There is a comforting little story Canadians could tell ourselves right now.

Donald Trump is the problem.

Wait him out.

Eventually Americans elect somebody more reasonable, the temperature comes down, tariffs disappear and Canada and the United States go back to being the friendly neighbours we remember.

I wouldn’t bet the country on it.

And neither should Canada.

Because underneath all the Trump noise, insults and threats is something much bigger:

The United States has interests that don’t disappear when presidents change.

That doesn’t make America our enemy.

It makes America a country.

And Canada had better start behaving like one too.

Gavin Newsom Said Something Canadians Should Hear

California Governor Gavin Newsom has been making the Canadian media rounds.

He’s a very different political animal from Donald Trump.

Respectful toward Canada.

Friendly.

He has criticized Trump’s treatment of this country and talked about the damage the dispute has done to cross-border relationships.

Good.

I’d much rather deal with an American president who respects Canada than one who threatens it.

But respect and economic self-interest are two different things.

When Newsom was asked whether Canadians should expect all the tariffs to disappear under a future Democratic president, he didn’t promise that.

That’s the part worth paying attention to.

Not because Newsom is secretly Trump in a nicer suit.

He isn’t.

But because whoever occupies the White House will still be President of the United States.

Their job is to advance American interests.

Ours is to advance Canadian ones.

We forgot that distinction for a long time.

This Didn’t Start With Trump

Here’s where history becomes inconvenient.

Canadian softwood lumber was facing American duties while Joe Biden was president.

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce increased the combined duty rate applying to most Canadian softwood lumber exports from 8.05% to 14.54%.

Canada called those duties unjustified and challenged the American measures.

Trump didn’t invent that dispute.

He inherited it.

The current administration has taken protectionism, tariffs and economic coercion to another level entirely.

But the underlying lesson is older than Trump:

American governments will protect American economic interests when they believe doing so benefits them.

Republican or Democrat.

The language changes.

The smile changes.

Sometimes even the policy changes.

But Canada cannot assume the underlying national interest disappears because somebody nicer moves into the White House.

Then Came the Latest Trade Talks

That lesson became considerably harder to ignore this week.

Canada and the United States appeared to be moving toward an agreement.

Then the negotiations collapsed.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said the United States introduced unacceptable last-minute demands.

Washington blamed Canada.

And instead of signing something simply so everybody could announce a deal, Canada walked away.

Now we’re dealing with 50% American tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods, with Canada preparing dollar-for-dollar retaliation.

That’s painful.

Nobody should pretend otherwise.

Canada still sends roughly 70% of its exports to the United States.

You don’t rearrange a trading relationship that large without bruises.

But there’s another danger Canadians need to recognize.

Signing a bad agreement because we’re frightened of temporary economic pain can create permanent economic dependence.

Sometimes walking away from the table isn’t the failure of negotiation.

Sometimes it’s the whole bloody point of negotiating.

This Is Bigger Than Trump

Trump has made Canada’s problem impossible to ignore.

Maybe we should thank him for that much.

For decades, geography spoiled us.

The world’s biggest consumer economy was right next door.

We built roads, pipelines, railways, factories and supply chains around selling south.

It made perfect economic sense.

Until dependence became vulnerability.

Now we’re discovering the difference.

Canada doesn’t need to stop trading with America.

That would be ridiculous.

The United States will remain one of our most important customers and partners.

But there’s a hell of a difference between having your best customer and having your only customer who matters.

That’s what diversification is really about.

Not revenge.

Insurance.

What Happens After Trump?

Suppose a Democrat wins the White House in 2028.

Suppose the insults stop.

Suppose the annexation nonsense disappears.

Suppose Canada once again has an American president who treats our prime minister like the leader of a sovereign ally instead of the manager of a property he’d like to acquire.

Wonderful.

I’ll take it.

But Canada should still keep building ports.

Still expand trade with Europe.

Still deepen relationships across Asia.

Still develop our critical minerals.

Still build energy infrastructure.

Still strengthen east-west Canadian trade.

Still reduce unnecessary dependence on the American market.

Still build our own defence capacity.

