Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Trumpian chaos—where we are now and what’s coming for Canada

Published

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

As we pause to catch our breath amid the ongoing drama of President Donald Trump’s whack-a-mole tariff war, there’s both good and bad news from a Canadian perspective.

On the positive side, Canada (together with Mexico) was not specifically targeted when the president outlined the details of his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on April 2. These new levies—ranging from 10 per cent to more than 40 per cent, depending on the country—will affect most categories of exports from virtually every U.S. trading partner, but fortunately not America’s two co-signatories to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Instead, apart from a handful of significant economic sectors (discussed below), Canadian exporters, for the moment, will be able to sell tariff-free into the U.S. market, provided they are compliant with the rules and paperwork requirements stipulated in CUSMA. That’s a ray of sunshine in an otherwise dark sky.

On April 9, the president agreed to a 90-day pause on his sweeping reciprocal tariffs, perhaps because of plunging U.S. and global stock markets and mounting fears of economic calamity. At the same time, he announced a jaw-dropping 125 per cent tariff on imports from China, which then immediately retaliated with steep duties of its own on all U.S. goods entering the country.

The risk remains that when the dust settles, the U.S will end up applying much higher tariffs on imports from most of the world. Should President Trump adopt the reciprocal levies announced on April 2 and stick with the 125 per cent tariff on imports from China, Yale University researchers estimate that the average effective U.S. tariff rate will soar to 25.3 per cent—more than 10 times higher than the average over the preceding 25 years. That’s one measure of the disruption that Trump has visited upon the international trading system.

For Canada, the average U.S. tariff would be lower, between 4 and 5 per cent, reflecting the benefits of CUSMA, albeit somewhat offset by the negative impact of the 25 per cent levies the U.S. is imposing on all imports of steel, aluminum, and motor vehicles and parts, along with separate punitive duties on softwood lumber imported from Canada. American tariffs on these Canadian export sectors will undoubtedly exact a toll on our economy. But the damage would be considerably greater if Canada was subject to across-the-board U.S. reciprocal tariffs.

Where does all of this leave Canada’s $3.3 trillion economy as of the second quarter of 2025?

Late last year, most forecasters were expecting a modest pick-up in growth after a notably lacklustre 2024, mainly thanks to lower interest rates and reduced borrowing costs for households and businesses. However, that widely-shared view didn’t account for President Trump’s wholesale assault on the global economic system—“a new economic crisis,” as Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem described the situation in late March.

Back in February, the central bank took a stab at modelling the effects of matching U.S. and Canadian tariffs of 25 per cent, levied on all bilateral goods trade (apart from energy where a lower tariff rate was assumed). Its projections pointed to a permanent loss of Canadian economic output (real GDP) on the order of 2-3 per cent, a double-digit percentage decline in business investment, weaker consumption and a substantial fall in the value of Canadian exports over 2025/26. The Bank’s modelling also foresaw a lower Canadian dollar and a temporary jump in inflation, with the latter due primarily to Canada’s assumed retaliatory tariffs.

The macroeconomic scenario outlined in the Bank of Canada’s January study was dire enough, signalling a Canadian recession stretching over most of 2025 and well into 2026. But seen through today’s lens, the Bank’s earlier analysis looks too optimistic, as it failed to incorporate the worldwide dimensions of President Trump’s tariff barrage, including the scale of the retaliation planned by America’s aggrieved trading partners.

Even if it escapes the worst of Trump’s tariffs, Canada stands to suffer from a gruesome mix of slower global growth, a probable U.S. recession, and falling prices for oil, minerals and other natural resource products, which collectively comprise around half of the country’s international exports. Already there has been a marked erosion of Canadian business confidence, as reported in the Bank of Canada’s spring Business Outlook Survey, with one-third of firms now expecting a recession and hiring intentions sinking to the lowest level in a decade. Most respondents to the Bank’s survey also anticipate rising business input costs and higher Canadian inflation in 2025.

Worryingly, the latest Bank of Canada survey was completed in February; since then, the intensity of the Trumpian chaos has continued to increase. Among other things, the uncertainty that is an inevitable by-product of the president’s shambolic policymaking is having a decisively negative impact on business investment in many industries—in Canada, to be sure, but also in the United States. As two American business analysts recently observed: “With tariff policy shifting not day by day, but hour by hour… business investment is entirely paralyzed—and will continue to be frozen for the foreseeable future. That is exactly the opposite of what Trump intended.”

It doesn’t help that Canada is in the midst of a federal election, and that the government is therefore “otherwise occupied.” Once Canadian voters have spoken, the government elected on April 28 must deal with a deteriorating economy, navigate through the tariff fog and determine how to reset economic and security relations with our principal ally and commercial partner in the turbulent era of Trump 2.0.

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Banks

TD Bank Account Closures Expose Chinese Hybrid Warfare Threat

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

Scott McGregor warns that Chinese hybrid warfare is no longer hypothetical—it’s unfolding in Canada now. TD Bank’s closure of CCP-linked accounts highlights the rising infiltration of financial interests. From cyberattacks to guanxi-driven influence, Canada’s institutions face a systemic threat. As banks sound the alarm, Ottawa dithers. McGregor calls for urgent, whole-of-society action before foreign interference further erodes our sovereignty.

Chinese hybrid warfare isn’t coming. It’s here. And Canada’s response has been dangerously complacent

The recent revelation by The Globe and Mail that TD Bank has closed accounts linked to pro-China groups—including those associated with former Liberal MP Han Dong—should not be dismissed as routine risk management. Rather, it is a visible sign of a much deeper and more insidious campaign: a hybrid war being waged by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) across Canada’s political, economic and digital spheres.

