🇨🇦 Global Automakers Gain Ground in Canada as Trump’s Trade War Reshapes the Auto Market
Automakers from Asia and Europe are rapidly expanding their footprint in the Canadian market as the Canada–U.S. trade war continues to disrupt long-standing North American supply chains. New Statistics Canada data shows that vehicles built outside North America accounted for 34% of all Canadian vehicle sales in August, up sharply from 28.8% just months earlier, before the U.S. imposed sweeping tariffs.
During the same period, the share of Canadian, American, and Mexican-made vehicles sold in Canada fell from 71.1% to 65.9%, underscoring how quickly global manufacturers are seizing market share. As U.S. President Donald Trump escalates tariffs — including 50% duties on Canadian steel and aluminum — foreign automakers remain insulated, able to ship vehicles into Canada at zero tariff under existing trade agreements.
Industry analysts say the shift is the predictable outcome of a fragmented North American market. “It’s a great opportunity for companies in other parts of the world to step up and say, ‘We can sell you cars,’” said Brendan Sweeney of the Trillium Network for Advanced Manufacturing. For many multinational automakers, Canada is now easier to serve from South Korea, Japan, or China than from the U.S., whose own exports to Canada have fallen from 60.8% in 2014 to 48.9% in 2024.
The trend builds on longer-term erosion in Canadian manufacturing. Canada produced just 1.24 million vehicles in 2024 — a stunning 58% drop from its 1999 peak — and the trade war has accelerated that decline. Automakers are already reacting: Stellantis has frozen a $1-billion investment in Brampton, and General Motors is cutting production shifts in Oshawa and shuttering its BrightDrop electric van line in Ingersoll.
With Canada sending 88% of its vehicle exports to the U.S., a shrinking American market poses an immediate threat to domestic manufacturing jobs. “We are in big trouble,” said Carleton University’s Fen Hampson. “We need to start asking where the jobs will be a year from now.”
Unifor, representing more than 300,000 workers, is urging Ottawa to apply tougher pressure on Washington — including leveraging exports of energy, potash, and aluminum — and says Canada should be prepared to reject next year’s renewal of the Canada–U.S.–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) unless it protects Canadian industry.
Automakers with major Canadian operations, including Toyota and Stellantis, are calling for a return to a fully integrated continental supply chain, warning that punitive tariffs will only accelerate the shift of production to Asia. Industry voices stress that the future of trade is becoming more restrictive, and Canada must adapt quickly or risk losing what remains of its automotive manufacturing base.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Automakers from Asia and Europe are rapidly expanding their footprint in the Canadian market as the Canada–U.S. trade war continues to disrupt long-standing North American supply chains. New Statistics Canada data shows that vehicles built outside North America accounted for 34% of all Canadian vehicle sales in August, up sharply from 28.8% just months earlier, before the U.S. imposed sweeping tariffs.
During the same period, the share of Canadian, American, and Mexican-made vehicles sold in Canada fell from 71.1% to 65.9%, underscoring how quickly global manufacturers are seizing market share. As U.S. President Donald Trump escalates tariffs — including 50% duties on Canadian steel and aluminum — foreign automakers remain insulated, able to ship vehicles into Canada at zero tariff under existing trade agreements.
Industry analysts say the shift is the predictable outcome of a fragmented North American market. “It’s a great opportunity for companies in other parts of the world to step up and say, ‘We can sell you cars,’” said Brendan Sweeney of the Trillium Network for Advanced Manufacturing. For many multinational automakers, Canada is now easier to serve from South Korea, Japan, or China than from the U.S., whose own exports to Canada have fallen from 60.8% in 2014 to 48.9% in 2024.
The trend builds on longer-term erosion in Canadian manufacturing. Canada produced just 1.24 million vehicles in 2024 — a stunning 58% drop from its 1999 peak — and the trade war has accelerated that decline. Automakers are already reacting: Stellantis has frozen a $1-billion investment in Brampton, and General Motors is cutting production shifts in Oshawa and shuttering its BrightDrop electric van line in Ingersoll.
With Canada sending 88% of its vehicle exports to the U.S., a shrinking American market poses an immediate threat to domestic manufacturing jobs. “We are in big trouble,” said Carleton University’s Fen Hampson. “We need to start asking where the jobs will be a year from now.”
Unifor, representing more than 300,000 workers, is urging Ottawa to apply tougher pressure on Washington — including leveraging exports of energy, potash, and aluminum — and says Canada should be prepared to reject next year’s renewal of the Canada–U.S.–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) unless it protects Canadian industry.
Automakers with major Canadian operations, including Toyota and Stellantis, are calling for a return to a fully integrated continental supply chain, warning that punitive tariffs will only accelerate the shift of production to Asia. Industry voices stress that the future of trade is becoming more restrictive, and Canada must adapt quickly or risk losing what remains of its automotive manufacturing base.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡5❤3👏1😁1🤔1
🇨🇦💸 Ottawa Spent Over $19B on External Services Last Year — Despite Pledge to Cut Reliance on Consultants
New federal records show the government spent more than $19 billion on external professional and special services in 2024–25 — nearly $2 billion more than the previous year, and $8.5 billion more than in 2020 — despite Prime Minister Mark Carney’s campaign vow to reduce dependence on outside consultants.
The Treasury Board Secretariat says the rise was driven by higher spending on engineering and architectural services, shipbuilding-related work, health services for refugee claimants, and specialized pilot and aircrew training for the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Government accounts show a total of $23.1 billion was spent on professional and special services last fiscal year, with $19.5 billion of that going to external contractors.
The Department of National Defence accounted for the largest share, spending $6.9 billion, while Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada spent $1.7 billion.
Carney pledged during the election to curb outsourcing and rebuild in-house public-service capacity. But the new figures revive longstanding criticism of the Liberals’ heavy use of consultants — a pattern highlighted last year by Auditor General Karen Hogan, who found weak oversight and over-reliance on external contractors contributed to ArriveCan’s costs ballooning to nearly $60 million.
Public accounts show that back in 2019–20, the federal government spent $11 billion on external professional and special services — meaning outsourcing has nearly doubled since the start of the decade.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
New federal records show the government spent more than $19 billion on external professional and special services in 2024–25 — nearly $2 billion more than the previous year, and $8.5 billion more than in 2020 — despite Prime Minister Mark Carney’s campaign vow to reduce dependence on outside consultants.
The Treasury Board Secretariat says the rise was driven by higher spending on engineering and architectural services, shipbuilding-related work, health services for refugee claimants, and specialized pilot and aircrew training for the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Government accounts show a total of $23.1 billion was spent on professional and special services last fiscal year, with $19.5 billion of that going to external contractors.
The Department of National Defence accounted for the largest share, spending $6.9 billion, while Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada spent $1.7 billion.
Carney pledged during the election to curb outsourcing and rebuild in-house public-service capacity. But the new figures revive longstanding criticism of the Liberals’ heavy use of consultants — a pattern highlighted last year by Auditor General Karen Hogan, who found weak oversight and over-reliance on external contractors contributed to ArriveCan’s costs ballooning to nearly $60 million.
Public accounts show that back in 2019–20, the federal government spent $11 billion on external professional and special services — meaning outsourcing has nearly doubled since the start of the decade.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
💩6🤯4🤬4❤1
🇨🇦💸 Tax Experts Slam Ottawa for Burying Key Policy Reversal in Budget Footnotes
Tax professionals are criticizing the federal government for quietly reversing a major tax proposal affecting flow-through shares — and doing so in a footnote buried deep in last week’s budget documents.
Flow-through shares allow corporations to renounce exploration and development expenses to investors, enabling those investors to claim deductions. They are widely used in mining, energy, and charitable giving strategies. Last year, the government proposed allowing these deductions to be 100% deductible under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) — a significant change welcomed by investors, donors, and resource companies.
That proposal has now been cancelled. But rather than announcing the reversal in the budget’s main tax section, the government disclosed it only in a single line in footnote 9 of Table A1.18, on page 277 of the budget — a table that spans 10 pages.
The footnote, attached to a line item outlining the fiscal cost of cancelling the capital gains tax hike, simply states that the estimates “also include the cancellation… of the proposal to fully allow resource expense deductions under the AMT.”
Tax experts say this approach is unacceptable.
“The reversal of tax policies is as significant as implementing new tax policies and should receive appropriate consideration in the budget document,” said John Oakey, vice-president of taxation with the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. “Announcing tax policy changes in budget footnotes is not an appropriate way to inform taxpayers or their advisor.”
Others in the flow-through and charitable giving sector voiced similar frustration. Henry Korenblum of Oberon Capital called the reversal “disappointing,” saying it removes support for the mining and resource sector and reduces both investor and donor capacity.
Ron Bernbaum, CEO of PearTree Financial, noted his organization provided extensive analysis to the Department of Finance showing that eliminating the AMT add-back for exploration expenses would generate at least $350 million annually in new exploration financing and job creation. That modelling informed the government’s earlier 2024 proposal — which died when Parliament was prorogued — and Bernbaum expected it to return in this budget.
“It wasn’t,” he said.
The budget did contain positive changes to flow-through shares, including expanding the list of critical minerals eligible for the 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit. New additions include bismuth, cesium, chromium, fluorspar, germanium, indium, manganese, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, tin, and tungsten. These incentives apply to flow-through agreements signed after budget day until March 31, 2027.
At the same time, Ottawa is also tightening the definition of Canadian Exploration Expenses (CEE). New amendments clarify that determining the “quality” of a mineral resource excludes assessing its economic viability or engineering feasibility — a response to a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision that broadened what “quality” could include. The change applies immediately.
For now, tax practitioners say the biggest issue isn’t the policy itself, but how the federal government communicated it.
“Taxpayers deserve better than buried footnotes,” Oakey said.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Tax professionals are criticizing the federal government for quietly reversing a major tax proposal affecting flow-through shares — and doing so in a footnote buried deep in last week’s budget documents.
Flow-through shares allow corporations to renounce exploration and development expenses to investors, enabling those investors to claim deductions. They are widely used in mining, energy, and charitable giving strategies. Last year, the government proposed allowing these deductions to be 100% deductible under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) — a significant change welcomed by investors, donors, and resource companies.
That proposal has now been cancelled. But rather than announcing the reversal in the budget’s main tax section, the government disclosed it only in a single line in footnote 9 of Table A1.18, on page 277 of the budget — a table that spans 10 pages.
The footnote, attached to a line item outlining the fiscal cost of cancelling the capital gains tax hike, simply states that the estimates “also include the cancellation… of the proposal to fully allow resource expense deductions under the AMT.”
Tax experts say this approach is unacceptable.
“The reversal of tax policies is as significant as implementing new tax policies and should receive appropriate consideration in the budget document,” said John Oakey, vice-president of taxation with the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. “Announcing tax policy changes in budget footnotes is not an appropriate way to inform taxpayers or their advisor.”
Others in the flow-through and charitable giving sector voiced similar frustration. Henry Korenblum of Oberon Capital called the reversal “disappointing,” saying it removes support for the mining and resource sector and reduces both investor and donor capacity.
Ron Bernbaum, CEO of PearTree Financial, noted his organization provided extensive analysis to the Department of Finance showing that eliminating the AMT add-back for exploration expenses would generate at least $350 million annually in new exploration financing and job creation. That modelling informed the government’s earlier 2024 proposal — which died when Parliament was prorogued — and Bernbaum expected it to return in this budget.
“It wasn’t,” he said.
The budget did contain positive changes to flow-through shares, including expanding the list of critical minerals eligible for the 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit. New additions include bismuth, cesium, chromium, fluorspar, germanium, indium, manganese, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, tin, and tungsten. These incentives apply to flow-through agreements signed after budget day until March 31, 2027.
