An RBC Dominion Securities analyst is taking a contrarian view of the impact of a Trump presidency, suggesting it could be a good thing for Canada.

First, though, appreciate that Matthew Barasch was commenting on the economy and the markets. Not on, like, common sense.

Other observers have said that Mr. Trump could be a bad choice for Canada, particularly where his trade policies are concerned.

Not necessarily so, Mr. Barasch said in a report on what investors should know for their portfolios. The “sum total” of the Republican candidate’s policy plans would be a plus for Canada and certain stocks, at least initially.

“In fact, we think several of his policies have the potential to be significant positive drivers for Canada and Canadian stocks,” Mr. Barasch said.

“Further, we would be very cautious with those who suggest that markets will crash and dogs and cats will live together upon a Trump victory, as these types of stories often sell newspapers, but have little connection to reality.”

To be clear, Mr. Barasch wasn’t commenting on whether Mr. Trump will win the election, only on what could happen if he does. Here are some of his main points, based on the idea that the Republicans control the U.S. Congress and that there are many unknowns surrounding the GOP candidate:

1. Market reaction should, for the most part, already be priced in by the day of the election, so there should be little shock from the result. If uncertainty is rampant, though, or if markets think Ms. Clinton will win, the knee-jerk reaction would be negative.

2. Mr. Trump’s plan to ease personal and corporate taxes would be both positive and negative for Canada. On the positive side, it would juice the economy of Canada’s biggest trading partner, thus with a “fairly meaningful” ripple effect north of the border. On the other hand, Canada now has a more competitive corporate tax rate, a gap that would disappear. And every province would have a higher marginal tax bracket than in the United States.

3. The “immigration divide” between Canada and the U.S. would widen, given M