TD Bank’s move—reportedly driven by “reputational risk” and concerns over foreign interference—marks a rare, public signal from the private sector. Politically exposed persons (PEPs), a term used in banking and intelligence circles to denote individuals vulnerable to corruption or manipulation, were reportedly among those flagged. When a leading Canadian bank takes action while the government remains hesitant, it suggests the threat is no longer theoretical. It is here.

Hybrid warfare refers to the use of non-military tools—such as cyberattacks, financial manipulation, political influence and disinformation—to erode a nation’s sovereignty and resilience from within. In The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, co-authored with Ina Mitchell, we detailed how the CCP has developed a complex and opaque architecture of influence within Canadian institutions. What we’re seeing now is the slow unravelling of that system, one bank record at a time.

Financial manipulation is a key component of this strategy. CCP-linked actors often use opaque payment systems—such as WeChat Pay, UnionPay or cryptocurrency—to move money outside traditional compliance structures. These platforms facilitate the unchecked flow of funds into Canadian sectors like real estate, academia and infrastructure, many of which are tied to national security and economic competitiveness.

Layered into this is China’s corporate-social credit system. While framed as a financial scoring tool, it also functions as a mechanism of political control, compelling Chinese firms and individuals—even abroad—to align with party objectives. In this context, there is no such thing as a genuinely independent Chinese company.

Complementing these structural tools is guanxi—a Chinese system of interpersonal networks and mutual obligations. Though rooted in trust, guanxi can be repurposed to quietly influence decision-makers, bypass oversight and secure insider deals. In the wrong hands, it becomes an informal channel of foreign control.

Meanwhile, Canada continues to face escalating cyberattacks linked to the Chinese state. These operations have targeted government agencies and private firms, stealing sensitive data, compromising infrastructure and undermining public confidence. These are not isolated intrusions—they are part of a broader effort to weaken Canada’s digital, economic and democratic institutions.

The TD Bank decision should be seen as a bellwether. Financial institutions are increasingly on the front lines of this undeclared conflict. Their actions raise an urgent question: if private-sector actors recognize the risk, why hasn’t the federal government acted more decisively?

The issue of Chinese interference has made headlines in recent years, from allegations of election meddling to intimidation of diaspora communities. TD’s decision adds a new financial layer to this growing concern.

Canada cannot afford to respond with fragmented, reactive policies. What’s needed is a whole-of-society response: new legislation to address foreign interference, strengthened compliance frameworks in finance and technology, and a clear-eyed recognition that hybrid warfare is already being waged on Canadian soil.

The CCP’s strategy is long-term, multidimensional and calculated. It blends political leverage, economic subversion, transnational organized crime and cyber operations. Canada must respond with equal sophistication, coordination and resolve.

The mosaic of influence isn’t forming. It’s already here. Recognizing the full picture is no longer optional. Canadians must demand transparency, accountability and action before more of our institutions fall under foreign control.

Scott McGregor is a defence and intelligence veteran, co-author of The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, and the managing partner of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting Ltd. He is a senior security adviser to the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and a former intelligence adviser to the RCMP and the B.C. Attorney General. He writes for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Major automakers are urging Congress to intervene and halt California’s aggressive plan to eliminate gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. With the Biden-era EPA waiver empowering California and 11 other states to enforce the rule, automakers warn of immediate impacts on vehicle availability and consumer choice. The U.S. House is preparing for a critical vote to determine if California’s sweeping environmental mandates will stand.

Key Details:

  • Automakers argue California’s rules will raise prices and limit consumer choices, especially amid high tariffs on auto imports.

  • The House is set to vote this week on repealing the EPA waiver that greenlit California’s mandate.

  • California’s regulations would require 35% of 2026 model year vehicles to be zero-emission, a figure manufacturers say is unrealistic.

Diving Deeper:

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing industry giants such as General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, issued a letter Monday warning Congress about the looming consequences of California’s radical environmental regulations. The automakers stressed that unless Congress acts swiftly, vehicle shipments across the country could be disrupted within months, forcing car companies to artificially limit sales of traditional vehicles to meet electric vehicle quotas.

California’s Air Resources Board rules have already spread to 11 other states—including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—together representing roughly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market. Despite repeated concerns from manufacturers, California officials have doubled down, insisting that their measures are essential for meeting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets and combating smog. However, even some states like Maryland have recognized the impracticality of California’s timeline, opting to delay compliance.

A major legal hurdle complicates the path forward. The Government Accountability Office ruled in March that the EPA waiver issued under former President Joe Biden cannot be revoked under the Congressional Review Act, which requires only a simple Senate majority. This creates uncertainty over whether Congress can truly roll back California’s authority without more complex legislative action.

The House is also gearing up to tackle other elements of California’s environmental regime, including blocking the state from imposing stricter pollution standards on commercial trucks and halting its low-nitrogen oxide emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. These moves reflect growing concerns that California’s progressive regulatory overreach is threatening national commerce and consumer choice.

Under California’s current rules, the state demands that 35% of light-duty vehicles for the 2026 model year be zero-emission, scaling up rapidly to 68% by 2030. Industry experts widely agree that these targets are disconnected from reality, given the current slow pace of electric vehicle adoption among the broader American public, particularly in rural and lower-income areas.

California first unveiled its plan in 2020, aiming to make at least 80% of new cars electric and the remainder plug-in hybrids by 2035. Now, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Transportation Department is working to undo the aggressive fuel economy regulations imposed during former President Joe Biden’s term, offering a much-needed course correction for an auto industry burdened by regulatory overreach.

As Congress debates, the larger question remains: Will America allow one state’s left-wing environmental ideology to dictate terms for the entire country’s auto industry?

Continue Reading

Trending

X