At the same time, Ottawa is also tightening the definition of Canadian Exploration Expenses (CEE). New amendments clarify that determining the “quality” of a mineral resource excludes assessing its economic viability or engineering feasibility — a response to a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision that broadened what “quality” could include. The change applies immediately.
For now, tax practitioners say the biggest issue isn’t the policy itself, but how the federal government communicated it.
“Taxpayers deserve better than buried footnotes,” Oakey said.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤬6❤1🤔1🤯1
🇺🇸🇨🇦 Poll: Record Number of Young U.S. Women Want to Leave — and Canada Is Their Top Destination
A new Gallup poll finds a record surge in the number of young American women who say they want to leave the United States permanently — and Canada is their preferred destination.
According to the survey, 40% of U.S. women aged 15 to 44 say they would move abroad if given the chance, more than double the 19% of men in the same age bracket. Gallup says the 21-point gender gap is the largest ever recorded in the poll’s history.
Among young women considering a new home, 11% named Canada as their top choice, ahead of New Zealand, Italy, and Japan.
Overall, about one in five Americans report wanting to leave the country — a higher level than seen in recent years. But Gallup stresses that expressing desire is far more common than actually emigrating.
The spike among young women has been building since 2016, when Donald Trump first ran for president and the U.S. entered a period of sharp political polarization. The trend accelerated after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned abortion rights in 2022, which Gallup identifies as a turning point: confidence among young women in the U.S. justice system plunged from 55% in 2015 to 32% today.
Gallup also notes that younger women heavily lean Democratic, contributing to the widening divide in migration sentiment under Trump’s renewed presidency. The research shows a 25-point gap between Americans who approve and disapprove of the current leadership — one of the largest on record.
By contrast, Canadians’ desire to leave Canada has fallen slightly. Roughly 16% of young Canadians now say they would consider moving abroad, down from 20% in previous years. But among those considering a move, the United States remains the top destination, even as Canada-U.S. relations have grown strained during Trump’s second term.
Gallup polled 1,000 Americans by phone between June 14 and July 16. The margin of error is ±4.4 percentage points.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
A new Gallup poll finds a record surge in the number of young American women who say they want to leave the United States permanently — and Canada is their preferred destination.
According to the survey, 40% of U.S. women aged 15 to 44 say they would move abroad if given the chance, more than double the 19% of men in the same age bracket. Gallup says the 21-point gender gap is the largest ever recorded in the poll’s history.
Among young women considering a new home, 11% named Canada as their top choice, ahead of New Zealand, Italy, and Japan.
Overall, about one in five Americans report wanting to leave the country — a higher level than seen in recent years. But Gallup stresses that expressing desire is far more common than actually emigrating.
The spike among young women has been building since 2016, when Donald Trump first ran for president and the U.S. entered a period of sharp political polarization. The trend accelerated after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned abortion rights in 2022, which Gallup identifies as a turning point: confidence among young women in the U.S. justice system plunged from 55% in 2015 to 32% today.
Gallup also notes that younger women heavily lean Democratic, contributing to the widening divide in migration sentiment under Trump’s renewed presidency. The research shows a 25-point gap between Americans who approve and disapprove of the current leadership — one of the largest on record.
By contrast, Canadians’ desire to leave Canada has fallen slightly. Roughly 16% of young Canadians now say they would consider moving abroad, down from 20% in previous years. But among those considering a move, the United States remains the top destination, even as Canada-U.S. relations have grown strained during Trump’s second term.
Gallup polled 1,000 Americans by phone between June 14 and July 16. The margin of error is ±4.4 percentage points.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡16🍌7😁5🤮4❤2👍1👎1💩1
🇨🇦 Carney Gifts B.C. NDP a Project Windfall Ahead of Eby’s Leadership Review
Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a political windfall to B.C. Premier David Eby this week, announcing a slate of major federal project approvals just 48 hours before Eby faces a potentially shaky leadership review in Victoria. The timing — and the concentration of federal largesse — has raised eyebrows across the West.
In the second round of “nation-building” projects unveiled Thursday, B.C. scored four major approvals, including the $30-billion Ksi Lisims LNG project and a major North Coast electricity transmission line. Alberta, by contrast, received zero new approvals, adding to frustration that the province has been largely sidelined in the federal project sweepstakes.
Braid notes the political convenience of Carney announcing the package in Terrace, B.C., rather than in Quebec or Ontario — both of which also received projects. The move effectively hands Eby a stack of economic wins at a moment when his NDP government holds power by only a single seat, with internal union tensions and party discontent threatening his leadership.
The LNG and transmission projects are widely considered transformative for northern B.C., promising billions in investment, accelerated permitting, and signals of federal confidence that encourage further private capital. They follow earlier approvals this fall, including the Red Chris copper-gold mine and support for Phase 2 of LNG Canada in Kitimat.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has pushed for federal movement on pipelines and repeal of the northern tanker ban, received only a nod for the Pathways carbon capture project — a far cry from the broader concessions she wanted by this week’s Grey Cup deadline. Her response was noticeably muted, a sign she wants to avoid derailing sensitive negotiations underway with Ottawa.
Meanwhile, Eby emerges from the announcement with precisely what he needs: major federal backing, economic headlines, and political momentum heading into his party’s review. And as Braid concludes, Carney appears to have accomplished his own goal — ensuring B.C. stays out of Conservative hands and aligned with his federal agenda.
#BC #Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a political windfall to B.C. Premier David Eby this week, announcing a slate of major federal project approvals just 48 hours before Eby faces a potentially shaky leadership review in Victoria. The timing — and the concentration of federal largesse — has raised eyebrows across the West.
In the second round of “nation-building” projects unveiled Thursday, B.C. scored four major approvals, including the $30-billion Ksi Lisims LNG project and a major North Coast electricity transmission line. Alberta, by contrast, received zero new approvals, adding to frustration that the province has been largely sidelined in the federal project sweepstakes.
Braid notes the political convenience of Carney announcing the package in Terrace, B.C., rather than in Quebec or Ontario — both of which also received projects. The move effectively hands Eby a stack of economic wins at a moment when his NDP government holds power by only a single seat, with internal union tensions and party discontent threatening his leadership.
The LNG and transmission projects are widely considered transformative for northern B.C., promising billions in investment, accelerated permitting, and signals of federal confidence that encourage further private capital. They follow earlier approvals this fall, including the Red Chris copper-gold mine and support for Phase 2 of LNG Canada in Kitimat.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has pushed for federal movement on pipelines and repeal of the northern tanker ban, received only a nod for the Pathways carbon capture project — a far cry from the broader concessions she wanted by this week’s Grey Cup deadline. Her response was noticeably muted, a sign she wants to avoid derailing sensitive negotiations underway with Ottawa.
Meanwhile, Eby emerges from the announcement with precisely what he needs: major federal backing, economic headlines, and political momentum heading into his party’s review. And as Braid concludes, Carney appears to have accomplished his own goal — ensuring B.C. stays out of Conservative hands and aligned with his federal agenda.
#BC #Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
❤2😁1🤔1🤬1
🇨🇦 Carney Budget Cuts Hit Veterans Affairs Hard — One Tenth of Savings Come From Lower Cannabis Reimbursements
Veterans Affairs Canada is facing one of the largest funding reductions in the 2025 federal budget, with $4.23 billion in required savings over the next four years. According to department officials, the bulk of these cuts will come from changes to how the government reimburses medical cannabis for veterans and former RCMP members.
Since 2008, Veterans Affairs has funded cannabis for veterans with a physician’s authorization. What began as a small program — just 37 clients in 2011 — has expanded dramatically, especially after cannabis legalization in 2018. As of 2024, the program covers 27,643 veterans, costing taxpayers $245 million a year, up from $50 million in 2017.
The amount of cannabis being reimbursed has risen sharply as well: from 24 million grams in 2023 to more than 30 million grams in 2024 — roughly 12 million joints’ worth. Despite the growth, the department notes that the scientific evidence for its medical effectiveness remains limited.
Rather than cut access, the 2025 budget lowers the federal reimbursement rate from $8.50 per gram to $6, a figure the government says is closer to current market prices. Veterans Affairs estimates this single change will save $4.4 billion over the long term — representing one dollar out of every ten in the government’s $44.2 billion expenditure-reduction plan.
These cannabis-related adjustments form the core of the Veterans Affairs savings plan. The department says all existing benefits and services remain intact, though it continues to fall short on key performance indicators. Only 40% of veterans report their overall health as “very good or excellent,” below the department’s 50% target, and only 49% report top-tier mental health. Veteran employment outcomes are also lagging, with 56% employed versus a target of 70%.
The cuts come in a budget that otherwise commits to significant federal spending growth — $450 billion over the long term — and projects a $78.3 billion deficit, the largest outside the COVID-19 era. Veterans Affairs will receive one new investment: $184.9 million over four years to improve processing times for disability benefit applications.
The budget’s approach has sparked criticism over priorities, as other departments face much smaller reductions. Women and Gender Equality, Crown-Indigenous Relations, and several research-grant agencies were asked to cut only 2% of spending. The Department of Finance avoided firm reduction targets altogether, with plans to “rationalize back-office expenditures.”
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Veterans Affairs Canada is facing one of the largest funding reductions in the 2025 federal budget, with $4.23 billion in required savings over the next four years. According to department officials, the bulk of these cuts will come from changes to how the government reimburses medical cannabis for veterans and former RCMP members.
Since 2008, Veterans Affairs has funded cannabis for veterans with a physician’s authorization. What began as a small program — just 37 clients in 2011 — has expanded dramatically, especially after cannabis legalization in 2018. As of 2024, the program covers 27,643 veterans, costing taxpayers $245 million a year, up from $50 million in 2017.
The amount of cannabis being reimbursed has risen sharply as well: from 24 million grams in 2023 to more than 30 million grams in 2024 — roughly 12 million joints’ worth. Despite the growth, the department notes that the scientific evidence for its medical effectiveness remains limited.
Rather than cut access, the 2025 budget lowers the federal reimbursement rate from $8.50 per gram to $6, a figure the government says is closer to current market prices. Veterans Affairs estimates this single change will save $4.4 billion over the long term — representing one dollar out of every ten in the government’s $44.2 billion expenditure-reduction plan.
These cannabis-related adjustments form the core of the Veterans Affairs savings plan. The department says all existing benefits and services remain intact, though it continues to fall short on key performance indicators. Only 40% of veterans report their overall health as “very good or excellent,” below the department’s 50% target, and only 49% report top-tier mental health. Veteran employment outcomes are also lagging, with 56% employed versus a target of 70%.
The cuts come in a budget that otherwise commits to significant federal spending growth — $450 billion over the long term — and projects a $78.3 billion deficit, the largest outside the COVID-19 era. Veterans Affairs will receive one new investment: $184.9 million over four years to improve processing times for disability benefit applications.
The budget’s approach has sparked criticism over priorities, as other departments face much smaller reductions. Women and Gender Equality, Crown-Indigenous Relations, and several research-grant agencies were asked to cut only 2% of spending. The Department of Finance avoided firm reduction targets altogether, with plans to “rationalize back-office expenditures.”
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
❤2👍1😁1
🇨🇦💸 Fiscal Watchdog Warns Ottawa Is Inflating “Investment” Spending in New Budget
Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is raising concerns that the federal government is using an overly broad definition of “capital investments” that shifts roughly $94 billion in spending into a more politically appealing category over the next five years.
