Trump Calls Trudeau a "Governor" and Threatens Canada with 25% Tariffs: How a Sovereign Nation Ends Up on Its Knees

Twenty-five percent: the figure that terrifies Ottawa

The threat hangs like a sword of Damocles over Canadian government offices. Donald Trump brandishes his tariffs with the relish of a poker player who knows how to have his opponents by the throat. This tariff rate on Canadian products represents far more than a mere protectionist measure. It embodies a philosophy of power dynamics in which the economy becomes an instrument of political subjugation. No matter how much Ottawa’s negotiators turn the problem over in their minds, the math remains relentless. Ontario’s auto industry, British Columbia’s lumber producers, and Prairie farmers are facing a future in which their goods would suddenly become unsellable in their main export market. Trump isn’t content with making abstract threats. He elaborates, he specifies, and he leaves uncertainty hanging over which sectors will be hit first. This strategy of calculated ambiguity produces exactly the desired effect. Canadian companies are freezing their investments, banks are tightening credit conditions, and economic confidence is crumbling even before the first tariff is levied. The U.S. president has understood that the fear of a blow sometimes does more damage than the blow itself. This psychological warfare turns every presidential statement into a stock market earthquake in Toronto.

The repercussions of this sword of Damocles extend far beyond the strict confines of trade. The Canadian economy functions as an organism deeply integrated with its southern neighbor. Supply chains cross the border multiple times before a final product reaches the consumer. An auto part may cross the Windsor-Detroit border four or five times during its manufacturing process. Imposing tariffs in this context amounts to taxing one’s own industry just as much as that of one’s partner. But Trump couldn’t care less. His electoral base doesn’t understand these economic subtleties, and the president makes no effort to explain them. He prefers the simple narrative of fighting a neighbor that is unfairly profiting from American generosity. This misleading narrative, however, resonates in certain declining American industrial regions. Workers in Ohio or Michigan want someone to blame for their precarious situation. Canada makes a convenient scapegoat, even though those truly responsible sit on the boards of directors that have relocated their factories to Asia. Trump exploits this popular anger with astonishing cynicism, turning a historic ally into an enemy of convenience to satisfy his most base political calculations.

Trade Dependency as an Invisible Chain

Trade statistics tell a story of structural vulnerability that successive Canadian governments have stubbornly refused to address. Three-quarters of the country’s exports cross the southern border. This concentration represents an anomaly in modern international trade. No other developed economy has placed so many eggs in a single geographic basket. Economists have been warning for decades about the dangers of this excessive dependence. Politicians nod politely at conferences, promise ambitious diversification strategies, and then return to business as usual without making any fundamental changes. Today, the consequences of this collective neglect are coming to a head. Alberta’s oil flows to Texas refineries, Quebec’s lumber builds American homes, and aluminum from the Saguenay region fuels Seattle’s aerospace industry. Every sector depends on a customer who can now shut the door on a presidential whim. This geoeconomic reality turns trade negotiations into an exercise in national humiliation. Ottawa cannot truly negotiate on equal footing. The balance of power is too lopsided. Trump knows this and exploits it with obvious relish.

The attempts at trade diversification undertaken in recent years are like band-aids on a bleeding wound. The free trade agreement with the European Union, celebrated as a historic breakthrough, generates negligible trade volumes compared to North American cross-border flows. The Trans-Pacific Partnership offers interesting prospects in Asia, but geographical distances and cultural differences limit its real potential. Canadian companies know the U.S. market like the back of their hand. They speak the same language, understand the same cultural references, and operate in compatible time zones. Reproducing this commercial intimacy with European or Asian partners would require decades of sustained effort. Yet time is running out fast. Trump does not allow for the luxury of a gradual and orderly transition. He demands immediate concessions under threat of instant retaliation. This temporal asymmetry gives Washington a considerable advantage in any negotiation. Canadians must accept today what they would refuse tomorrow, simply because “tomorrow” does not exist in Trump’s vocabulary. This manufactured sense of urgency thus becomes a formidably effective negotiating weapon against a partner that is structurally incapable of resisting for long.

