . . . Trump’s tariffs and annexation rhetoric demand a prime minister with global credibility who can unify Canadians – qualities which Poilievre does not embody.

 

By Fareed Khan

 

As Canada barrels toward the federal election on April 28, the Liberal Party, led by Mark Carney, continues to hold a lead in the polls over Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives, with margins ranging from a razor-thin two points to a commanding eight depending on the poll. Yet, with less than ten days until voting day, the question looms – what if the polls are wrong, and Poilievre defies expectations to secure a Conservative victory, perhaps a minority government?

If a career politician like Poilievre becomes prime minister, what would this mean for Canada’s ability to confront US President Donald Trump’s tariff threats and provocative musings about annexing Canada? More critically, is Poilievre the right leader for this moment of crisis, or does Canada need someone like Carney – a proven economic steward with global credibility? The Conservatives’ decision to trot out former Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a campaign ad, an unprecedented move, adds another layer of intrigue. Does this signal desperation, and will Harper’s 2015 electoral drubbing haunt or help Poilievre’s campaign?

Polls are snapshots, not prophecies. History is littered with examples of polls that upended expectations. In Canada’s 2015 election, early campaign polls showed a race between the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party (NDP) vying to form government but by the end it was the Liberals who overcame the odds to form a majority as voters rallied against Harper’s decade-long tenure.

Internationally, the 2016 US presidential election saw Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump in nearly every major poll, yet Trump’s victory exposed the limitations of polling methodologies, particularly in capturing turnout and late-deciding voters.

Similarly, the UK’s 2016 Brexit referendum confounded pollsters who underestimated the “Leave” vote. These missteps often stem from flawed assumptions about voter turnout, sampling biases, or the “shy voter” effect, where supporters of controversial candidates under report their intentions to pollsters.

In the 2025 federal election, Canadian polls face unique challenges. The Angus Reid Institute notes that while Liberals lead with 43-46% vote intention, Conservative voters are more committed, with 72% firmly decided compared to 51% of Liberal supporters. This softer Liberal base could falter if turnout is not as high as expected or if strategic voters, assuming a Liberal win, opt to vote for smaller parties like the NDP or Greens.

Record advance voting – nearly two million ballots cast on the first day of advanced polling – suggests high voter engagement, with high turnout favouring progressive parties historically. Yet, as seen in 2015, late-breaking issues or campaign missteps can shift momentum. The Abacus poll showing a narrowing Liberal lead (two points) contrasts with Nanos’ post-debate eight-point Liberal edge, highlighting the volatility of voter sentiment.

The wild card in this election is Donald Trump. His 25% tariffs on Canadian imports and annexation threats have dominated the campaign, fuelling a wave of Canadian nationalism that has buoyed Carney’s Liberals. Polls have consistently shown Carney as the preferred leader to handle Trump on trade, tariff issues, and annexation threats. Poilievre’s “Canada First” rhetoric, echoing Trump’s “America First” mantra, has alienated voters wary of US-style populism. If voters prioritize sovereignty and economic stability, Carney’s lead is likely to hold. But if cost-of-living concerns – where Poilievre holds a slight edge – take precedence, the Conservatives could capitalize.

Poilievre’s political career offers little evidence that he’s equipped to navigate Canada through the existential crisis it is facing. At 45, he is a career politician who has never held a job outside politics. After graduating from university with a Bachelor's degree, he joined Stockwell Day’s Canadian Alliance party as a political assistant, and then managed to take a seat from a long time Liberal MP in Ottawa in the 2004 federal election, entering Parliament at the age of 24. Under Stephen Harper, Poilievre served as a loyal attack dog, known for aggressive partisanship rather than substantive policy achievements. His 2008 comments questioning the work ethic of Indigenous residential school survivors – made on the eve of Harper’s formal apology – drew widespread condemnation, requiring a swift apology. These remarks, resurfacing in 2025, underscore Poilievre’s tendency to be divisive rather than a unifier, a liability when Canada needs to stand united against external threats.

As Conservative leader since 2022, Poilievre has adopted populist tactics similar to those used by Donald Trump, decrying “woke ideology” and promising to defund the CBC, fire the Bank of Canada governor, ban ministers from attending the World Economic Forum, and deport Canadians who don't have citizenship status if they participated in pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide demonstrations, under the guise of fighting antisemitism.

His pledge to end “woke” influence in science funding, made in a March 2025 speech, alarmed researchers and portends purges of researchers similar to what is happening at US agencies to those who don't toe Trump's ideological line. Such policies risk alienating international partners and undermining Canada’s credibility in global forums, where cooperation is vital.

Poilievre’s pivot to to address foreign policy vis-a-vis the US, forced by Trump’s threats, has been clumsy. His campaign has struggled to distance him from comparisons to the US president, with party staff confiscating MAGA hats at campaign rallies to avoid media scrutiny. These efforts are even more critical to Poilievre's campaign given the results of an Ipsos poll which showed that 43% of Canadians believe that Poilievre would “roll over” to Trump’s demands, nearly double the 22% who said the same of Carney.