In a new report released Friday, Interim PBO Jason Jacques said the Carney government’s approach significantly expands what counts as investment spending, including items such as corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits, and various operating subsidies — items that are not considered capital spending under international standards. “The government’s definition of capital investment is too broad,” the report states.
This year’s federal budget is the first to formally split spending into “capital” and “operational” categories. Finance officials have argued the new framework adds transparency by separating long-term investments — such as infrastructure, military equipment, and transportation upgrades — from day-to-day expenditures like public service salaries, provincial transfers, and program costs.
Economists, however, are divided. Some, including analysts at the C.D. Howe Institute, warn the new structure risks becoming a political tool that downplays large deficits by reclassifying spending. Others, including CIBC’s Benjamin Tal, say the distinction can be useful if applied consistently and transparently.
The PBO recommended the creation of an independent expert body to help determine how future spending items should be categorized, given the subjectivity involved and the political stakes attached.
The report also highlighted the federal government’s deteriorating fiscal position. The Carney government’s first budget projects an average annual deficit of $64.3 billion through 2029–30 — more than double last year’s forecast — and a $78.3-billion deficit for this year alone, the largest ever outside the pandemic.
Canada’s total federal debt has now reached $1.27 trillion, with nearly half accumulated in the last five years. With rising interest costs and limited fiscal flexibility, the PBO warns the government has “limited room” to either cut taxes or increase spending if it intends to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio stable over the coming decades.
The government also confirmed it will soon appoint a permanent Parliamentary Budget Officer. Jacques, who has held the role on an interim basis since September, has been sharply critical of federal spending levels, describing them as “stupefying,” “shocking,” and “unsustainable.”
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is raising concerns that the federal government is using an overly broad definition of “capital investments” that shifts roughly $94 billion in spending into a more politically appealing category over the next five years.
In a new report released Friday, Interim PBO Jason Jacques said the Carney government’s approach significantly expands what counts as investment spending, including items such as corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits, and various operating subsidies — items that are not considered capital spending under international standards. “The government’s definition of capital investment is too broad,” the report states.
This year’s federal budget is the first to formally split spending into “capital” and “operational” categories. Finance officials have argued the new framework adds transparency by separating long-term investments — such as infrastructure, military equipment, and transportation upgrades — from day-to-day expenditures like public service salaries, provincial transfers, and program costs.
Economists, however, are divided. Some, including analysts at the C.D. Howe Institute, warn the new structure risks becoming a political tool that downplays large deficits by reclassifying spending. Others, including CIBC’s Benjamin Tal, say the distinction can be useful if applied consistently and transparently.
The PBO recommended the creation of an independent expert body to help determine how future spending items should be categorized, given the subjectivity involved and the political stakes attached.
The report also highlighted the federal government’s deteriorating fiscal position. The Carney government’s first budget projects an average annual deficit of $64.3 billion through 2029–30 — more than double last year’s forecast — and a $78.3-billion deficit for this year alone, the largest ever outside the pandemic.
Canada’s total federal debt has now reached $1.27 trillion, with nearly half accumulated in the last five years. With rising interest costs and limited fiscal flexibility, the PBO warns the government has “limited room” to either cut taxes or increase spending if it intends to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio stable over the coming decades.
The government also confirmed it will soon appoint a permanent Parliamentary Budget Officer. Jacques, who has held the role on an interim basis since September, has been sharply critical of federal spending levels, describing them as “stupefying,” “shocking,” and “unsustainable.”
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
👍5🍌4❤1
🇨🇦💸 What the Major Projects Office Actually Does — and Why There Are Big Questions About Whether It Will Work
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has now referred a second round of large energy, mining, and infrastructure proposals to the new federal Major Projects Office (MPO) — but several questions remain about what this process really accomplishes and whether it will deliver on its central promise: getting major projects built faster in Canada.
The confusion begins with terminology. Carney has described these proposals as being of “national importance,” but none have received the far more powerful and controversial “national interest” designation. That new label, created under Bill C-5, would allow cabinet to override certain federal laws — including the Fisheries Act and Species at Risk Act — to move a project forward more quickly. For now, no project has been granted that status.
So what does a referral to the MPO actually mean? According to Carney and federal officials, it does not mean a project is approved. Instead, the MPO acts as a central federal hub meant to coordinate permitting, financing, regulatory navigation, and engagement with provinces, territories, and Indigenous nations. Carney says the goal is to “create the conditions” for projects to advance in a predictable way, especially during a period of economic uncertainty caused by U.S. trade tensions.
Dawn Farrell, the MPO’s CEO and former head of Trans Mountain Corp., says the office’s role is to guide projects “on time and on budget.” This involves trying to run multiple permitting processes in parallel rather than sequentially — a shift she says could shave years off approval timelines. Farrell also noted ongoing coordination with the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the Canada Growth Fund to give proponents more certainty on financing, as seen in the $139-million CIB loan for BC Hydro’s North Coast Transmission Line.
The MPO also has the authority to recommend that a project be granted the stronger “national interest” status if it believes the fast-tracking powers in Bill C-5 would be necessary. That discretionary power has drawn sharp criticism from Indigenous organizations and environmental groups, who say it gives cabinet the ability to circumvent laws meant to protect ecosystems and uphold rights.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is also skeptical, arguing that the MPO is essentially an additional layer of bureaucracy in a permitting system he already considers “uncompetitive.” He contends the government is simply branding already-advancing projects as “fast-tracked” while adding more administrative steps.
Still, proponents see benefits. Canada Nickel CEO Mark Selby said that even without the national-interest label, referral to the MPO “puts us in the fast lane,” offering clearer timelines and front-of-line access to federal decision-makers.
In total, 12 projects have now been referred to the MPO across two rounds, along with several “transformative” concepts still in development. The government estimates the combined economic impact of the announced projects at $116 billion.
Whether the MPO can meaningfully speed up construction, resolve bottlenecks, and build investor confidence remains an open question. The office is only a few months old, no project has yet completed the full process, and the most powerful tools at its disposal — the national-interest exemptions — have not yet been used. For now, the MPO represents a high-stakes test of the Carney government’s strategy to reduce Canada’s dependency on the United States by accelerating domestic development.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has now referred a second round of large energy, mining, and infrastructure proposals to the new federal Major Projects Office (MPO) — but several questions remain about what this process really accomplishes and whether it will deliver on its central promise: getting major projects built faster in Canada.
The confusion begins with terminology. Carney has described these proposals as being of “national importance,” but none have received the far more powerful and controversial “national interest” designation. That new label, created under Bill C-5, would allow cabinet to override certain federal laws — including the Fisheries Act and Species at Risk Act — to move a project forward more quickly. For now, no project has been granted that status.
So what does a referral to the MPO actually mean? According to Carney and federal officials, it does not mean a project is approved. Instead, the MPO acts as a central federal hub meant to coordinate permitting, financing, regulatory navigation, and engagement with provinces, territories, and Indigenous nations. Carney says the goal is to “create the conditions” for projects to advance in a predictable way, especially during a period of economic uncertainty caused by U.S. trade tensions.
Dawn Farrell, the MPO’s CEO and former head of Trans Mountain Corp., says the office’s role is to guide projects “on time and on budget.” This involves trying to run multiple permitting processes in parallel rather than sequentially — a shift she says could shave years off approval timelines. Farrell also noted ongoing coordination with the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the Canada Growth Fund to give proponents more certainty on financing, as seen in the $139-million CIB loan for BC Hydro’s North Coast Transmission Line.
The MPO also has the authority to recommend that a project be granted the stronger “national interest” status if it believes the fast-tracking powers in Bill C-5 would be necessary. That discretionary power has drawn sharp criticism from Indigenous organizations and environmental groups, who say it gives cabinet the ability to circumvent laws meant to protect ecosystems and uphold rights.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is also skeptical, arguing that the MPO is essentially an additional layer of bureaucracy in a permitting system he already considers “uncompetitive.” He contends the government is simply branding already-advancing projects as “fast-tracked” while adding more administrative steps.
Still, proponents see benefits. Canada Nickel CEO Mark Selby said that even without the national-interest label, referral to the MPO “puts us in the fast lane,” offering clearer timelines and front-of-line access to federal decision-makers.
In total, 12 projects have now been referred to the MPO across two rounds, along with several “transformative” concepts still in development. The government estimates the combined economic impact of the announced projects at $116 billion.
Whether the MPO can meaningfully speed up construction, resolve bottlenecks, and build investor confidence remains an open question. The office is only a few months old, no project has yet completed the full process, and the most powerful tools at its disposal — the national-interest exemptions — have not yet been used. For now, the MPO represents a high-stakes test of the Carney government’s strategy to reduce Canada’s dependency on the United States by accelerating domestic development.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
❤3😁1🤔1
Prominent Legal Scholar Detained at Toronto Airport en Route to Palestine Conference
Richard Falk — a former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and a retired Princeton professor — says he was detained for nearly four hours by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers at Toronto Pearson Airport on Thursday while travelling to Ottawa for a conference on Palestinian rights.
Falk, who turned 95 that day, was in Canada to speak at the “Palestine Tribunal on Canadian Responsibility,” a two-day event aimed at examining Canada’s alleged role in Palestinian dispossession and the recent Gaza conflict. According to organizers, the forum was intended to document and analyze what it calls Canada’s “complicity.”
Upon arrival, Falk and his wife were taken aside, had their passports seized temporarily, and were questioned by CBSA officers about the conference, his views on Israel, and his involvement in the Israel-Palestine issue. He said officers told him the purpose was to determine whether he posed a national-security risk. After several hours, both he and his wife were released and allowed to enter Canada.
The CBSA declined to comment on the specific case, citing privacy rules, but said secondary inspection is standard procedure for many travellers and “should not be viewed as any indication of wrongdoing.”
Falk said he believes the questioning was connected to his participation in the tribunal. He described the experience as “disappointing,” noting that Canada had recently recognized Palestinian statehood and that he had expected a stronger commitment to free expression.
Azeezah Kanji, chair of the tribunal, said organizers learned of the detention through a distressed call from Falk’s wife and contacted officials at various levels to seek assistance. Senator Yuen Pau Woo said he reached out to the public safety minister’s office after being contacted by organizers and called the treatment of Falk and his wife “shocking.”
No response from the Ministry of Public Safety for comment.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Richard Falk — a former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and a retired Princeton professor — says he was detained for nearly four hours by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers at Toronto Pearson Airport on Thursday while travelling to Ottawa for a conference on Palestinian rights.
Falk, who turned 95 that day, was in Canada to speak at the “Palestine Tribunal on Canadian Responsibility,” a two-day event aimed at examining Canada’s alleged role in Palestinian dispossession and the recent Gaza conflict. According to organizers, the forum was intended to document and analyze what it calls Canada’s “complicity.”
Upon arrival, Falk and his wife were taken aside, had their passports seized temporarily, and were questioned by CBSA officers about the conference, his views on Israel, and his involvement in the Israel-Palestine issue. He said officers told him the purpose was to determine whether he posed a national-security risk. After several hours, both he and his wife were released and allowed to enter Canada.
The CBSA declined to comment on the specific case, citing privacy rules, but said secondary inspection is standard procedure for many travellers and “should not be viewed as any indication of wrongdoing.”
Falk said he believes the questioning was connected to his participation in the tribunal. He described the experience as “disappointing,” noting that Canada had recently recognized Palestinian statehood and that he had expected a stronger commitment to free expression.
Azeezah Kanji, chair of the tribunal, said organizers learned of the detention through a distressed call from Falk’s wife and contacted officials at various levels to seek assistance. Senator Yuen Pau Woo said he reached out to the public safety minister’s office after being contacted by organizers and called the treatment of Falk and his wife “shocking.”