Strategic Sectors Held Hostage

Certain Canadian industries are now living with an economic gun pointed at their heads. Ontario’s automotive sector perfectly embodies this organized precariousness. The plants in Oshawa, Windsor, and Brampton employ tens of thousands of families whose fate depends entirely on the whims of the U.S. president. These workers have dedicated their lives to building vehicles for an integrated continental market. They possess specialized skills, adhere to exacting quality standards, and contribute to North American manufacturing excellence. Yet their professional future can be upended by a single angry tweet sent from Mar-a-Lago at three in the morning. This constant existential insecurity has devastating psychological effects that economic statistics never capture. Workers have stopped planning for the future, young people are hesitant to enter the industry, and investments in modernization are being postponed indefinitely. Trump has succeeded in sowing doubt at the very heart of Canada’s manufacturing sector. Without firing a single real “tariff shot,” he is already paralyzing entire sectors of the opposing economy. This psychological war of attrition may be his greatest strategic victory.

The forestry and energy sectors are facing comparable pressures, with marked regional variations. Lumber producers have long been familiar with American protectionist whims. Trade disputes have been ongoing for decades, with each U.S. administration finding a pretext to tax Canadian lumber deemed unfairly subsidized. Trump has inherited this tradition of conflict and is amplifying it considerably. Sawmills in British Columbia have learned to survive amid uncertainty, but the current threat exceeds anything they have faced before. As for Alberta’s oil, its fate remains tied to the decisions of a president who can simultaneously authorize cross-border pipelines and threaten to tax their contents. This political schizophrenia makes any industrial planning impossible. Oil companies no longer know whether investing in the oil sands is a rational bet or a suicidal folly. Trump is deliberately maintaining this confusion to maximize his influence over Canadian investment decisions. Every dollar that hesitates to cross the border strengthens his negotiating position in upcoming discussions.

This reality strikes me with the force of a truth that has been ignored for far too long. I look at Canada’s economic dependence and see generations of leaders who chose the easy path over foresight. They built fragile prosperity on unstable geopolitical foundations, betting that American friendship would last forever. That bet is crumbling before our very eyes today. Working-class families in Ontario who are trembling for their jobs are paying the price for this collective lack of foresight. Entrepreneurs who staked everything on the U.S. market are suddenly discovering their vulnerability. I feel a cold anger at this avoidable situation. The warnings were there, economists were speaking out, and historical examples abounded. Yet nothing changed. The comfort of the status quo has always trumped strategic prudence. Today, a single man in Washington can decide the economic fate of millions of Canadians. This national powerlessness should outrage us all and finally push us toward a genuine diversification of our trade partnerships.

Seventy-five percent: the figure that has Ottawa on edge

Trade statistics sometimes tell stories that political rhetoric prefers to gloss over. When three-quarters of Canadian exports cross the U.S. border every day, we’re no longer talking about a trade partnership but rather a form of structural dependence built on decades of economic integration. Cars assembled in Windsor cross the Ambassador Bridge to be sold in Detroit. Oil from Alberta’s oil sands flows into refineries in Texas. Lumber from British Columbia is used to build homes in California. This interdependence, presented for years as a strength, is now proving to be a glaring vulnerability in the face of a U.S. president who has made economic leverage his weapon of choice. Canadian economists have long celebrated the North American Free Trade Agreement as a diplomatic triumph, a guarantee of privileged access to the world’s largest consumer market. No one had anticipated that an occupant of the White House would use this proximity as a stranglehold. Reality is now hitting with a brutality that Excel spreadsheets cannot cushion: Ottawa has virtually no room to maneuver in the face of Donald Trump’s tariff threats, because retaliating would be tantamount to shooting itself in the economic foot.

This dependence did not arise by accident but is the result of deliberate policy choices made over several generations. Since the 1980s, successive Canadian governments—whether Liberal or Conservative—have relied on continental integration as an engine of growth. Supply chains have become so intertwined that an auto part can cross the border six or seven times before being assembled into a finished vehicle. This interdependence was supposed to create unbreakable bonds—a sort of mutual insurance against trade conflicts. The idea seemed logical: why would Washington target industries on which American jobs also depend? Donald Trump shattered that logic by demonstrating that he was willing to accept collateral damage on his own territory to secure concessions. The 25 percent tariffs held like a sword of Damocles over the Canadian economy are not an empty threat. They represent a potential catastrophe for entire sectors: Ontario’s automotive industry, Quebec’s aluminum industry, and Alberta’s energy sector. Every region of Canada has a vital industry that depends on U.S. goodwill, and this geographic distribution of vulnerability further complicates any coordinated federal response strategy.

Diversifying Partners: A Pious Wish in the Face of Urgency

For years, Canadian leaders have repeated the mantra of economic diversification like a protective incantation. Strengthen ties with the European Union. Expand trade with the Asia-Pacific region. Conclude new trade agreements with emerging partners. These ambitions feature in every Speech from the Throne, every election platform, and every ministerial statement. The reality of the numbers tells a different story. The free trade agreement with Europe, signed with great fanfare in 2017, has only moved the needle by a few percentage points. Exports to China remain concentrated on raw materials, lacking the added value that would create true interdependence. The Trans-Pacific Partnership offers theoretical opportunities that Canadian companies are struggling to capitalize on in the face of more aggressive Asian competitors. Geography imposes its inexorable law: transporting goods to Rotterdam or Shanghai costs infinitely more than shipping them to Buffalo or Seattle. This tyranny of distance will not disappear simply because relations with Washington are deteriorating. Canada’s port infrastructure, rail networks, and logistics corridors were built along a north-south axis, not an east-west one. Reorienting these flows would require colossal investments over several decades—a luxury that the current situation does not allow.

The urgency of the current crisis renders the long-term solutions proposed by international trade experts laughable. When Donald Trump threatens to impose punitive tariffs in the coming weeks or months, talking about diversification over the next twenty years sounds like a bad joke. Canadian companies cannot reorient their supply chains overnight. Contracts with U.S. customers often make up the entire order book for small and medium-sized businesses that lack both the resources and the expertise to explore distant markets. Structural dependence has seeped into the very fabric of the local economy, creating entire communities whose prosperity rests on a single customer: the U.S. economy. Sarnia, Ontario, depends on the petrochemical industry linked to Michigan’s refineries. Windsor exists thanks to the automotive industry, which is integrated into the Detroit system. These cities cannot reinvent themselves in a matter of months simply because a U.S. president has decided to gamble with their future. Diversification remains a laudable goal for future generations, but it offers no immediate protection against the threats looming over the Canadian economy today.

The noose is tightening around a weakened government

The timing of this Trump-led offensive could not have been worse for Ottawa. Canada is going through a period of exceptional political instability that is crippling its ability to respond to external pressures. Justin Trudeau has announced his resignation after years of fragile minority government, creating a leadership vacuum at the worst possible moment. Political parties are preparing for a snap election rather than a major diplomatic crisis. Ministers are wondering whether they will still be in office in a few months, which complicates any medium-term strategic planning. This institutional weakness has not escaped the Trump team, which appears to have timed its offensive to exploit this window of vulnerability. Negotiating with a government that does not know whether it will survive the next confidence vote offers obvious tactical advantages. Concessions wrested in haste risk becoming permanent, as the next government will be reluctant to reopen issues that have already been settled. Canada’s political transition is thus turning into a windfall for Washington, which can press its advantage while its northern neighbor looks the other way, absorbed by its internal squabbles and electoral calculations.

The options available to the Canadian government resemble a choice between several forms of defeat. Responding to U.S. tariffs with retaliatory measures would satisfy public opinion but inflict disproportionate economic damage on the smaller and more dependent Canadian economy. Giving in to Trump’s demands would preserve access to the U.S. market but set a disastrous precedent, inviting new demands whenever Washington wants to get something. Attempting to negotiate on equal footing is a pipe dream when the balance of power is so lopsided. Some strategists are suggesting the possibility of surgically targeting U.S. products from key Republican states, replicating the tactic used in previous trade wars. This approach had shown some effectiveness under the previous Trump administration, but it carries the risk of uncontrolled escalation. The U.S. president has demonstrated a willingness to absorb losses to impose his will, and an economically strangled Canada cannot afford a prolonged standoff. Every day of trade conflict costs jobs, investments, and business confidence—losses that official statistics will take months to quantify.

Every time I read these figures—seventy-five percent of our exports tied to a single market—I feel a sense of vertigo at the sheer scale of our collective vulnerability. We have built our prosperity on an assumption that is crumbling before our eyes: the belief that our southern neighbor would remain a rational partner that respects established rules. This faith in American predictability led us to put all our eggs in the same continental basket, and now someone is threatening to overturn that basket on a political whim. Perhaps most troubling of all is the sense of powerlessness that this situation evokes. Millions of ordinary Canadians—factory workers, Prairie farmers, small business owners—watch as their economic future hangs on the whims of a man who views them as potential subjects of a fifty-first state. This asymmetry of power strikes at something deep within the Canadian identity: that quiet conviction that we are a sovereign nation capable of charting our own course. Economic dependence is now revealing its cruelest political dimension.