Poilievre’s lack of international experience is also a glaring weakness in the current scenario. Unlike Carney, who navigated the 2008 global financial crises in Canada and post Brexit instability in the United Kingdom, Poilievre has no track record in high-stakes diplomacy or international finance. His “Canada First” slogan, while appealing to his base, lacks the substance needed to convey to Canadians that he would be able to renegotiate trade agreements or rally allies against US tariffs. A Poilievre victory, especially if it results in a minority government, could leave Canada vulnerable, with a leader untested in global arenas and distrusted by a majority of voters on the defining issue of dealing with Donald Trump.

Carney is the antithesis of Poilievre, the literal adult in the room when compared to the Conservative leader. A former governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013) and the Bank of England (2013-2020), Carney was a pivotal player steering Canada through the 2008 financial crisis and the UK through Brexit’s economic turbulence. His global stature – evidenced by his roles in the G20 and the Financial Stability Board – makes him uniquely suited to lead Canada through Trump’s trade war. Carney’s first speech as prime minister, calling Trump’s annexation threats “crazy” and vowing Canada would “never” become the 51st state, resonated with voters, and helped to boost Liberal support from a dismal low of 16% in January under Trudeau to 46% in March. His approval rating, at 48% with only 30% disapproval, is far better than Poilievre’s 39% favourability against 49% unfavourability.

Carney’s economic expertise will be critical as Trump’s tariffs threaten to significantly cut Canada’s economic growth, per OECD forecasts. At 45% voter support as the best leader to grow the economy (versus Poilievre’s 31%) the numbers reflect public confidence in his ability to stabilize markets and negotiate with the US.  Also, Carney’s relationships with global leaders and institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization would provide Canada with someone able to leverage international relationships to build coalitions against US aggression. Poilievre, by contrast, has no such network, and his populist rhetoric, which is too similar to Trump's, risks isolating Canada when unity is paramount. Carney’s calm, measured demeanour, as demonstrated in his campaign speeches and during the leader’s debates, seems to play well to many voters who see him as the ideal person to captain Canada through a storm, and contrasts with Poilievre’s aggressive and combative style, which an overwhelming percentage of Canadians dislike.

Which may be why the Conservatives enlisted former prime minister Harper for a campaign ad (an unprecedented move). While both the Liberals and Conservatives have used former prime ministers to rally the troops at major campaign event, no Canadian party has previously brought a former prime minister out of retirement for such a major role in an election campaign in the modern era. Harper remains influential in Conservative circles but carries baggage from his decade in power and his 2015 defeat, when Trudeau’s Liberals crushed the Conservatives, reducing them from a majority government to opposition status with 99 seats. Harper’s endorsement aims to shore up Poilievre’s base and attempts to appeal to other voters, but will it play well to those who are undecided? His nearly ten-minute introductory speech at a massive Alberta rally framed Poilievre as the heir to his legacy, emphasizing fiscal discipline and energy policy.

However, this move reeks of desperation. The Conservatives, reeling from a polling slide, where they led the Liberals by up to 20 points a few months ago to now falling behind by up to eight points, are likely hoping that Harper’s gravitas can reverse their fortunes. Yet, Harper’s 2015 loss, driven by voter fatigue and controversies like muzzling of government workers, refusing to bring in Syrian refugees, and policies targeting Canadian Muslims under the guise of national security, may remind Canadians of a divisive era. His endorsement could alienate moderates and urban voters in Ontario and Quebec, where the Liberals lead by a healthy margin, even as it energizes an already committed base in the Tory’s prairie stronghold. Given Poilievre’s struggle to redefine his image amid comparisons to Trump, Harper’s cameo risks reinforcing perceptions of a backward-looking campaign, trying to recapture the magic that allowed Harper to win a majority in 2011.

If Poilievre manages to defy the polls and pull out a win, Canada risks entering negotiations with Trump led by someone untested in international diplomacy, viewed as too similar to the US president, and echoing his political ideology. A minority government (which is most likely if Poilievre wins), reliant on smaller parties to govern, could further weaken Canada's ability to project strength during negotiations with the US.

Trump’s tariffs and annexation rhetoric demand a prime minister with global credibility who can unify Canadians – qualities which Poilievre does not embody. While he campaigns on defending Canadian interests, in government Poilievre could prioritize implementing populist polices domestically to appease his base over a concerted focus on international trade and fighting tariffs, which would jeopardize Canada’s sovereignty and economic resilience.

Canada faces a defining moment in this election. Carney’s proven track record in the world of banking and finance, international respect, and willingness to take the reigns of leadership at a critical moment, make him the preferred choice of many Canadians to face off against Trump and defend Canada’s interests. Poilievre’s divisive political persona, lack of global experience, and no significant domestic achievements other than winning the leadership of the Conservative Party, render him ill-suited to lead Canada in this crisis. As voters head to the polls, they must weigh whether a career politician with no real world experience can rise to the occasion at this moment in history, or if Canada needs a statesman and finance leader like Carney to secure its future. The only poll that matters is on April 28.  For the sake of Canada's future, let’s hope voters choose wisely at this inflection point in Canadian history.

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 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.