No response from the Ministry of Public Safety for comment.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤬15🤔2🤯1
🇨🇦⚽️ Canada Pledges Funding Boost for Women’s Pro Soccer as Vancouver Rise Win Inaugural NSL Title
The federal government has announced up to $5.45 million in funding to support the growth of the Northern Super League (NSL), Canada’s first professional women’s soccer league, as the Vancouver Rise claimed the league’s inaugural championship on Saturday.
The Rise defeated AFC Toronto 2–1 before 12,429 fans at Toronto’s BMO Field. Vancouver captain Samantha Chang said the moment felt “full circle,” noting the team also won the league’s first-ever match back in April.
The NSL launched this year with six teams — Halifax, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver — backed by major sponsors including Coca-Cola, Toyota and DoorDash. Attendance at the opening match in BC Place surpassed 14,000 fans, signaling strong early support for the new league.
Ahead of the championship match, the government said the new investment will go toward “transformative upgrades” for NSL facilities, aimed at supporting league development and broader regional economic benefits.
League founder Diana Matheson, a former Canadian national team player, said the funding reflects shared goals of expanding opportunities in women’s sports and building long-term pathways for athletes and communities. “Women’s sport is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country,” she noted.
The noscript match, briefly delayed due to lightning, was decided in the 68th minute by Vancouver’s Holly Ward, who scored the winning goal past Toronto goalkeeper Sierra Cota-Yarde.
Toronto (16-6-3) finished first in the regular-season standings, while Vancouver (11-8-6) placed third before winning the championship. The league plans to add a seventh team next season.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
The federal government has announced up to $5.45 million in funding to support the growth of the Northern Super League (NSL), Canada’s first professional women’s soccer league, as the Vancouver Rise claimed the league’s inaugural championship on Saturday.
The Rise defeated AFC Toronto 2–1 before 12,429 fans at Toronto’s BMO Field. Vancouver captain Samantha Chang said the moment felt “full circle,” noting the team also won the league’s first-ever match back in April.
The NSL launched this year with six teams — Halifax, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver — backed by major sponsors including Coca-Cola, Toyota and DoorDash. Attendance at the opening match in BC Place surpassed 14,000 fans, signaling strong early support for the new league.
Ahead of the championship match, the government said the new investment will go toward “transformative upgrades” for NSL facilities, aimed at supporting league development and broader regional economic benefits.
League founder Diana Matheson, a former Canadian national team player, said the funding reflects shared goals of expanding opportunities in women’s sports and building long-term pathways for athletes and communities. “Women’s sport is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country,” she noted.
The noscript match, briefly delayed due to lightning, was decided in the 68th minute by Vancouver’s Holly Ward, who scored the winning goal past Toronto goalkeeper Sierra Cota-Yarde.
Toronto (16-6-3) finished first in the regular-season standings, while Vancouver (11-8-6) placed third before winning the championship. The league plans to add a seventh team next season.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡10👍2❤1🥱1
🇨🇦 Conservative MP Jamil Jivani Focuses on Youth Outreach and Policy Activism Amid Party Tensions
Conservative MP Jamil Jivani is positioning himself as one of the party’s most active organizers, launching a slate of policy campaigns and youth-focused initiatives even as he awaits a formal critic role. The Yale Law graduate has built out a network of petitions and advocacy efforts through his “Restore the North” platform, touching on issues ranging from immigration to drug policy to access to oral nicotine products — a topic that recently erupted into calls of “Free the Zyn!” in the House of Commons.
Jivani, 38, has been touring Canadian campuses with fellow MP Ned Kuruc and will host a conference next week dedicated to what he calls “Liberal racism,” referencing federal hiring and grant programs that include identity-based criteria. He argues such policies amount to discrimination while also implying “a stamp of inferiority” toward those they aim to help.
The upcoming National Forum to End Liberal Racism will feature presentations from Conservative MPs Shuvaloy Majumdar, Sandra Cobena and Vincent Ho. Jivani says Liberal MPs have been invited but none have committed to attending.
Jivani’s focus on race, class, and fairness marks an evolution from themes in his 2018 book Why Young Men, though he says his core views remain consistent. Friendships with classmates such as U.S. Senator JD Vance shaped his emphasis on class-based barriers over racial categories, he says. Friends and colleagues describe him as tapped into concerns shared by many younger Canadians, including skepticism of affirmative action and diversity quotas.
Jivani downplayed recent internal Conservative drama, including MP Chris d’Entremont’s defection to the Liberals and MP Matt Jeneroux’s planned resignation, saying he is focused on his work rather than caucus tensions. After d’Entremont crossed the floor on budget day, Jivani publicly called him an “idiot,” but says he is otherwise unconcerned.
Despite his rising profile, Jivani said he sees no leadership rivalry with Pierre Poilievre, calling himself firmly part of the team. Political strategists note that Jivani’s fast-growing digital footprint — multiple websites, videos, and a new YouTube series — mirrors Poilievre’s early efforts to build a personal brand within the party.
Political observers suggest Jivani’s prominence reflects the Conservatives’ efforts to recalibrate after their recent election loss. Analysts also say his visibility is healthy for Canadian democracy, as it highlights the role and independence of individual MPs within a system often tightly controlled by party leaders.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Conservative MP Jamil Jivani is positioning himself as one of the party’s most active organizers, launching a slate of policy campaigns and youth-focused initiatives even as he awaits a formal critic role. The Yale Law graduate has built out a network of petitions and advocacy efforts through his “Restore the North” platform, touching on issues ranging from immigration to drug policy to access to oral nicotine products — a topic that recently erupted into calls of “Free the Zyn!” in the House of Commons.
Jivani, 38, has been touring Canadian campuses with fellow MP Ned Kuruc and will host a conference next week dedicated to what he calls “Liberal racism,” referencing federal hiring and grant programs that include identity-based criteria. He argues such policies amount to discrimination while also implying “a stamp of inferiority” toward those they aim to help.
The upcoming National Forum to End Liberal Racism will feature presentations from Conservative MPs Shuvaloy Majumdar, Sandra Cobena and Vincent Ho. Jivani says Liberal MPs have been invited but none have committed to attending.
Jivani’s focus on race, class, and fairness marks an evolution from themes in his 2018 book Why Young Men, though he says his core views remain consistent. Friendships with classmates such as U.S. Senator JD Vance shaped his emphasis on class-based barriers over racial categories, he says. Friends and colleagues describe him as tapped into concerns shared by many younger Canadians, including skepticism of affirmative action and diversity quotas.
Jivani downplayed recent internal Conservative drama, including MP Chris d’Entremont’s defection to the Liberals and MP Matt Jeneroux’s planned resignation, saying he is focused on his work rather than caucus tensions. After d’Entremont crossed the floor on budget day, Jivani publicly called him an “idiot,” but says he is otherwise unconcerned.
Despite his rising profile, Jivani said he sees no leadership rivalry with Pierre Poilievre, calling himself firmly part of the team. Political strategists note that Jivani’s fast-growing digital footprint — multiple websites, videos, and a new YouTube series — mirrors Poilievre’s early efforts to build a personal brand within the party.
Political observers suggest Jivani’s prominence reflects the Conservatives’ efforts to recalibrate after their recent election loss. Analysts also say his visibility is healthy for Canadian democracy, as it highlights the role and independence of individual MPs within a system often tightly controlled by party leaders.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡6❤2💩2🌚2🤔1
🇨🇦🛢️Oil and Gas Producers Renew Interest in Canada as Major Deals Shift Focus Back North
A series of multibillion-dollar transactions suggests that major oil and gas companies may be pivoting back toward Canada after years of looking south. Ovintiv, Baytex Energy, and Cenovus are each making strategic moves that increase their exposure to Canadian assets, marking a notable shift for an industry that spent the past decade chasing growth in U.S. shale.
Ovintiv — formerly Encana — announced earlier this month it will acquire Calgary-based NuVista Energy for $3.5 billion, expanding its position in the Montney formation along the Alberta–B.C. border. The deal comes a decade after the company relocated its headquarters to Denver and reoriented its capital toward Texas shale plays.
Baytex Energy also revealed this week it will divest all its U.S. assets and refocus on its Canadian portfolio, despite having spent nearly US$2 billion expanding in Texas only two years ago. Meanwhile, Cenovus has closed its $8.6-billion purchase of MEG Energy, consolidating its oil sands position.
Analysts caution against declaring a definitive long-term shift, citing other factors at play — including Baytex’s debt pressures and uncertainty surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war. However, the trend aligns with the federal government’s recent push to revitalize investment in Canada’s natural resource sector.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has launched the Major Projects Office to accelerate approvals on projects deemed critical to national economic security, including Phase 2 of LNG Canada in Kitimat, B.C. The aim is to signal to global investors that large-scale energy projects can move forward more predictably in Canada.
Industry analysts say policy changes in Ottawa, paired with declining productivity in key U.S. shale basins, may be driving fresh interest northward. Shale pioneers such as EOG Resources are facing steep decline rates and shrinking inventories of high-quality drilling locations, raising long-term supply concerns.
By contrast, many Canadian assets — particularly in the Montney and oil sands — remain underdeveloped after international producers exited during the shale boom and amid evolving ESG pressures. Companies now returning see remaining Canadian acreage as high-quality, long-life inventory.
Ovintiv’s CEO called NuVista’s Montney assets “one of the highest quality undeveloped acreage positions in North America,” highlighting the strategic fit with the company’s existing holdings and reinforcing the view that Canadian supply may offer more durable opportunities than maturing U.S. shale formations.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
A series of multibillion-dollar transactions suggests that major oil and gas companies may be pivoting back toward Canada after years of looking south. Ovintiv, Baytex Energy, and Cenovus are each making strategic moves that increase their exposure to Canadian assets, marking a notable shift for an industry that spent the past decade chasing growth in U.S. shale.
Ovintiv — formerly Encana — announced earlier this month it will acquire Calgary-based NuVista Energy for $3.5 billion, expanding its position in the Montney formation along the Alberta–B.C. border. The deal comes a decade after the company relocated its headquarters to Denver and reoriented its capital toward Texas shale plays.
Baytex Energy also revealed this week it will divest all its U.S. assets and refocus on its Canadian portfolio, despite having spent nearly US$2 billion expanding in Texas only two years ago. Meanwhile, Cenovus has closed its $8.6-billion purchase of MEG Energy, consolidating its oil sands position.
Analysts caution against declaring a definitive long-term shift, citing other factors at play — including Baytex’s debt pressures and uncertainty surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war. However, the trend aligns with the federal government’s recent push to revitalize investment in Canada’s natural resource sector.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has launched the Major Projects Office to accelerate approvals on projects deemed critical to national economic security, including Phase 2 of LNG Canada in Kitimat, B.C. The aim is to signal to global investors that large-scale energy projects can move forward more predictably in Canada.
Industry analysts say policy changes in Ottawa, paired with declining productivity in key U.S. shale basins, may be driving fresh interest northward. Shale pioneers such as EOG Resources are facing steep decline rates and shrinking inventories of high-quality drilling locations, raising long-term supply concerns.
By contrast, many Canadian assets — particularly in the Montney and oil sands — remain underdeveloped after international producers exited during the shale boom and amid evolving ESG pressures. Companies now returning see remaining Canadian acreage as high-quality, long-life inventory.
