Fighting Trump’s Alternate Reality

Patrick Gossage • May 17, 2025

The last weeks have shown that there are a few leaders who can stand up to Trump’s destructive world views. One leader with huge international clout and the other who is important to the survival of Canada. There is also a rejuvenated Cabinet in Ottawa that will hopefully lead the defense and rebuilding of Canada.

The new Pope Leo with his words of inclusion and love starkly contrast with Trump’s message of exclusion and revenge. Michael Higgins, a Toronto Catholic theologian put it this way in the Globe: “By choosing an American with international exposure, a refined social justice sensitivity, the priorities of Francis regarding…inequality, global migration and the evils of ethno- nationalism, the cardinals have set up on the Tiber an antidote to the insularity and intolerance on the Potomac.” The President is anxious to meet him, but he has been critical of Trump’s deportation policies and is unlikely to moderate his criticisms in such a meeting.


Important to our survival as a sovereign nation is having a leader who can not only stand up to Trump but gain his respect. This occurred to almost universal praise from all sides in the first meeting of Prime Minister Carney with the President on May 6, 2025. A question about Canada becoming the 51st state in a Carney’s first White House meeting prompted a lengthy Trump answer underling how better Canada would be as a state and his usual musings on the “artificial” Canada/US border. Carney listened patiently then delivered his well-rehearsed repost: “If I may," Carney said, "as you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale.”


"That's true," Trump said, seemingly charmed by Carney's appeal to his previous career. Carney continued: "And having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign, the last several months, it's not for sale, won't be for sale ever." Trump replied, “Never say never”. Amid the noisy cacophony of questions that followed, you could see Carney say “never” five times. This has become the most quoted exchange from the meeting by far. A brilliant foray from a very well-prepared Carney. He had the words to flatter and yet be very firm.


Trudeau had much earlier warned to take Trump’s 51st state musings seriously saying Trump wanted “to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy, because that’ll make it easier to annex us.” These warnings were repeated often by Carney in the election campaign. 


Trump’s expansionist dreams which include “strategic” Greenland were described in the New York Times by eminent columnist David French: “In foreign policy, his actions appear…to be a revival of Manifest Destiny, the belief that God had destined the United States to spread across the continental United States and the rest of North America, and the Monroe Doctrine, a declaration to the European powers that the United States was the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere.”


Later in the Oval office circus, Trump repeated his catalogue of objections to an independent Canada he made at length a few days before the meeting: “Canada only works as a state. We don’t need anything they have. As a state, it would be one of the great states anywhere. This would be the most incredible country, visually. If you look at a map, they drew an artificial line right through it, between Canada and the U.S. Just a straight, artificial line. Somebody did it a long time ago, many many decades ago. Makes no sense. It’s so perfect as a great and cherished state.""But why should we subsidize another country for $200 billion?" Trump continued, adding, "And again, we don’t need their lumber, we don’t need their energy. We have more than they do. We don’t need anything. We don’t need their cars. I’d much rather make cars here. And there’s not a thing that we need. Now, there will be a little disruption, but it won’t be very long. But they need us. We really don’t need them. And we have to do this. I’m sorry." This is his credo on us. And it’s etched in his mind. Carney had to repeat in the private part of the meeting that it would never happen. Yet the private meeting was “constructive”, and there is no doubt that Trump respects Carney even if his basic views on us gave not changed. 


Carney’s detailed plan to build up our economy relatively free of reliance on the US market is now a challenging alternative should negotiations to end tariffs fail. It could be the only way we can prosper given Trump’s entrenched view that we shouldn’t even exist as an independent nation. There will be more meetings, but we must be prepared for them to fail. In this critical match we must build our own strength to take on the world superpower. And hope Trump’s exaggerated ambitions are throttled by domestic backlash.

This is how Carney predicted facing the dying Canada-US relation in his acceptance speech at the Convention that made him PM:

“When I sit down with Donald Trump, it will be with the full knowledge that we have many many other options than the US to build prosperity for Canada.” He said that negotiations would be based on strength and the use of “overwhelming force”, a strategy he had used in other crisis situations. 


We saw a flash of this toughness in the last meeting. But if the next one hits a wall, we can expect him to take a more aggressive strategy as he indicated in that speech. We have the cards in energy and a determination to make it on our own. I think we’ll start to see them being played soon. 


The success of this strategy is now in the hands of a new cabinet with 14 old faces and 13 new. In Canada US relations, veteran Dominic Leblanc who has deep contacts in the White House since attending the original Mar del Lago dinner, is now in charge of the whole file and internal trade. Carney is determined to make Canada one economy not 13 and LeBlanc will a key role in that too. Melanie Jolie, also a White House vet, is off to Industry, replaced at Foreign Affairs by a novice in the file, the smart and reliable Anita Anand. New faces like Gary Anandasangaree as Minister of Public Safety responsible for the border, Rebecca Chartrand, Minister for the Artic (which Trump has his eye on) have to get up to speed quickly. David McGuinty, a veteran of the White House is now in charge of the very demanding National Defense portfolio due for massive increases in spending. 


For Plan B, the rebuilding of our economy into the “strongest economy in the G7” there is strength with ebullient Francois-Phillipe Champagne as Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freland at Transport and Internal Trade, Tim Hodgson a friend of Carney from Goldman Sachs and Finance at Energy, Jolie at Industry, and newcomers Lena Metlege Diab former Nova Scotia Minister of Immigration, Marjorie Michael, a Trudeau office veteran at Health and former Mayor of Vancouver Greg Robinson at Housing. 


If Carney keeps his promise to “empower” and not over-control them - as was the problem with the Trudeau PMO - and run a true “Cabinet government,” this is the group that must execute the urgent program Carney envisions. It will depend on him and the way he inspires and motivates a real sense of teamwork in his grand plan to transform our economy.

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts