Louis S

A Wake up call! Canada has seen this movie before. and it did not end well. In the 1980s, when the United States under Ronald Reagan pivoted decisively toward supply-side economics and pro-growth reform, Canada chose the opposite path. Rather than adapting to the new North American reality, the Liberal Party and Pierre Elliott Trudeau leaned into a narrative that cast the U.S. as the villain and used that resentment to justify doubling down on progressive, interventionist policy. And unfortunately, the Canadian electorate bought it. The result was not moral victory, but national decline. Of historic proportions! As the U.S. unleashed investment, cut taxes, and reoriented its economy toward competitiveness and productivity, Canada sank deeper into high-tax, high-spend, anti-growth orthodoxy. By the early 1990s, the country was widely regarded as a fiscal basket case, an honorary member of the Third World in the eyes of global markets and institutions. Sovereignty rhetoric did not protect Canada from the brutal reality of debt, stagnation, and lost credibility. Global Capital markets are unforgiving, and will not buy the Proformative policy’s and moral virtue signalling that many Canadians are apt to fall for. At the same time, today’s Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem appears to be following in the footsteps of John Crow, reprising a hardline, backward-looking central banking mindset just as the global regime is shifting under his feet. Today, the script is being dusted off. Mark Carney and the current Liberal establishment appear intent on replaying the PET playbook: demonize a resurgent, supply-side America; cling to progressive dogma; and subordinate growth to ideological vanity. It is a dangerous delusion. In an era of deglobalization, reindustrialization, and strategic competition, a Canada that chooses post-national lectures over hard-nosed economic alignment will not be admired, it will be marginalized. The warning is stark: if Canada insists on repeating the 1980s error in a far less forgiving world, it should expect a harsher verdict than “honorary Third World.” This time, there may be no easy way back.