Ovintiv’s CEO called NuVista’s Montney assets “one of the highest quality undeveloped acreage positions in North America,” highlighting the strategic fit with the company’s existing holdings and reinforcing the view that Canadian supply may offer more durable opportunities than maturing U.S. shale formations.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
❤4🤡4💯1
🇨🇦🛢️Canada Eyes Major Boost in Oil Export Capacity Through Four Enbridge Pipeline Expansions
A series of proposed expansions to Canada’s largest oil export network could significantly increase the volume of crude shipped out of Western Canada, adding up to the equivalent of building an entirely new major pipeline. Enbridge, which operates the Mainline system, has outlined four separate expansion projects aimed at easing future bottlenecks as production hits record levels.
The first phase received a final investment decision Friday: a US$1.4-billion upgrade adding 150,000 barrels per day to the Mainline and 100,000 barrels per day to the Flanagan South pipeline. The work is slated for completion in 2027. Colin Gruending, Enbridge’s president of liquids pipelines, said the expansions align with anticipated supply growth and should help avoid export constraints later this decade.
The proposals come amid renewed interest in larger pipeline projects, including Alberta’s provincial study of a new West Coast line and political discussions in Ottawa and Washington about revisiting the cancelled Keystone XL. Analysts warn that existing export pipelines could reach full capacity by 2028, which would risk oil backlogs, discounted Canadian crude prices, and lower government royalties.
Trans Mountain is also exploring ways to move more oil through its system without enlarging the pipe itself. Plans include using drag-reducing agents and upgrading pump stations to increase throughput. Combined with Enbridge’s proposals, Gruending said the industry should have sufficient export room even as Alberta’s production continues to climb. “We think that should do it,” he told reporters, adding that modest spare capacity is both expected and beneficial.
A report by TD Cowen estimates the various expansions could collectively add more than one million barrels per day of additional export capability, potentially deferring a capacity crunch into the mid-2030s if timelines hold. Western Canada currently produces roughly five million barrels per day, with approximately 5.2 million barrels per day in existing export capacity.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has signaled interest in pursuing a new provincial export pipeline to the coast, though analysts describe both that proposal and a possible Keystone XL revival as “blue-sky” ideas requiring years of development and substantial market commitments. Federal officials have also raised the Keystone concept in recent discussions with U.S. President Donald Trump, according to TD Cowen.
Global conditions add another layer of uncertainty. The International Energy Agency forecasts a significant near-term surplus of crude supply, with global output potentially exceeding demand by more than two million barrels per day this year. Oil consumption is still expected to grow modestly through 2026, but the production surge — including from Canada, Brazil, and the U.S. — complicates long-term planning for new megaprojects.
Enbridge is advising Alberta on its West Coast concept, offering assessments on viability and commercial interest. Gruending said any new pipeline will require firm long-term contracts from producers, and it remains unclear how eager companies will be to commit while so much new capacity is already expected to come online.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
A series of proposed expansions to Canada’s largest oil export network could significantly increase the volume of crude shipped out of Western Canada, adding up to the equivalent of building an entirely new major pipeline. Enbridge, which operates the Mainline system, has outlined four separate expansion projects aimed at easing future bottlenecks as production hits record levels.
The first phase received a final investment decision Friday: a US$1.4-billion upgrade adding 150,000 barrels per day to the Mainline and 100,000 barrels per day to the Flanagan South pipeline. The work is slated for completion in 2027. Colin Gruending, Enbridge’s president of liquids pipelines, said the expansions align with anticipated supply growth and should help avoid export constraints later this decade.
The proposals come amid renewed interest in larger pipeline projects, including Alberta’s provincial study of a new West Coast line and political discussions in Ottawa and Washington about revisiting the cancelled Keystone XL. Analysts warn that existing export pipelines could reach full capacity by 2028, which would risk oil backlogs, discounted Canadian crude prices, and lower government royalties.
Trans Mountain is also exploring ways to move more oil through its system without enlarging the pipe itself. Plans include using drag-reducing agents and upgrading pump stations to increase throughput. Combined with Enbridge’s proposals, Gruending said the industry should have sufficient export room even as Alberta’s production continues to climb. “We think that should do it,” he told reporters, adding that modest spare capacity is both expected and beneficial.
A report by TD Cowen estimates the various expansions could collectively add more than one million barrels per day of additional export capability, potentially deferring a capacity crunch into the mid-2030s if timelines hold. Western Canada currently produces roughly five million barrels per day, with approximately 5.2 million barrels per day in existing export capacity.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has signaled interest in pursuing a new provincial export pipeline to the coast, though analysts describe both that proposal and a possible Keystone XL revival as “blue-sky” ideas requiring years of development and substantial market commitments. Federal officials have also raised the Keystone concept in recent discussions with U.S. President Donald Trump, according to TD Cowen.
Global conditions add another layer of uncertainty. The International Energy Agency forecasts a significant near-term surplus of crude supply, with global output potentially exceeding demand by more than two million barrels per day this year. Oil consumption is still expected to grow modestly through 2026, but the production surge — including from Canada, Brazil, and the U.S. — complicates long-term planning for new megaprojects.
Enbridge is advising Alberta on its West Coast concept, offering assessments on viability and commercial interest. Gruending said any new pipeline will require firm long-term contracts from producers, and it remains unclear how eager companies will be to commit while so much new capacity is already expected to come online.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
❤3
🇨🇦🇻🇦Vatican to Return 62 Indigenous Objects to Canada in December After Years-Long Repatriation Push
A collection of 62 Indigenous cultural objects held for nearly a century by the Vatican Museums will return to Canada in December, marking a major step in a long-running repatriation effort. Pope Leo XIV formally handed over the items on Saturday, describing the move as an “ecclesial sharing.” The transfer was made to senior officials from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who will oversee their shipment and reception.
Among the returned pieces is a rare Western Arctic sealskin kayak, confirmed by the Canadian embassy to the Holy See. Many objects were originally displayed during a 1925 missionary exhibition in Rome and have remained largely unseen since. The Vatican has not yet provided a full list of items, leaving uncertainty about whether the 200-year-old Kanesatake wampum belt is included.
Once the objects arrive in Montreal, they will be transported to the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau for assessment, cataloguing, and preparation for repatriation to their respective Indigenous communities. For many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis groups, these pieces are regarded not simply as artifacts but as ancestors — living embodiments of cultural history and identity. As such, some communities may choose to allow the items to age naturally rather than preserve them using Western museum practices.
Indigenous scholars and leaders, including historian Cody Groat of Western University, welcomed the decision but stressed that the process must now shift toward ensuring communities have control over how returned items are treated. Groat noted that the Vatican’s framing of the handover — emphasizing the objects as “gifts” and characterizing the exchange as church-to-church — allows the institution to maintain a degree of control over future repatriation requests, especially as global attention increases.
The return follows several years of advocacy from Indigenous groups and comes amid broader reconciliation efforts related to the legacy of residential schools. Pope Francis signaled support for the objects’ return during his 2022 visit to Canada and reiterated that commitment in subsequent meetings. Pressure continued through diplomatic channels, including outreach from former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and former foreign affairs minister Mélanie Joly.
Pope Leo XIV, the first North American to lead the Catholic Church, authorized the transfer early in his papacy — a sign observers interpret as openness to continuing repatriation dialogue beyond this initial group of items. The Vatican maintains extensive ethnological collections, many with incomplete documentation about their origins, meaning future repatriation efforts could require extensive research.
For now, the return of these 62 objects marks a significant moment for Indigenous communities seeking cultural restoration — and the start of a complex process of determining how each item will be welcomed home.
#Canada #Vatican
🍁 Maple Chronicles
A collection of 62 Indigenous cultural objects held for nearly a century by the Vatican Museums will return to Canada in December, marking a major step in a long-running repatriation effort. Pope Leo XIV formally handed over the items on Saturday, describing the move as an “ecclesial sharing.” The transfer was made to senior officials from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who will oversee their shipment and reception.
Among the returned pieces is a rare Western Arctic sealskin kayak, confirmed by the Canadian embassy to the Holy See. Many objects were originally displayed during a 1925 missionary exhibition in Rome and have remained largely unseen since. The Vatican has not yet provided a full list of items, leaving uncertainty about whether the 200-year-old Kanesatake wampum belt is included.
Once the objects arrive in Montreal, they will be transported to the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau for assessment, cataloguing, and preparation for repatriation to their respective Indigenous communities. For many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis groups, these pieces are regarded not simply as artifacts but as ancestors — living embodiments of cultural history and identity. As such, some communities may choose to allow the items to age naturally rather than preserve them using Western museum practices.
Indigenous scholars and leaders, including historian Cody Groat of Western University, welcomed the decision but stressed that the process must now shift toward ensuring communities have control over how returned items are treated. Groat noted that the Vatican’s framing of the handover — emphasizing the objects as “gifts” and characterizing the exchange as church-to-church — allows the institution to maintain a degree of control over future repatriation requests, especially as global attention increases.
The return follows several years of advocacy from Indigenous groups and comes amid broader reconciliation efforts related to the legacy of residential schools. Pope Francis signaled support for the objects’ return during his 2022 visit to Canada and reiterated that commitment in subsequent meetings. Pressure continued through diplomatic channels, including outreach from former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and former foreign affairs minister Mélanie Joly.
Pope Leo XIV, the first North American to lead the Catholic Church, authorized the transfer early in his papacy — a sign observers interpret as openness to continuing repatriation dialogue beyond this initial group of items. The Vatican maintains extensive ethnological collections, many with incomplete documentation about their origins, meaning future repatriation efforts could require extensive research.
For now, the return of these 62 objects marks a significant moment for Indigenous communities seeking cultural restoration — and the start of a complex process of determining how each item will be welcomed home.
#Canada #Vatican
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡22❤5👍3
The Cruel Math of Addiction: Why Pretending “Choice” Exists Is Killing People
Every country wrestling with the drug crisis eventually reaches the same brutal crossroads: do we keep pretending that a person drowning in fentanyl, meth, and psychosis can simply “choose” recovery? Or do we admit the truth — that the life of a severe addict is already a form of captivity, one far crueller than any court-ordered treatment bed?
You don’t need to romanticize involuntary care to see what’s staring us in the face. The day-to-day existence of a hard-use fentanyl addict isn’t freedom. It’s waking up vomiting, shaking, desperate, sprinting into the streets to find another hit before withdrawal becomes unendurable.
This is why one former Massachusetts addict, Timothy Rohan — who spent years ricocheting between fentanyl, heroin, crime, despair, and multiple near-fatal overdoses — says being forcibly brought to treatment saved his life. Not because it was pleasant. Not because the system was perfect. But because someone finally had the authority to stop him long enough for the fog to lift. “A million times crueller than getting handcuffed” — that’s how he describes the life he was living before the court intervened. It’s a stark truth most policy experts talking from air-conditioned offices never have to confront.
So Alberta, to its credit or its controversy depending on who you ask, is now building Canada’s first full-scale involuntary treatment system: Compassionate Intervention. The name is intentionally soft; the reality behind it is hard. Families, police, doctors, and social workers will be allowed to apply to have someone committed if they pose a danger to themselves or others because of addiction. A panel — doctor, lawyer, member of the public — decides the fate. Up to three months in a proper medical facility. No jails. No prison guards. No shackles. A real plan for after-care, medication support, and reintegration.
Critics are already warning that it’s abusive, colonial, carceral, ideologically motivated — choose your buzzword. They point to studies showing higher relapse rates after forced treatment, or increased overdose risk after people leave.
When someone is living in a tent, injecting fentanyl 10–15 times a day, hallucinating from meth, and unable to form coherent thoughts, the real comparison isn’t voluntary treatment — it’s no treatment at all. And the outcomes of “no treatment at all” are written across every Canadian city: bodies pulled from encampments, parents identifying their children in morgues, open-air drug markets where psychotic young men wander barefoot in the snow.