The chilling laugh of a calculated provocation

Words carry weight. Those of an American president carry nuclear-level impact. When Donald Trump raises the idea of turning Canada into the fifty-first state, he does so with that trademark smirk. A joke, say his supporters. A destabilization strategy, experts analyze. But behind the lighthearted tone lies a formidable mechanism of psychological pressure that shakes the very foundations of the relationship between two sovereign nations. The U.S. president has described the Canada-U.S. border as an artificial line, as if centuries of shared history could be erased with a stroke of dubious humor. He has referred to Justin Trudeau as a mere governor, reducing the prime minister of a parliamentary democracy to a regional subordinate. These statements are not spontaneous gaffes. They are part of a strategy of verbal domination aimed at redefining the terms of the debate even before negotiations begin. Every word is carefully weighed to stun the opponent, to place them on the defensive where they must constantly clarify the obvious rather than defend their actual interests.

The repetition of these provocations creates a pernicious normalization effect that transforms the unthinkable into just one option among many. By constantly hearing talk of annexation—even in a joking tone—public opinion begins to accept this scenario as a theoretical possibility. This is precisely the goal of this transgressive rhetoric, which ceaselessly pushes the boundaries of what can be said. Political communication analysts recognize this technique as the Overton effect—the mechanism by which ideas that were once marginal gradually become acceptable through repeated media exposure. Trump masters this method with unsettling skill, using humor to convey messages that would be immediately condemned if they were stated seriously. Canada thus finds itself trapped in an impossible communication dilemma: reacting strongly seems disproportionate to a joke, while downplaying these remarks risks legitimizing them. This asymmetry lies at the very heart of Trump’s strategy, transforming every diplomatic interaction into a minefield where Ottawa can only lose ground.

Sovereignty Ridiculed in Public

The very concept of Canadian national sovereignty is being eroded by these repeated attacks, which treat a country of forty million people as a territory ripe for absorption. This neo-imperialist rhetoric reawakens spectres that were thought to have been long buried in North American relations. Canada is not a colony. Nor is it a satellite forced to follow the lead of its southern neighbor, no matter what pressures are exerted. Yet the overwhelming economic dependence that binds Ottawa to Washington creates a structural vulnerability that Trump exploits with surgical precision. Nearly three-quarters of Canadian exports flow to the U.S. market—a concentration that turns every tariff threat into a weapon of mass economic destruction. This economic reality explains why Canadian leaders tread carefully when responding to presidential provocations. Too much firmness could trigger devastating tariff retaliation. Too much leniency would encourage further public humiliation. Striking a balance is nearly impossible in this context, where the rules of traditional diplomacy have been swept aside by a style of governance based on unpredictability.

Canada’s traditional allies are watching this situation with a mixture of concern and helplessness that reveals the limits of international solidarity in the face of American power. The European Union regularly expresses rhetorical support for Ottawa, but what weight do these statements of principle carry in the face of the relentless geographical realities that bind Canada to its continental neighbor? Trade agreements with Brussels or Pacific nations represent marginal alternatives incapable of compensating for a break with the U.S. market. This structural dependence is no accident. It stems from decades of economic integration fostered by successive free-trade agreements, from NAFTA to the new USMCA. Canada has staked its future on a relationship of trust with Washington, assuming that historical and cultural ties would shield this alliance from political upheavals. Trump’s rise to power shattered this comfortable illusion, demonstrating that no partnership is immune to the ambitions of a leader determined to rewrite the rules on his own terms. The lesson is a harsh one for Ottawa, which is belatedly discovering the cost of dependence.

Humiliation as an Openly Used Diplomatic Tool

Donald Trump does not merely threaten Canada. He publicly humiliates it, turning every press conference into a show of force where the weaker party must bow down. This theatrical dimension of Trumpian politics stems from a logic of constant spectacle that feeds his electoral base, which is hungry for signs of American dominance over the rest of the world. Canada offers an ideal target for this aggressive nationalist spectacle. Close enough for American voters to feel concerned, yet dependent enough to be unable to retaliate effectively. Trump toys with his neighbor like a cat with a mouse, alternating between periods of maximum tension and promises of negotiation that never lead to truly balanced agreements. This calculated instability keeps Ottawa in a state of constant stress that drains diplomatic resources and diverts attention from genuine domestic issues. The Canadian government now devotes a significant portion of its energy to managing crises artificially created by Washington rather than to developing independent policies that meet the needs of its people.

The current period is dramatically exacerbating this Canadian vulnerability due to a chaotic political transition that leaves Ottawa without stable leadership in the face of the Trumpian storm. Justin Trudeau’s resignation, the prospect of early elections, and the fragility of a minority government are creating a power vacuum that Washington is shamelessly exploiting. A politically divided country always negotiates from a position of weakness when facing a counterpart united behind a determined leader. Trump knows this all too well and is intensifying his pressure precisely at a time when Canada is least able to resist it. The 25 percent tariffs brandished as a threat are a sword of Damocles hanging over entire economic sectors, from the automotive industry to natural resources and agriculture. These industries employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose jobs now depend on the whims of a foreign president. This situation of existential dependence turns every presidential tweet into a major source of economic instability for entire communities that have no say in the decisions made in Washington.

I cannot help but feel a sense of vertigo at the sight of a democracy being publicly manhandled by its closest ally. Something has shattered in the international order we thought was immutable—that reassuring certainty that Western nations shared common values of mutual respect and cooperation. Watching Canada struggle in the face of Trump’s provocations is to witness a brutal demonstration that force now takes precedence over law in relations between supposedly friendly democracies. This reality chills me far more than any threat from declared adversaries. For if even the oldest alliances can be sacrificed on the altar of a leader’s personal ambitions, then no geopolitical certainty holds any longer. Canada is not merely a friendly nation. It represents an idea—that of peaceful sovereignty that rejects the logic of domination. Seeing this idea mocked by the very person who should be its foremost defender leaves a bitter taste that won’t go away.

A Shadow Government Facing the American Hurricane

Justin Trudeau’s resignation in January 2025 plunged Canada into a political vacuum of exceptional severity, precisely at a time when the nation most needed strong and consistent leadership. The outgoing prime minister, weakened by months of scandals, defections within his own party, and plummeting popularity, chose to jump ship just as the first waves of the Trump storm began to hit the Canadian coast. This timing is no unfortunate coincidence. Rather, it reveals the structural inability of the Canadian political system to reform in a crisis, to find quick solutions to crises that demand an immediate response. The interim minority government is operating in survival mode, unable to make bold decisions or engage in long-term negotiations with Washington. Every minister knows that their term could end in a matter of weeks, that early elections could be triggered at any moment by a vote of no confidence. This institutional precariousness results in decision-making paralysis that plays right into the hands of the U.S. administration, which is fully aware that it is negotiating with a weakened, divided, and temporary counterpart.

The halls of Parliament echo with rumors and electoral calculations rather than national strategies to confront the U.S. economic threat. Liberal MPs are at odds over Trudeau’s succession; Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives sense power within reach and are adjusting their rhetoric on a day-to-day basis; while the New Democrats waver between tactical support and a dramatic break. This political cacophony offers Donald Trump exactly what he has been seeking since the start of his rhetorical offensive against Ottawa. A fragmented opponent, unable to speak with one voice, whose internal divisions become exploitable weaknesses in any trade or diplomatic negotiation. The contrast with the apparent unity of the American camp could not be more striking. While Canadians squabble among themselves, the White House methodically rolls out its strategy of maximum pressure, alternating between tariff threats and symbolic provocations regarding annexation. Officials at Foreign Affairs and International Trade are working without clear directives, forced to improvise responses to offensives they had not anticipated with such intensity. The government machinery is idling, deprived of the political impetus needed to turn analyses into concrete action.

