I recently watched an

interview

with historian Niall Ferguson that offers a useful lens for understanding the economic and geopolitical forces currently reshaping North America. His central argument, given at a Macdonald-Laurier Institute event a couple of weeks ago, is that the disruptions of the past decade cannot be explained through simplistic analogies or personality‑driven narratives. Instead, they are the product of long‑standing U.S. economic traditions and structural pressures that have been building for more than two decades.

Ferguson noted that the

United States

entered the post‑2000 era on an increasingly unsustainable trajectory. The decision to admit

China

into the

World Trade Organization

fundamentally reconfigured global manufacturing and the consequences were profound. North American industrial capacity eroded far more quickly than policymakers anticipated, while the gains accrued disproportionately to a narrow slice of the economy. For the median American household, real income stagnated for nearly 20 years. Simultaneously, the U.S. became involved in prolonged, costly foreign engagements that strained public finances and weakened domestic confidence.

Against this backdrop, the political turbulence that followed becomes easier to understand. Both major U.S. political parties had embraced a broad consensus on

globalization

, trade liberalization, immigration and foreign intervention. When the economic costs of that consensus grew impossible to ignore, what occurred was effectively a market correction — not in financial assets but in public sentiment. The demand for a new policy direction quickly built momentum and the shift that followed reflected that reality. Perhaps to an extreme that many Americans underestimated.

Canada often interprets these large and sudden U.S. policy turns through a domestic lens. Yet Ferguson’s blunt assessment is that Canada is not a central factor in American strategic or economic decision making. This misalignment between perception and reality has contributed to a growing complacency at home: a belief that Canada’s relevance on the global stage is much greater than it actually is. That disconnect creates acute vulnerabilities, particularly when we interpret major geopolitical developments as if they revolve around us rather than around much larger global dynamics that often have little to do with us.

Recent global events reinforce this point. Whether it involves renewed U.S. engagement in parts of Latin America, efforts to secure critical resources abroad or broader initiatives designed to counter China’s expanding influence, these moves reflect Washington’s attempt to reassert its position in a shifting global order and not an attempt to send signals to Canada. Yet portions of the Canadian commentary class continue treating such actions as if Canada is an intended target or strategic priority.

This mindset distracts from the real issue: Canada’s declining economic relevance relative to its potential. While other countries are reconfiguring energy supply chains, rebuilding industrial capacity, and competing aggressively for global capital, Canada has spent much of the past decade creating self‑imposed regulatory bottlenecks, political fragmentation, and policy contradictions that erode competitiveness — particularly in natural resources, a sector where Canada should be a global leader but increasingly is not.

If Canada wants to regain relevance, the path forward will not be found in rhetorical positioning, diplomatic theatre, trips abroad to China or other increasingly hostile regions, or even expanded humanitarian spending initiatives as a means to buy our way back onto the global stage. It lies in doubling down on the parts of our economy the world genuinely needs: energy, minerals and other resource‑based industries where demand is accelerating, not contracting. Global capital flows along the path of least resistance — toward scale, stability and opportunity, not self‑absorption or indecision. And that kind of relevance is not achieved through memoranda of understanding. Talk is cheap.

Investors should draw an important lesson from all of this. The world is transitioning into a new geopolitical and economic regime — one increasingly defined by industrial strategy, resource security, and strategic competition. Investment portfolios need to be positioned accordingly.

Finally, Canadians must confront an uncomfortable but unavoidable truth: the United States is reshaping the global paradigm with renewed focus and strategic intent — and Canada is not necessarily part of that vision. For Canadian investors, the real question is whether their portfolios, and their country, will adapt to this new environment or remain anchored to outdated assumptions about our relevance. The first step is to stop assigning blame to the U.S. or other jurisdictions for challenges of our own making and focus instead on the actions within our control. A friend once offered me sage advice: “Marty, you can make progress or you can make excuses — but you can’t make both.”

  • How boomers, gen X, millennials and gen Z make different investing mistakes
  • Three under-the-radar risks Canadian investors should be aware of this year

Martin Pelletier, CFA, is a senior portfolio manager at Wellington-Altus Private Counsel Inc., operating as TriVest Wealth Counsel, a private client and institutional investment firm specializing in discretionary risk-managed portfolios, investment audit/oversight and advanced tax, estate and wealth planning. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Wellington-Altus.

_____________________________________________________________

If you like this story,
sign up for
the FP Investor Newsletter.