Opponents love referencing Sweden’s data on overdose risk right after release — usually without noting that those programs didn’t include methadone or Suboxone after-care. In other words: patients were detoxed and then thrown back into the world chemically defenseless. Alberta’s system plans the opposite. Modern medicine knows how to prevent that exact danger. The critics don’t mention that part.
None of this makes forced treatment easy. It’s traumatic. It can break trust. It requires immense oversight and compassion. But so does allowing someone to slowly kill themselves while pretending we respect their autonomy. Addiction destroys autonomy. That’s the whole tragedy.
Timothy Rohan put it plainly: “The worst thing is worrying that someone’s feelings are hurt because they had to go before a judge.”
He’s right. Because when you strip away ideology, and activism, and political branding, and the performative moralism of Canada’s addiction debate, the reality is brutal and simple:
If a system can pull even a fraction of them back from the edge — and give them medication, structure, dignity, and a shot at a life they can recognize again — then we shouldn’t be afraid to use it.
And the life of a severe addict, as Rohan said, is already “a million times crueller” than anything the state proposes.
#Canada #Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Every country wrestling with the drug crisis eventually reaches the same brutal crossroads: do we keep pretending that a person drowning in fentanyl, meth, and psychosis can simply “choose” recovery? Or do we admit the truth — that the life of a severe addict is already a form of captivity, one far crueller than any court-ordered treatment bed?
You don’t need to romanticize involuntary care to see what’s staring us in the face. The day-to-day existence of a hard-use fentanyl addict isn’t freedom. It’s waking up vomiting, shaking, desperate, sprinting into the streets to find another hit before withdrawal becomes unendurable.
This is why one former Massachusetts addict, Timothy Rohan — who spent years ricocheting between fentanyl, heroin, crime, despair, and multiple near-fatal overdoses — says being forcibly brought to treatment saved his life. Not because it was pleasant. Not because the system was perfect. But because someone finally had the authority to stop him long enough for the fog to lift. “A million times crueller than getting handcuffed” — that’s how he describes the life he was living before the court intervened. It’s a stark truth most policy experts talking from air-conditioned offices never have to confront.
So Alberta, to its credit or its controversy depending on who you ask, is now building Canada’s first full-scale involuntary treatment system: Compassionate Intervention. The name is intentionally soft; the reality behind it is hard. Families, police, doctors, and social workers will be allowed to apply to have someone committed if they pose a danger to themselves or others because of addiction. A panel — doctor, lawyer, member of the public — decides the fate. Up to three months in a proper medical facility. No jails. No prison guards. No shackles. A real plan for after-care, medication support, and reintegration.
Critics are already warning that it’s abusive, colonial, carceral, ideologically motivated — choose your buzzword. They point to studies showing higher relapse rates after forced treatment, or increased overdose risk after people leave.
When someone is living in a tent, injecting fentanyl 10–15 times a day, hallucinating from meth, and unable to form coherent thoughts, the real comparison isn’t voluntary treatment — it’s no treatment at all. And the outcomes of “no treatment at all” are written across every Canadian city: bodies pulled from encampments, parents identifying their children in morgues, open-air drug markets where psychotic young men wander barefoot in the snow.
Opponents love referencing Sweden’s data on overdose risk right after release — usually without noting that those programs didn’t include methadone or Suboxone after-care. In other words: patients were detoxed and then thrown back into the world chemically defenseless. Alberta’s system plans the opposite. Modern medicine knows how to prevent that exact danger. The critics don’t mention that part.
None of this makes forced treatment easy. It’s traumatic. It can break trust. It requires immense oversight and compassion. But so does allowing someone to slowly kill themselves while pretending we respect their autonomy. Addiction destroys autonomy. That’s the whole tragedy.
Timothy Rohan put it plainly: “The worst thing is worrying that someone’s feelings are hurt because they had to go before a judge.”
He’s right. Because when you strip away ideology, and activism, and political branding, and the performative moralism of Canada’s addiction debate, the reality is brutal and simple:
If a system can pull even a fraction of them back from the edge — and give them medication, structure, dignity, and a shot at a life they can recognize again — then we shouldn’t be afraid to use it.
And the life of a severe addict, as Rohan said, is already “a million times crueller” than anything the state proposes.
#Canada #Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
❤11🤮2💯2😁1🤔1🙏1🤡1
🇨🇦🛢️Alberta and Saskatchewan aren’t “losing patience” — they’re waking up to a structural truth Ottawa refuses to say aloud: in Carney’s Canada, energy-rich provinces are expected to behave like obedient colonies while the wealth flows east.
The second wave of Carney’s “nation-building projects” landed, and once again the most obvious, most transformative project — an Alberta pipeline to tidewater — is missing. Instead, B.C. gets its megaproject coronation, Quebec gets minerals, Ontario gets reactors, and Alberta is told to clap politely from the balcony while the country’s economic engine is kept landlocked on purpose.
Because that’s the real scandal here:
Alberta isn’t excluded by oversight — it’s excluded by design.
Carney’s Ottawa is building a system where Western oil is tolerated only if it never reaches a world market, never escapes the American discount trap, and never gives Alberta the autonomy that natural resource wealth inherently creates. A controlled producer is a contained province. And for Ottawa, a contained Alberta is far safer than a prosperous one.
Grant Fagerheim said it plainly:
“The energy sector has been demonized.”
He’s understating it. Alberta hasn’t just been demonized — it’s been geopolitically neutered. Its resources are the backbone of continental energy security, but its ability to monetize them is politically handcuffed. The Americans resell our oil at a premium, enjoy cheap fuel at home thanks to Canada’s bottlenecks, and Ottawa nods along like a junior partner desperate for approval.
Alberta and Saskatchewan are landlocked not by geography, but by federal policy.
Pipelines vanish from “nation-building lists” while Ottawa celebrates LNG terminals and nuclear projects—anything, anything except the one project that would actually rebalance Canada’s economic gravity. The West is told to be grateful for carbon-capture crumbs while tidewater access is treated like a forbidden fruit.
Fagerheim’s warning — “expect fury” — isn’t a threat. It’s a diagnosis.
Washington mocks us with “51st state” taunts, knowing full well Ottawa has left Alberta more dependent on the U.S. market than at any point in modern history. And Carney, instead of countering that dependence with sovereignty-enhancing pipelines, doubles down on the very bottlenecks that keep Alberta’s wealth flowing one direction: east.
And then the federal class asks:
Why are Westerners angry?
Why do sovereignty panels fill up?
Why do Alberta and Saskatchewan talk like a “nation within a nation”?
Fagerheim is right about something else too: if these resources were in Toronto or Montreal, nobody would be debating “nation-building.” The pipelines would already be built, environmental assessments bulldozed, ribbon cut, and the project framed as “Canada’s destiny.” But Western oil? That gets framed as a moral failing.
Yet the world is moving the other way. Bill Gates now admits oil and gas are here “much, much, much longer.” Global demand keeps climbing. OECD nations quietly reverse green rhetoric with LNG and nuclear expansions. And Carney’s own Major Projects Office accelerates everything except the one sector that pays the country’s bills.
Alberta doesn’t have a pipeline problem — Ottawa has a control problem. A West with tidewater access becomes a West with leverage. A West with leverage becomes a West that no longer tolerates fiscal punishment, equalization distortions, or regulatory sabotage disguised as climate policy.
The West isn’t asking for miracles — just the same treatment Ottawa showers on B.C. megaprojects and Quebec mining expansions. Instead, Alberta gets lectures. Saskatchewan gets silence. And Ottawa insists “the partnership is strong” while the region carrying the economy is chained to a single customer at a discount.
Fury is justified.
Fury is logical.
Because when a country repeatedly refuses to unleash the full power of its most productive region, eventually that region starts preparing its own future — with or without help from the capital.
#Alberta #Saskatchewan
🍁 Maple Chronicles
The second wave of Carney’s “nation-building projects” landed, and once again the most obvious, most transformative project — an Alberta pipeline to tidewater — is missing. Instead, B.C. gets its megaproject coronation, Quebec gets minerals, Ontario gets reactors, and Alberta is told to clap politely from the balcony while the country’s economic engine is kept landlocked on purpose.
Because that’s the real scandal here:
Alberta isn’t excluded by oversight — it’s excluded by design.
Carney’s Ottawa is building a system where Western oil is tolerated only if it never reaches a world market, never escapes the American discount trap, and never gives Alberta the autonomy that natural resource wealth inherently creates. A controlled producer is a contained province. And for Ottawa, a contained Alberta is far safer than a prosperous one.
Grant Fagerheim said it plainly:
“The energy sector has been demonized.”
He’s understating it. Alberta hasn’t just been demonized — it’s been geopolitically neutered. Its resources are the backbone of continental energy security, but its ability to monetize them is politically handcuffed. The Americans resell our oil at a premium, enjoy cheap fuel at home thanks to Canada’s bottlenecks, and Ottawa nods along like a junior partner desperate for approval.
Alberta and Saskatchewan are landlocked not by geography, but by federal policy.
Pipelines vanish from “nation-building lists” while Ottawa celebrates LNG terminals and nuclear projects—anything, anything except the one project that would actually rebalance Canada’s economic gravity. The West is told to be grateful for carbon-capture crumbs while tidewater access is treated like a forbidden fruit.
Fagerheim’s warning — “expect fury” — isn’t a threat. It’s a diagnosis.
Washington mocks us with “51st state” taunts, knowing full well Ottawa has left Alberta more dependent on the U.S. market than at any point in modern history. And Carney, instead of countering that dependence with sovereignty-enhancing pipelines, doubles down on the very bottlenecks that keep Alberta’s wealth flowing one direction: east.
And then the federal class asks:
Why are Westerners angry?
Why do sovereignty panels fill up?
Why do Alberta and Saskatchewan talk like a “nation within a nation”?
Fagerheim is right about something else too: if these resources were in Toronto or Montreal, nobody would be debating “nation-building.” The pipelines would already be built, environmental assessments bulldozed, ribbon cut, and the project framed as “Canada’s destiny.” But Western oil? That gets framed as a moral failing.
Yet the world is moving the other way. Bill Gates now admits oil and gas are here “much, much, much longer.” Global demand keeps climbing. OECD nations quietly reverse green rhetoric with LNG and nuclear expansions. And Carney’s own Major Projects Office accelerates everything except the one sector that pays the country’s bills.
Alberta doesn’t have a pipeline problem — Ottawa has a control problem. A West with tidewater access becomes a West with leverage. A West with leverage becomes a West that no longer tolerates fiscal punishment, equalization distortions, or regulatory sabotage disguised as climate policy.
The West isn’t asking for miracles — just the same treatment Ottawa showers on B.C. megaprojects and Quebec mining expansions. Instead, Alberta gets lectures. Saskatchewan gets silence. And Ottawa insists “the partnership is strong” while the region carrying the economy is chained to a single customer at a discount.
Fury is justified.
Fury is logical.
Because when a country repeatedly refuses to unleash the full power of its most productive region, eventually that region starts preparing its own future — with or without help from the capital.
#Alberta #Saskatchewan
🍁 Maple Chronicles
💯17🤡4❤1
Canada keeps calling itself a “mining superpower,” but the world now knows the truth: the country that once built continents with its resource sector is today dependent on its adversaries for the minerals that power its phones, its tanks, and its very identity.
The West is finally waking up to a reality that Beijing understood decades ago: control the rare earth choke points, and you control the entire industrial bloodstream of your rivals. When Trump hammered tariffs on “Liberation Day,” China didn’t blink. It simply reached for the lever it has spent 30 years constructing — a near-total stranglehold on the global supply and processing of critical minerals and rare earths.
