For many Canadians, the exciting ice hockey game has turned into a pleasant antidote to a ruthless winter.

More than that – John Cooper said to the defeated Canadian coach to journalists after the best hockey players in Canada won the best hockey players in America in extra time last week – the besieged country “needs to win.”

Cooper was not asked and did not explain the prevailing reason Canada.

It was not it.

The reasons were clear to millions of Canadians who jumped, and I believe, with a mixture of joy and relief when Conor McDavid made a bowl of the most talented hockey player in the world, the goal that sent his team and a grateful nation to happy madness.

For weeks, US President Donald Trump mocked Canada and Prime Minister. He referred to a proud people and land like the 51st American and Justin Trudeau as its “ruler.”

Trump’s crow and its threats raised an increase in pride among the Canadians who are usually seized around their beloved home and anxiety about its uncertain future.

The leader of the “dearest” and “closest” in Canada, who talks about garbage, has proven that most politicians and the writers of columns who are stubborn are the eyesight, Mr. Mago.

Like the created personality, short stories, animation, and a group of politicians practicing free trade, and they refused to see that the warnings were in the twentieth century about the twentieth century about existential risks of linking Canada more compromised in the dominant American economy in the twenty -first century.

It is a great scene of watching, hearing and reading the “intellectuals” short -sightedness in Canada in the maple papers, while urging the country to “buy Canadian” and another fashion from the regular and structural ways to try, by cabin, to reduce its dependence on the United States to avoid – officially – the 51st American State .

It is a noticeable scene because, since the early 1980s, reactionary elites – without hesitation or remorse – have devoted their great powers and their impact on supporting every step calculated towards the shift in Canada, in fact, to the 51st state of America – economically, culturally, random and diplomatic.

The poster for this blatant hypocrisy is the Prime Minister in Ontario, Doug Ford, who, through condemnation and mood, was everything for Donald Trump before he was against him.

In a rare moment of sincerity, Ford-pretending “populist” admitted to surveying “Captain Canada” by a naive and easy-to-like institution press-that he wanted Trump to return to the White House.

The crystal ball was not necessary to photograph that, given the appropriate conditions, the thirsty leader with the dominant aspirations will eventually occupy the oval office and attract similar tools in thinking about Canada.

In the early eighties of the last century, I was a student in political science at the first university stage, and studied at the University of Toronto.

One of my teachers was the late and famous Canadian political expert Stephen Clarkson.

Professor Clarkson was a great teacher and thinker who thought and wrote a lot about the past of Canada, the present and the turbulent water that the country was heading to at that pivotal time.

I was among the fortunate stable in the clusters of Clarkson’s research when he started writing a book on the risks caused by free trade prospects between Ottawa and Washington – which was defended by US President Ronald Reagan – to the sovereignty of Canada.

The book, published in 1982 and the title of “Canada” and “Reagan”, was, at the same time, he refuted the continental centenary of the continents who were convinced that Canada should deepen its ties that are not already known to the United States, in addition to the glow of the alarm effects The ability of the country’s rapid decline to practice any concrete scale of independence at home and abroad.

While Clarkson was national, he was also realistic. He knew that, by virtue of geography and history, Canada and America were obligated to each other.

However, it understood the urgent necessity of Canada to look beyond the direct horizon to expand trade in the current and emerging markets outside the United States as a way to diversify export and import policies, and as a result, it reduces the attractiveness of America.

Clarson Prescient warnings were rejected by an arrogant exhibition of “free trade” Apostles as the paradoxical “spleen bursts”, opposition to the ostrich trained to the opposition ostrich.

Therefore, when Prime Minister Brian Mulleroni negotiated a comprehensive deal for free trade with Reagan in 1988-many Parliament and the press made an agreement as a victory for trade on ancient ridiculous concepts of Canadian autonomy.

The 1988 federal elections were ran over the possible consequences of Canada at the Melrone Reagan Charter.

In a televised discussion, the liberal leader, John Turner, was stabbed in Mulleroni – who claimed, in a ridiculous manner, that the deal could be canceled at any time.

“With the signature of one of the pen,” Raad Turner, “We have thrown … to continue.”

Turner’s performance was the performance of the chest. The Liberal Party’s opposition to the MULRENEY Agreement, which in free trade was a Pantome Khattab.

Soon after, the liberal prime ministers sang their praise full of the deal and called on Mexico to join the arrangement at the level of the continent devoted by the smiling “three amigos”.

It was rapidly advanced to February 2025, and Professor Clarkson’s reservations began and reserved it more than four decades ago.

It seems that a wild American president intends to include Canada with economic coercion, and given the almost unrestricted integration policy pursued by a series of liberal and conservative governments-and decided by the Nahwiyyin Liberation Book-Sarkab has cranes and financial leverage to do so.

Suddenly, Clarkson’s critics – inside and outside the memory and hatred news rooms – rush to adopt his “ridiculous and old” recipes to preserve the fictitious nation and outperform each other as standing on guarding you – Canada.

Dip Eid 40 years after it is too late.

Canada, through its deliberate design, was a long passionate, “open business”.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial island.