Still make decisions based on Canadian interests.

Because the objective isn’t to escape Donald Trump.

The objective is to make sure no American president ever has this much leverage over Canada again.

That’s a completely different project.

And it lasts much longer than one presidency.

Nobody Is Coming to Rescue Canada

I don’t mean that pessimistically.

I mean exactly the opposite.

Canada doesn’t need rescuing.

We’re one of the richest countries on Earth in resources.

We have energy.

Uranium.

Critical minerals.

Agriculture.

Fresh water.

Forests.

Technology.

Manufacturing expertise.

Educated people.

Access to three oceans.

Trade agreements reaching major markets around the world.

And countries that need many of the things we produce.

Our problem was never that Canada couldn’t survive without overwhelming dependence on the United States.

Our problem was that the easy option was so profitable for so long that we never had much reason to find out.

Trump gave us one.

So if America elects somebody friendlier in two years, I’ll welcome the change.

Shake hands.

Repair what can be repaired.

Trade like hell with them.

But don’t tear up the diversification plans.

Don’t dismantle the new relationships.

And for God’s sake, don’t crawl back into the old comfortable dependency because Washington starts saying nice things about us again.

We learned something expensive.

Let’s not pay for the lesson twice.

Trump isn’t the reason Canada needs economic independence.

He’s the reason we finally understood why it matters.

The Recap…

Trump will eventually leave the White House.

Canada’s vulnerability won’t disappear with him.

American presidents will keep defending American interests.

It’s time Canada permanently learned to defend ours.

The Gut-Punch…

The goal isn’t to survive Donald Trump.

It’s to build a Canada that never again has to worry this much about who Americans elect.

Source credit:

Research notes were drawn from a supplied transcript discussing Gavin Newsom’s Canadian media interviews and the Canada–U.S. trade dispute.

Key factual points were independently checked against Government of Canada reporting on U.S. softwood-lumber duties and current reporting from Reuters, Associated Press and other major outlets on the August 2026 collapse of Canada–U.S. trade negotiations.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.
No spam.
No nonsense.
Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I don’t need to call Danielle Smith a separatist.

I don’t know what’s inside her head.

I don’t know what she says when the cameras aren’t running.

And frankly, I don’t need to.

Because what’s happening right out in the open is interesting enough.

One of the MLAs in Danielle Smith’s United Conservative caucus has voted for Option 2 in Alberta’s October 19 referendum.

His name is Jason Stephan. He represents Red Deer-South.

And Option 2 says this…

The Alberta government should begin the legal process required to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether Alberta should separate from Canada.

That’s not somebody on Facebook blowing off steam.

That’s a sitting MLA in Alberta’s governing party.

And apparently, as far as Danielle Smith is concerned, that’s just one of those little differences of opinion political parties have.

That’s the part I can’t get past.

First, let’s get the facts straight

This October 19 vote does not separate Alberta from Canada.

That’s important, because there’s enough bullshit flying around this issue already.

Elections Alberta describes Question 10 as non-binding.

Option 1 says Alberta should remain a province of Canada.

Option 2 tells the Alberta government to commence the legal process required to hold a future binding referendum on separation.

So Jason Stephan has not voted to separate Alberta from Canada.

He has voted to start the process that could put that question before Albertans in a binding referendum.

That’s a significant distinction.

It’s also not nothing.

Stephan has explained his position fairly clearly.

He says he has never said he wants Alberta to separate. He says he’d like Canada to fix itself, Alberta to be treated fairly and the country to remain united.

His argument is essentially that putting a binding independence referendum on the table gives Alberta leverage over Ottawa.

Okay.

I disagree with playing Russian roulette with Confederation to improve your negotiating position, but at least I understand the argument.

Here’s where things get interesting.

Danielle Smith says she’s voting the other way

Smith says she supports Option 1.

Alberta stays in Canada.

Her government’s official position is that Alberta should remain within a united Canada.

Good.

That’s pretty unambiguous.

But when she’s asked what it means that a member of her own caucus has voted to start the process toward a binding separation referendum, Smith doesn’t treat that as some great breach of the party’s principles.

