Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Trudeau’s Delusion Meets Trump’s Tariffs: 25% Hit on Canada and Mexico Could Cripple Economies Overnight!

Published

17 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

In a fiery Truth Social post on November 25th, Donald Trump made his position crystal clear: the days of open borders, unchecked drug smuggling, and illegal immigration are over. The president-elect, set to take office in January, declared that one of his first actions as commander-in-chief will be to slap a 25% tariff on all goods from Mexico and Canada until both nations “use their absolute right and power” to stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants into the United States.

The Trump Doctrine Returns

This announcement serves as a bold reminder of Trump’s “America First” strategy, which dominated his first presidency. According to Trump, the current state of the U.S.-Mexico border is a “national emergency,” with caravans from Mexico allegedly bringing record levels of drugs like fentanyl and waves of illegal migrants. Canada isn’t off the hook either, as Trump accuses Justin Trudeau’s government of maintaining what he calls “ridiculous open borders” that have contributed to the crisis.

“Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long-simmering problem,” Trump stated. “Until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!”

Economic Weapons Locked and Loaded

The proposed tariffs are no small matter. A 25% import tax on goods from Canada and Mexico could cripple their export-driven economies, both of which are heavily reliant on U.S. trade:

  • Mexico: Over 80% of its exports head to the U.S. A 25% tariff would devastate industries like auto manufacturing, agriculture, and electronics.
  • Canada: With 75% of exports destined for the U.S., Canadian businesses are bracing for significant disruptions to key sectors, including energy and auto parts.

Experts warn that these tariffs would also raise prices for American consumers. But Trump’s post signals he’s unfazed by potential backlash. “It’s time for these countries to pay a very big price,” he declared, echoing his tough-on-trade rhetoric from the 2016 campaign trail.

The Bureau – Canada’s Role in the Fentanyl Epidemic

 

According to The Bureau, U.S. investigators have uncovered a direct connection between Canadian cities—particularly Toronto and Vancouver—and transnational fentanyl money-laundering networks. These networks, allegedly run by Triads with ties to Beijing, are laundering cash for Mexican cartels smuggling fentanyl precursors from China.

David Asher, a former Trump administration official and DEA consultant, didn’t mince words in his interview with The Bureau. He stated that U.S. intelligence points to Canada as the “command and control” hub for these networks, which have fueled the devastating fentanyl crisis.

“When we seized their phones, we’d see Canada light up like a Christmas tree,” Asher said, highlighting how Toronto and British Columbia play central roles in these operations.

Canada’s Tariff Crisis: The Numbers Don’t Lie

 

Let’s dig into the cold, hard facts, courtesy of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and they’re downright devastating. Trump’s proposed tariffs aren’t just a political statement—they’re an economic wrecking ball aimed squarely at Canada’s most vulnerable industries. For Justin Trudeau’s government and hapless premiers like David Eby, these numbers are a brutal wake-up call.

The Trade Dependency Trap

Canada’s economic lifeblood is deeply tied to the United States, with 41% of Ontario’s GDP and a staggering two-thirds of New Brunswick’s GDP linked to cross-border trade. And it’s not just Canada feeling the squeeze—states like Michigan (14% GDP dependency) and Illinois (10.2%) rely heavily on Canadian trade.

The kicker? Nearly 63% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are intermediate inputs, meaning they’re critical components for American manufacturing. Canada isn’t just exporting products; it’s exporting the gears that keep U.S. industries turning.

Energy and Autos: The Collateral Damage

Consider this: in the first half of 2024 alone, Canada exported $85 billion in energy and $40 billion in auto parts to the U.S. A 25% tariff would obliterate these sectors, dragging down both economies in the process. And while Trudeau and his team posture about “standing united,” it’s clear their lack of preparation will only deepen the pain for Canadians.

Tariff Fallout: A National Recession Looms

The numbers paint a grim picture: a 25% tariff would deliver a 2.6% GDP decline annually for Canada, costing the average Canadian $2,000 CAD per year in lost income. Add in retaliatory tariffs, and this spirals into a full-blown recession, with cascading impacts on productivity, supply chains, and jobs.

  • Auto/Transport Exports: Down 10 percentage points.
  • Basic Metals Exports: Down 9 percentage points.
  • Chemicals and Paper Products: Exports drop by 8% and 7%, respectively.
  • Overall Sector Decline: A staggering 22 percentage points for critical industries.

Meanwhile, cross-border investment—once a pillar of Canada-U.S. relations—is under threat. Canadian investments in the U.S. total $1.1 trillion, but a tariff war risks destabilizing these flows and gutting the broader economic relationship.

Last Weeks Spin Piece from the Canadian Press

As we look at the fallout from Trump’s 25% tariff announcement, let’s take a moment to laugh at this spin piece from the Canadian Press that came out just last week. The article tried to paint a picture of Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly claiming that Donald Trump’s return to the White House has somehow boosted Canada’s influence on the world stage. Yes, you heard that right—Canada, the same country with open borders, an overreliance on U.S. trade, and a prime minister whose leadership is about as effective as a broken clock, is supposedly advising the world on how to handle Trump.

Joly boldly declared from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Lima, “No country understands the United States better than Canada.” According to her, nations are lining up to learn from Canada’s experience with Trump, as though Trudeau and his team have some masterclass on navigating Trump’s policies. Fast forward to today, with Trump poised to slam Canada with tariffs that could destroy their economy, and the absurdity of this claim is glaring.

This narrative that Canada is a calm, steady hand amid Trump’s return is nothing more than a fantasy. While Joly and Trudeau were hobnobbing at summits, Trump was gearing up to deliver real consequences. His 25% tariff on Canadian imports isn’t hypothetical—it’s a financial wrecking ball aimed at an economy that relies on U.S. trade for survival. Energy exports, autos, and agriculture—the pillars of Canada’s economy—will take a direct hit. But instead of preparing for this, Joly was busy spinning a tale of Canada’s supposed “influence.”

And let’s not forget what Joly was selling in that article. “Canada’s influence is actually increasing because of the impacts that the world is now facing with the new administration.” Increasing? On what planet? Trump’s tariffs make it clear that Canada isn’t leading anything; it’s scrambling to react.

The article also floated the idea that Trudeau was in a “privileged position” because of his past dealings with Trump. Let’s recall how that went, shall we? Trudeau was caught mocking Trump on a hot mic during a G7 summit, embarrassing himself and the country in front of world leaders. His government barely held onto a renegotiated NAFTA—now the USMCA—that Trump rewrote to suit America’s interests. If this is the kind of experience Trudeau brings to the table, it’s no wonder Canada is in trouble.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Press tries to prop up Trudeau as some staunch defender of “rules-based trade,” as though those rules mean anything when Trump has the leverage to rewrite them. Joly spoke about sending “clear messages” to Beijing, yet Trump’s tariff threats expose just how little Canada has done to address the very issues Trump is targeting. Let’s not forget The Bureau’s report on Canada’s role in fentanyl money laundering, with Toronto and Vancouver lighting up as command centers for Triads laundering cash from Mexican cartels. Canada’s failures are part of the problem Trump is confronting.

And here’s the kicker: as of today, neither Trudeau nor Joly has made a peep about Trump’s tariff announcement. No tweets, no press statements, no leadership—just silence. So much for being the world’s go-to expert on Trump. Canada’s leaders are AWOL while Trump tightens the economic screws.

While our beloved PM is silent, Jagmeet Singh, ever the opportunist, couldn’t resist wading into the chaos with his usual brand of hollow theatrics. “Stand up and fight like hell,” he bellowed at Justin Trudeau on Twitter, as though anyone has ever mistaken Singh for a warrior of any kind. Let’s be honest—Singh’s idea of “fighting like hell” probably involves drafting another toothless motion in Parliament or throwing shade on social media while offering zero solutions. This is the same guy who props up Trudeau’s government with his NDP-Liberal supply-and-confidence deal, enabling the very weakness he’s now trying to criticize. Spare us the tough talk, Jagmeet. Bootlicking Trudeau one day and grandstanding the next doesn’t exactly scream credibility.

And as for Trudeau and Mélanie Joly? Their performance over the last week has been nothing short of delusional. While Trump was setting the stage to unleash a 25% tariff that could dismantle Canada’s economy, Trudeau was busy posturing at international summits and snapping photos with global elites. Joly, for her part, claimed that Trump’s return to power somehow boosted Canada’s global influence—because apparently being a punching bag now counts as diplomacy.

This isn’t global influence; it’s global irrelevance. The Trudeau government spent the last week basking in delusion while Trump was preparing to drop the hammer. And now the clock has run out. Stay tuned—because while Trudeau dithers and Singh flails, the reckoning is here.

Final Thoughts

Trump campaigned on a clear and powerful message: tariffs are a weapon to protect American workers and restore national sovereignty. And, folks, he wasn’t wrong. Sure, input costs might rise. Sure, a few elites will clutch their pearls as their profits shrink. But this isn’t about them. This is about something bigger. It’s about standing up for the forgotten workers in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin who’ve watched their livelihoods vanish thanks to decades of globalist betrayal. Trump’s message is loud and clear: no more one-sided trade deals, no more globalist bull. America comes first.