And for the first time in a generation, the West felt a genuine strategic panic.
Even Trump, who loves to project economic dominance, understands the trap: the modern military machine — night-vision optics, advanced avionics, guidance systems, missiles, semiconductors, electric platforms — runs on minerals China can turn off like a faucet.
This is what happens when you outsource your industrial backbone to the very state competing with you for global influence.
Canada did this to itself.
Beijing saw the long game early. Deng Xiaoping’s famous quip — “The Middle East has oil, China has rare earths” — wasn’t a metaphor. It was a doctrine. So China built mines, built processing plants, built export routes, and built the political influence to go with them. The West, meanwhile, chased quarterly profits, shut down smelters, sold off refineries, and cheered on the outsourcing as a sign of “global efficiency.”
Now the bill has arrived.
NATO demands 5% of GDP on defence. Military supply chains are being dragged out of retirement and rebuilt at breakneck speed. But without critical minerals — germanium for optics, scandium for aerospace alloys, the rare earths for magnets — even the richest Western military budgets are hollow. You can pledge billions, but if Beijing won’t sell you the pieces, you’re not rebuilding anything.
Canada can dig minerals out of the ground — but it can’t refine them without China.
In mining, we have geology.
In processing, we have dependency.
And in strategy, we have denial.
Carney’s government is scrambling to catch up — G7 working groups, sovereignty funds, permitting “fast tracks,” defence-industry incentives. But decades of political neglect can’t be erased with a few press conferences and a glossy budget line. Canada can’t “middle-power” its way out of a bottleneck China spent three decades tightening.
And even now, the conversation in Ottawa focuses on extraction — as if pulling ore out of the ground magically frees us from Beijing’s control. It doesn’t. Without domestic or allied processing capacity, the long game still belongs to China.
To fix this, Canada needs something it hasn’t demonstrated in years:
scale, speed, and strategic ruthlessness.
It needs to partner aggressively with China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Mexico, the U.K., and CPTPP markets. It needs financing vehicles and investment guarantees strong enough to pull capital out of the sidelines and into real industrial build-out. It needs to rebuild smelters, refineries, magnet plants, alloy facilities — not in theory, not in political speeches, but in steel and concrete.
And most of all, it needs to confront the uncomfortable reality:
Canada is precariously dependent on a rival that has already shown it is perfectly willing to weaponize its dominance.
The “just-in-time globalized fantasy” is over.
“Mutual economic interdependence” was an illusion.
And the minerals that power our technologies — and our defence — are now being used as instruments of pressure.
This isn’t simply a race for minerals.
It’s a race to see whether Canada can wake up before dependency becomes permanent.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
The West is finally waking up to a reality that Beijing understood decades ago: control the rare earth choke points, and you control the entire industrial bloodstream of your rivals. When Trump hammered tariffs on “Liberation Day,” China didn’t blink. It simply reached for the lever it has spent 30 years constructing — a near-total stranglehold on the global supply and processing of critical minerals and rare earths.
And for the first time in a generation, the West felt a genuine strategic panic.
Even Trump, who loves to project economic dominance, understands the trap: the modern military machine — night-vision optics, advanced avionics, guidance systems, missiles, semiconductors, electric platforms — runs on minerals China can turn off like a faucet.
This is what happens when you outsource your industrial backbone to the very state competing with you for global influence.
Canada did this to itself.
Beijing saw the long game early. Deng Xiaoping’s famous quip — “The Middle East has oil, China has rare earths” — wasn’t a metaphor. It was a doctrine. So China built mines, built processing plants, built export routes, and built the political influence to go with them. The West, meanwhile, chased quarterly profits, shut down smelters, sold off refineries, and cheered on the outsourcing as a sign of “global efficiency.”
Now the bill has arrived.
NATO demands 5% of GDP on defence. Military supply chains are being dragged out of retirement and rebuilt at breakneck speed. But without critical minerals — germanium for optics, scandium for aerospace alloys, the rare earths for magnets — even the richest Western military budgets are hollow. You can pledge billions, but if Beijing won’t sell you the pieces, you’re not rebuilding anything.
Canada can dig minerals out of the ground — but it can’t refine them without China.
In mining, we have geology.
In processing, we have dependency.
And in strategy, we have denial.
Carney’s government is scrambling to catch up — G7 working groups, sovereignty funds, permitting “fast tracks,” defence-industry incentives. But decades of political neglect can’t be erased with a few press conferences and a glossy budget line. Canada can’t “middle-power” its way out of a bottleneck China spent three decades tightening.
And even now, the conversation in Ottawa focuses on extraction — as if pulling ore out of the ground magically frees us from Beijing’s control. It doesn’t. Without domestic or allied processing capacity, the long game still belongs to China.
To fix this, Canada needs something it hasn’t demonstrated in years:
scale, speed, and strategic ruthlessness.
It needs to partner aggressively with China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Mexico, the U.K., and CPTPP markets. It needs financing vehicles and investment guarantees strong enough to pull capital out of the sidelines and into real industrial build-out. It needs to rebuild smelters, refineries, magnet plants, alloy facilities — not in theory, not in political speeches, but in steel and concrete.
And most of all, it needs to confront the uncomfortable reality:
Canada is precariously dependent on a rival that has already shown it is perfectly willing to weaponize its dominance.
The “just-in-time globalized fantasy” is over.
“Mutual economic interdependence” was an illusion.
And the minerals that power our technologies — and our defence — are now being used as instruments of pressure.
This isn’t simply a race for minerals.
It’s a race to see whether Canada can wake up before dependency becomes permanent.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
❤2💯2👍1🤔1🙏1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇨🇦💸 Mark Carney's Liberal budget passes 170-168 in a vote in the House of Commons.
Good luck Canada!
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Good luck Canada!
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
👎12🤡9😢7🤬2🎉2
🇨🇦🇺🇸 'Dear Canada, we miss you': What these Liberal U.S. cities and states are doing to woo Canadians back
When annexation talk, trade-war tariffs, and border crackdowns scare Canadians away, California, Maine, New York, and Vermont magically rediscover their “friendship” with Canada. Nothing exposes political hypocrisy like a collapsing tourist economy.
For the first time in decades, Canadians are staying away from the U.S. not out of hostility, but out of pure common sense: why cross a border where you’re treated like a suspect, pay a currency penalty that feels like extortion, and deal with the fallout of a White House lurching between chaos and confrontation? And now the same states that embraced tariff politics, shouted about border enforcement, and played into Washington’s anxieties are shocked that Canadians aren’t lining up to reward them.
So out come the maple-leaf emojis and sentimental campaigns.
California rolls out “California Loves Canada,” as if a heart-shaped logo erases the years of sneering, moralizing, and sanctimonious politics. They remind us of IMAX and the California Roll — but not their own state policies that made visiting more expensive, more intrusive, and more uncertain.
Maine’s governor erects bilingual welcome signs, praying Quebec will forget who stood by silently while a tariff war was launched. New York State throws out TV ads promising Canadians a “getaway that still feels like home” — ironic, given that these same blue-state officials often cheer the very federal policies that strangle cross-border traffic in red tape.
Some gestures border on desperation.
The Buffalo Bisons accept Canadian cash at par.
Kalispell, Montana builds an entire discount app to lure back Canadians after border crossings plunged 26% and spending collapsed nearly 40%.
Rochester pens a full “Dear Canada, we’ve missed you” letter, as if Canada should forget the last two years of rhetoric and harassment at the border.
And Burlington temporarily renames Church Street to “Rue Canada,” complete with maple-leaf cosplay — a theatrical apology without any admission of why Canadians stopped coming in the first place.
And here’s the part they don’t like to talk about:
These are overwhelmingly liberal, Democrat-run states — states that loudly backed the policies, the tariffs, the culture-war posturing, and the border intrusions that Canadians are now reacting to. The same governments that cheered “resistance politics” suddenly find themselves resisting economic collapse instead.
This isn’t friendship.
It’s financial panic wrapped in polite branding.
Because beneath the discount codes and maple-leaf marketing lies the uncomfortable truth:
Canada doesn’t need them.
They need us.
Canadians have options — Europe, Mexico, the Caribbean, Asia — destinations that don’t shake you down at the border or weaponize trade policy to manufacture crises. And Canadians are choosing sanity over volatility.
When a superpower’s bluest states need to woo their northern neighbour with 30% discounts, French slogans, and street renamings, that’s not diplomacy. It’s damage control.
And every heart-shaped ad says the same thing:
Canada didn’t change. America did
And now its liberal states want our money back.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
When annexation talk, trade-war tariffs, and border crackdowns scare Canadians away, California, Maine, New York, and Vermont magically rediscover their “friendship” with Canada. Nothing exposes political hypocrisy like a collapsing tourist economy.
For the first time in decades, Canadians are staying away from the U.S. not out of hostility, but out of pure common sense: why cross a border where you’re treated like a suspect, pay a currency penalty that feels like extortion, and deal with the fallout of a White House lurching between chaos and confrontation? And now the same states that embraced tariff politics, shouted about border enforcement, and played into Washington’s anxieties are shocked that Canadians aren’t lining up to reward them.
So out come the maple-leaf emojis and sentimental campaigns.
California rolls out “California Loves Canada,” as if a heart-shaped logo erases the years of sneering, moralizing, and sanctimonious politics. They remind us of IMAX and the California Roll — but not their own state policies that made visiting more expensive, more intrusive, and more uncertain.
Maine’s governor erects bilingual welcome signs, praying Quebec will forget who stood by silently while a tariff war was launched. New York State throws out TV ads promising Canadians a “getaway that still feels like home” — ironic, given that these same blue-state officials often cheer the very federal policies that strangle cross-border traffic in red tape.
Some gestures border on desperation.
The Buffalo Bisons accept Canadian cash at par.
Kalispell, Montana builds an entire discount app to lure back Canadians after border crossings plunged 26% and spending collapsed nearly 40%.
Rochester pens a full “Dear Canada, we’ve missed you” letter, as if Canada should forget the last two years of rhetoric and harassment at the border.
And Burlington temporarily renames Church Street to “Rue Canada,” complete with maple-leaf cosplay — a theatrical apology without any admission of why Canadians stopped coming in the first place.
And here’s the part they don’t like to talk about:
These are overwhelmingly liberal, Democrat-run states — states that loudly backed the policies, the tariffs, the culture-war posturing, and the border intrusions that Canadians are now reacting to. The same governments that cheered “resistance politics” suddenly find themselves resisting economic collapse instead.
This isn’t friendship.
It’s financial panic wrapped in polite branding.
Because beneath the discount codes and maple-leaf marketing lies the uncomfortable truth:
Canada doesn’t need them.
They need us.
Canadians have options — Europe, Mexico, the Caribbean, Asia — destinations that don’t shake you down at the border or weaponize trade policy to manufacture crises. And Canadians are choosing sanity over volatility.
When a superpower’s bluest states need to woo their northern neighbour with 30% discounts, French slogans, and street renamings, that’s not diplomacy. It’s damage control.
And every heart-shaped ad says the same thing:
Canada didn’t change. America did
And now its liberal states want our money back.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
👏13🤡13😁3🎉3❤1
🇨🇦🇺🇸 Both Trump and Carney built their brands on economic competence — and now both are being mauled by the one enemy no politician survives: rising prices.