The Shadow Ministers of a Disoriented Nation

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland had been regarded for years as Canada’s best defense against U.S. protectionist tendencies. Her departure from the cabinet in December 2024, following a public disagreement with Trudeau over budget priorities, deprived Ottawa of its most experienced negotiator at the worst possible moment. Freeland knew North American trade issues like no one else, had forged ties with U.S. business circles, and had mastered the subtle art of economic diplomacy. Her successor, appointed in a rush and lacking comparable experience, finds himself thrust into negotiations of formidable complexity without having had time to master the thousands of pages of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. This loss of expertise at the highest levels of government is having a ripple effect throughout the entire government apparatus. Senior officials who were accustomed to receiving clear guidance from Freeland are now flying by the seat of their pants, forced to guess the intentions of a government in a state of perpetual transition. Files are piling up on desks without resolution, and U.S. requests go unanswered for weeks, creating an impression of amateurism that encourages Washington to further toughen its demands.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs finds itself in a particularly delicate situation, caught between the need to maintain working relations with the Trump administration and the obligation to defend national dignity in the face of repeated provocations regarding the “51st state.” How does one respond to a U.S. president who publicly refers to your prime minister as a “governor” without appearing either weak or counterproductively aggressive? Canadian diplomats stationed in Washington are walking on eggshells, forced to smile at the very same officials who are threatening their national economy with massive trade retaliation. This diplomatic schizophrenia is exhausting staff and eroding the morale of even the most dedicated civil servants. Some seasoned ambassadors are considering resigning rather than continuing to represent a government incapable of providing them with coherent guidelines. The Canadian civil service, long regarded as one of the most professional in the world, is showing signs of institutional fatigue in the face of this unprecedented crisis. Voluntary departures are on the rise, recruitment is stagnating, and the institutional memory that was once Ottawa’s strength in international negotiations is dangerously eroding.

The Opposition, Opportunistically Awaiting Chaos

Pierre Poilievre watches the Liberals’ collapse with a mix of electoral satisfaction and patriotic embarrassment that is hard to hide. The Conservative leader knows that every day the current government fails to resolve the crisis increases his chances of victory in the next election. But he also understands that the weakened Canada he would inherit in the event of a victory would be far more difficult to govern than a country that had successfully resisted American pressure. This ambivalence is reflected in his public statements, which alternate between fierce criticism of Liberal incompetence and calls for national unity in the face of external threats. His advisors are urging him to remain cautious, to avoid tying his own hands with promises regarding relations with Washington that are impossible to keep. For Poilievre knows full well that if he becomes prime minister, he too will have to negotiate with Trump, and that the same structural constraints that paralyze the Liberals will apply to his government. Economic dependence on the United States will not disappear with a change in the parliamentary majority. The fact that seventy-five percent of Canadian exports are directed toward the U.S. market will remain an inescapable geographical and economic reality, regardless of the federal government’s political affiliation.

The other opposition parties are taking various stances in the face of this national crisis, which transcends the usual political divides. The Bloc Québécois is seizing the opportunity to revive its sovereignty-focused rhetoric, suggesting that an independent Quebec could negotiate its own trade agreements with Washington and thus escape the blackmail being wielded against Canada as a whole. This argument completely ignores the economic realities of a province that is even more dependent on continental trade than the Canadian average, but it resonates with voters frustrated by the federal government’s powerlessness. Jagmeet Singh’s New Democratic Party oscillates between conditional support for the minority government and the temptation to break ranks, which would trigger an election. Singh vehemently denounces U.S. threats but struggles to propose credible alternatives beyond vague calls for economic diversification and industrial sovereignty. This partisan cacophony presents the spectacle of a democracy incapable of uniting in the face of an existential challenge, with each political party prioritizing its immediate electoral interests over the long-term national interest. The fragmentation of the Canadian political landscape thus becomes a weapon in the hands of Donald Trump, who can play the factions off against one another.

Faced with this loss of authority and cohesion, I feel a sense of moral vertigo at the collective inability of a mature democracy to pull itself together in the face of an emergency. The Canada I have been observing for months resembles a ship whose crew is fighting over the helm while an iceberg approaches inexorably. This paralysis is not an inevitable fate but the result of accumulated political choices, oversized egos, and short-sighted calculations that sacrifice the country’s future on the altar of personal ambition. Trudeau chose to step down rather than face the storm he had helped create through years of neglected relations with Washington. His potential successors are fighting for power that may soon be worth little if U.S. tariffs devastate the national economy. Canadians deserve better than this disheartening spectacle of a political class incapable of transcending its divisions in the face of a common threat. History will judge harshly those who chose partisan opportunism over national courage at this decisive hour for Canadian sovereignty.

In progress

Section is being generated…

In progress

Section is being generated…

In progress

Section is being generated…

In progress

Section is being generated…

In progress

Section is being generated…