And what about Canada? What has Justin Trudeau done? He’s alienated an entire nation while dividing our own country with his disastrous, virtue-signaling policies. Trudeau doesn’t just dislike the West—he actively works against it. The West pays the bills in this country, folks. Alberta’s oil sands, Saskatchewan’s agriculture, and British Columbia’s resources prop up this nation’s economy. And how does Trudeau repay them? By demonizing their industries, their workers, and their very way of life to appease his climate cult.

While Trudeau struts on the world stage preaching green fantasies, the West bears the cost. It’s their jobs, their industries, and their communities that are hollowed out to fund his carbon tax schemes. Now, with Trump’s tariffs about to slam Canada’s economy, the true cost of Trudeau’s failures is finally coming home to roost.

How can Canada face this crisis when our so-called leader is more concerned with photo ops, platitudes, and meaningless “climate leadership” than standing up for our country? Trudeau has alienated our most important trading partner, antagonized the West, and is now leaving us unprepared for a showdown with Trump’s America.

Let’s look at the facts. Canada is at odds with China, embroiled in a cold war with India, and now staring down Trump’s tariffs. Every move Trudeau makes puts us further into isolation, weaker and more vulnerable. So here’s the question: can we really afford another year of this man at the helm?

The Trudeau government has run out of excuses, out of allies, and now, out of time. This isn’t just about whether Canada can survive Trump’s tariffs. It’s about whether we can survive another year of Justin Trudeau’s leadership. The reckoning is here, and Canada deserves better.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Business

Fuelled by federalism—America’s economically freest states come out on top

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew D. Mitchell

Do economic rivalries between Texas and California or New York and Florida feel like yet another sign that America has become hopelessly divided? There’s a bright side to their disagreements, and a new ranking of economic freedom across the states helps explain why.

As a popular bumper sticker among economists proclaims: “I heart federalism (for the natural experiments).” In a federal system, states have wide latitude to set priorities and to choose their own strategies to achieve them. It’s messy, but informative.

New York and California, along with other states like New Mexico, have long pursued a government-centric approach to economic policy. They tax a lot. They spend a lot. Their governments employ a large fraction of the workforce and set a high minimum wage.

They aren’t socialist by any means; most property is still in private hands. Consumers, workers and businesses still make most of their own decisions. But these states control more resources than other states do through taxes and regulation, so their governments play a larger role in economic life.

At the other end of the spectrum, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida and South Dakota allow citizens to make more of their own economic choices, keep more of their own money, and set more of their own terms of trade and work.

They aren’t free-market utopias; they impose plenty of regulatory burdens. But they are economically freer than other states.

These two groups have, in other words, been experimenting with different approaches to economic policy. Does one approach lead to higher incomes or faster growth? Greater economic equality or more upward mobility? What about other aspects of a good society like tolerance, generosity, or life satisfaction?

For two decades now, we’ve had a handy tool to assess these questions: The Fraser Institute’s annual “Economic Freedom of North America” index uses 10 variables in three broad areas—government spending, taxation, and labor regulation—to assess the degree of economic freedom in each of the 50 states and the territory of Puerto Rico, as well as in Canadian provinces and Mexican states.

It’s an objective measurement that allows economists to take stock of federalism’s natural experiments. Independent scholars have done just that, having now conducted over 250 studies using the index. With careful statistical analyses that control for the important differences among states—possibly confounding factors such as geography, climate, and historical development—the vast majority of these studies associate greater economic freedom with greater prosperity.

In fact, freedom’s payoffs are astounding.

States with high and increasing levels of economic freedom tend to see higher incomesmore entrepreneurial activity and more net in-migration. Their people tend to experience greater income mobility, and more income growth at both the top and bottom of the income distribution. They have less poverty, less homelessness and lower levels of food insecurity. People there even seem to be more philanthropic, more tolerant and more satisfied with their lives.

New Hampshire, Tennessee, and South Dakota topped the latest edition of the report while Puerto Rico, New Mexico, and New York rounded out the bottom. New Mexico displaced New York as the least economically free state in the union for the first time in 20 years, but it had always been near the bottom.

The bigger stories are the major movers. The last 10 years’ worth of available data show South Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, Iowa and Utah moving up at least 10 places. Arizona, Virginia, Nebraska, and Maryland have all slid down 10 spots.

Over that same decade, those states that were among the freest 25 per cent on average saw their populations grow nearly 18 times faster than those in the bottom 25 per cent. Statewide personal income grew nine times as fast.

Economic freedom isn’t a panacea. Nor is it the only thing that matters. Geography, culture, and even luck can influence a state’s prosperity. But while policymakers can’t move mountains or rewrite cultures, they can look at the data, heed the lessons of our federalist experiment, and permit their citizens more economic freedom.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”

And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.

So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.

But is that true?

Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.

Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.

Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.

However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.

Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.

So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.

 

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X