The great irony is that Washington and Ottawa spent months pretending they had inflation under control, only to watch voters deliver the verdict at the checkout counter. Trump promised tariffs would strengthen America. Carney promised technocratic wizardry would shield Canada. Instead, both men have been humbled by a simple truth: households don’t care about GDP charts — they care about the cost of breakfast.
Trump’s tariffs were always going to hit Americans first. Anyone with a basic grasp of supply chains knew that slapping duties on food imports — beef, coffee, tropical fruit — would flow straight into grocery bills. What the White House didn’t expect was that affordability politics would explode across the U.S., sweeping new governors and mayors into office and forcing Trump to reverse himself in mid-November. So the “tough-on-trade” president now finds himself quietly walking back levies on dozens of goods — not because he wanted to, but because the politics of grocery inflation are lethal.
The deeper embarrassment is that Trump keeps insisting “everything is down,” pointing to a Thanksgiving meal basket at Walmart — until someone mentions the basket is smaller and filled with cheaper store-brand substitutions. Voters are not fooled. They feel the real numbers: ground coffee up 40%, beef up double digits, fruit up nearly 9%. The White House spin collapsed the moment Americans compared their receipts to Trump’s rhetoric.
But here’s the twist: while Washington is scrambling, Ottawa is doing even worse. Carney can blame Trump’s tariffs all he wants, but Canadian food prices have surged even faster than America’s. That undercuts the entire premise of Carney’s strategy — the idea that Canada just had to wait for U.S. prices to explode and force Trump into a reasonable trade deal. Prices did explode — but not in the way Ottawa hoped. By the time Trump folded, Canadians were already drowning in higher costs.
The political optics are brutal. Carney’s government keeps talking about “transforming the Canadian economy,” but voters aren’t interested in a future-tense miracle. They’re watching their weekly bills rise faster than American prices despite Canada not having imposed the same tariffs. Inflation may be technically lower on paper, but the psychological reality is the only one that matters: Canadians trust their receipts more than Statistics Canada.
And then there’s the arrogance. Carney bragged about a late-night “24/7” text relationship with Trump — until an Ontario anti-tariff ad sent Trump into a tantrum, froze negotiations, and publicly humiliated the prime minister. Instead of quiet diplomacy, Ottawa now has a president who boasts that Carney “begged for forgiveness,” and a trade file sitting in limbo. Whatever tactician in Ottawa thought this was a viable strategy badly misread the moment.
Ironically, Trump’s tariff reversal may be the only thing slowing Canada’s price surge — not because Carney did something right, but because cheaper U.S. import costs ripple across supply chains. That’s not leadership; that’s luck. And it won’t save the government from the fundamental problem: Canadians have lost patience. The old political cycle — promise, wait, deliver — has collapsed. In the age of social media, people want results in months, not mandates.
Both leaders misjudged the same thing: you can’t message your way out of a cost-of-living crisis.
Trump tried to tweet prices down.
Carney tried to economize his way through American chaos.
Both collided with the reality every citizen understands instinctively: when food costs rise faster than wages, the public turns savage.
And they don’t care about who’s “technocratic” or who’s “tough.”
They care about the bill.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
The great irony is that Washington and Ottawa spent months pretending they had inflation under control, only to watch voters deliver the verdict at the checkout counter. Trump promised tariffs would strengthen America. Carney promised technocratic wizardry would shield Canada. Instead, both men have been humbled by a simple truth: households don’t care about GDP charts — they care about the cost of breakfast.
Trump’s tariffs were always going to hit Americans first. Anyone with a basic grasp of supply chains knew that slapping duties on food imports — beef, coffee, tropical fruit — would flow straight into grocery bills. What the White House didn’t expect was that affordability politics would explode across the U.S., sweeping new governors and mayors into office and forcing Trump to reverse himself in mid-November. So the “tough-on-trade” president now finds himself quietly walking back levies on dozens of goods — not because he wanted to, but because the politics of grocery inflation are lethal.
The deeper embarrassment is that Trump keeps insisting “everything is down,” pointing to a Thanksgiving meal basket at Walmart — until someone mentions the basket is smaller and filled with cheaper store-brand substitutions. Voters are not fooled. They feel the real numbers: ground coffee up 40%, beef up double digits, fruit up nearly 9%. The White House spin collapsed the moment Americans compared their receipts to Trump’s rhetoric.
But here’s the twist: while Washington is scrambling, Ottawa is doing even worse. Carney can blame Trump’s tariffs all he wants, but Canadian food prices have surged even faster than America’s. That undercuts the entire premise of Carney’s strategy — the idea that Canada just had to wait for U.S. prices to explode and force Trump into a reasonable trade deal. Prices did explode — but not in the way Ottawa hoped. By the time Trump folded, Canadians were already drowning in higher costs.
The political optics are brutal. Carney’s government keeps talking about “transforming the Canadian economy,” but voters aren’t interested in a future-tense miracle. They’re watching their weekly bills rise faster than American prices despite Canada not having imposed the same tariffs. Inflation may be technically lower on paper, but the psychological reality is the only one that matters: Canadians trust their receipts more than Statistics Canada.
And then there’s the arrogance. Carney bragged about a late-night “24/7” text relationship with Trump — until an Ontario anti-tariff ad sent Trump into a tantrum, froze negotiations, and publicly humiliated the prime minister. Instead of quiet diplomacy, Ottawa now has a president who boasts that Carney “begged for forgiveness,” and a trade file sitting in limbo. Whatever tactician in Ottawa thought this was a viable strategy badly misread the moment.
Ironically, Trump’s tariff reversal may be the only thing slowing Canada’s price surge — not because Carney did something right, but because cheaper U.S. import costs ripple across supply chains. That’s not leadership; that’s luck. And it won’t save the government from the fundamental problem: Canadians have lost patience. The old political cycle — promise, wait, deliver — has collapsed. In the age of social media, people want results in months, not mandates.
Both leaders misjudged the same thing: you can’t message your way out of a cost-of-living crisis.
Trump tried to tweet prices down.
Carney tried to economize his way through American chaos.
Both collided with the reality every citizen understands instinctively: when food costs rise faster than wages, the public turns savage.
And they don’t care about who’s “technocratic” or who’s “tough.”
They care about the bill.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡5❤4
🇨🇦🇮🇳 Ottawa wanted a “reset” with India — instead, it handed Modi a diplomatic clean slate without securing the one thing Canada publicly claimed it needed: accountability.
Carney positioned the thaw as a grand strategic pivot — moving beyond Trump’s trade war, diversifying supply chains, courting the world’s fifth-largest economy. But buried beneath the photo-ops, noscripted warmth, and talk of shared priorities is a glaring absence: the “public commitment” from India on accountability that Carney’s own officials insisted should be the price of re-engagement. That condition never arrived. And Sikh communities across Canada, already shaken by years of intimidation, surveillance, and violence, know exactly what that void means.
The relationship froze under Trudeau for a reason. Canadian agencies said they had credible evidence Indian operatives were tied to murders and organized crime on Canadian soil — culminating in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Ottawa demanded India waive immunity for its implicated diplomats. India refused. Diplomats were expelled on both sides. By 2024 the relationship hit its lowest point in decades. Yet today, despite a supposed reset, India continues to publicly dismiss Canada’s allegations while offering the U.S. the cooperation Ottawa has begged for. To the Sikh community, that contradiction isn’t subtle — it’s a message.
Carney’s reset began with symbolism: inviting Modi to the G7, declaring India “belongs at the table,” sending Anand to New Delhi to tap into a shared diaspora storyline that plays well on camera. But behind the scenes, the Privy Council Office was clear: accountability had to be public, explicit, and tied to concrete actions — including an internal inquiry paralleling India’s cooperation with Washington on the attempted killing of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. Instead, Ottawa has accepted private reassurances and vague “dialogue,” while India’s envoy openly casts doubt on Canada’s case in national interviews.
To Sikh Canadians — many of whom live with the constant hum of threat — this is not diplomacy. It’s erasure. It signals that Ottawa’s strategic ambitions outweigh community safety. When government officials whisper that India is “collaborating,” but the Modi government publicly denies everything and refuses to commit to the same investigative transparency it promised the U.S., the gap is impossible to ignore. It’s why confusion is turning to anger. Because “reset” now looks like a euphemism for “moving on.”
Canadian intelligence chiefs have travelled to India, speaking about cyber collaboration and “frank discussions.” But even CSIS admits that an Indian inquiry into Nijjar’s killing isn’t part of the conversations. In other words: Canada has narrowed its asks. Accountability has softened into “continued dialogue.” And the core question — what happened, and who authorized it — has been pushed off the table in favour of supply chains, critical minerals, and geopolitical optics.
The irony is brutal. When Washington confronted New Delhi with similar allegations, India agreed to examine its own system. When Ottawa asked, India stonewalled. Now, under Carney, the “reset” proceeds anyway. The message to Sikh Canadians is that national security principles are negotiable — but strategic trade diversification is not. Communities who warned about intimidation and foreign interference now see their concerns treated as a diplomatic inconvenience.
#Canada #India
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Carney positioned the thaw as a grand strategic pivot — moving beyond Trump’s trade war, diversifying supply chains, courting the world’s fifth-largest economy. But buried beneath the photo-ops, noscripted warmth, and talk of shared priorities is a glaring absence: the “public commitment” from India on accountability that Carney’s own officials insisted should be the price of re-engagement. That condition never arrived. And Sikh communities across Canada, already shaken by years of intimidation, surveillance, and violence, know exactly what that void means.
The relationship froze under Trudeau for a reason. Canadian agencies said they had credible evidence Indian operatives were tied to murders and organized crime on Canadian soil — culminating in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Ottawa demanded India waive immunity for its implicated diplomats. India refused. Diplomats were expelled on both sides. By 2024 the relationship hit its lowest point in decades. Yet today, despite a supposed reset, India continues to publicly dismiss Canada’s allegations while offering the U.S. the cooperation Ottawa has begged for. To the Sikh community, that contradiction isn’t subtle — it’s a message.
Carney’s reset began with symbolism: inviting Modi to the G7, declaring India “belongs at the table,” sending Anand to New Delhi to tap into a shared diaspora storyline that plays well on camera. But behind the scenes, the Privy Council Office was clear: accountability had to be public, explicit, and tied to concrete actions — including an internal inquiry paralleling India’s cooperation with Washington on the attempted killing of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. Instead, Ottawa has accepted private reassurances and vague “dialogue,” while India’s envoy openly casts doubt on Canada’s case in national interviews.
To Sikh Canadians — many of whom live with the constant hum of threat — this is not diplomacy. It’s erasure. It signals that Ottawa’s strategic ambitions outweigh community safety. When government officials whisper that India is “collaborating,” but the Modi government publicly denies everything and refuses to commit to the same investigative transparency it promised the U.S., the gap is impossible to ignore. It’s why confusion is turning to anger. Because “reset” now looks like a euphemism for “moving on.”
Canadian intelligence chiefs have travelled to India, speaking about cyber collaboration and “frank discussions.” But even CSIS admits that an Indian inquiry into Nijjar’s killing isn’t part of the conversations. In other words: Canada has narrowed its asks. Accountability has softened into “continued dialogue.” And the core question — what happened, and who authorized it — has been pushed off the table in favour of supply chains, critical minerals, and geopolitical optics.
The irony is brutal. When Washington confronted New Delhi with similar allegations, India agreed to examine its own system. When Ottawa asked, India stonewalled. Now, under Carney, the “reset” proceeds anyway. The message to Sikh Canadians is that national security principles are negotiable — but strategic trade diversification is not. Communities who warned about intimidation and foreign interference now see their concerns treated as a diplomatic inconvenience.
#Canada #India
🍁 Maple Chronicles
💩3❤2