She talks about diversity of opinion.

Political parties don’t agree on everything, she says.

And normally I’d applaud that.

I don’t want political parties filled with bobbleheads who nod every time the leader speaks.

Argue about taxes.

Argue about health care.

Argue about pipelines.

Argue about whether the legislature cafeteria puts too much mayonnaise on the sandwiches for all I care.

But surely a governing political party gets to have some fundamental principles.

And whether the province it governs should remain part of Canada strikes me as a fairly good candidate.

That’s why I keep coming back to one simple question…

Where is the line?

If voting to begin the legal process toward a binding separation referendum isn’t over it, what is?

This didn’t suddenly appear last Tuesday

Stephan’s vote isn’t his first encounter with this issue.

Earlier this year, while serving as Smith’s parliamentary secretary for constitutional affairs, he encouraged Albertans to sign the petition calling for a referendum on separation.

He subsequently resigned that parliamentary-secretary position but remained in the UCP caucus.

Now he’s actually voted Option 2.

And he’s still in the caucus.

Smith is entitled to run a big-tent political party.

But Canadians are equally entitled to notice who is standing underneath the tent.

Especially because Alberta voters didn’t elect a separatist government in 2023.

The official Elections Alberta results are rather spectacular on this point.

The UCP received 928,896 votes.

The NDP received 777,397.

The Independence Party of Alberta received 5,228.

The Reform Party received 132.

Wildrose Independence received 820.

Albertans had separatist choices.

They overwhelmingly didn’t choose them.

Now, three years later, Alberta is preparing to vote on whether its government should begin the legal process toward a binding separation referendum.

And a member of the governing caucus has already voted yes.

That’s not proof Danielle Smith secretly wants Alberta out of Canada.

I’m not going to tell you something I can’t prove.

But it is proof that the separation movement has found room inside Alberta’s governing party that it never found at the ballot box as a political party of its own.

And I think Canadians are perfectly entitled to ask how much room Danielle Smith intends to give it.

Here’s the strange part

Smith herself has been arguing lately that Alberta’s relationship with Ottawa is improving.

And she’s got something to point to.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Smith just stood together announcing the Pacific Link pipeline as a project of national interest.

Smith has presented that as evidence that working within Canada can deliver results for Alberta.

That’s actually a pretty powerful argument for Option 1.

So make it.

Defend it.

If Canada is finally responding to legitimate Alberta concerns, tell Albertans why walking toward the separation door now makes no sense.

But don’t simultaneously tell the rest of us that a member of your own caucus voting to start the process toward a binding independence referendum is basically another day at the office.

Those two positions don’t sit comfortably together.

Maybe Stephan genuinely wants nothing more than leverage.

Maybe he hopes Option 2 scares Ottawa into making concessions and Alberta never comes close to leaving Canada.

He has explicitly said he wants Canada to succeed.

I’ll take him at his word.

But once a government begins the legal process toward a binding referendum, Jason Stephan doesn’t get to control where that process ends.

Neither does Danielle Smith.

That’s the problem with using national unity as a bargaining chip.

Eventually somebody might call your bluff.

And there are some things I’d rather Canada didn’t gamble with.

The country is one of them.

The Recap…

A UCP MLA has voted to begin the legal process toward a binding Alberta separation referendum.

Danielle Smith says she wants Alberta to remain in Canada.

Both things are true.

The question is why the first apparently isn’t incompatible with belonging to the governing caucus led by the woman saying the second.

The Gut-Punch…

You can use a lot of things as leverage in a negotiation.

Your country shouldn’t be one of them.

Source credit:

Elections Alberta… 2026 referendum wording and status.

Elections Alberta… official 2023 provincial election results.

CBC News reporting on Jason Stephan’s Option 2 vote and his explanation that he wants Canada to remain united.

The Canadian Press/CityNews and Global News reporting on Stephan’s earlier support for the separation petition, his resignation as parliamentary secretary for constitutional affairs, Smith’s stated support for remaining in Canada, and her decision not to remove Stephan from caucus.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

There’s a comforting story Canadians could tell ourselves about this whole mess.

Donald Trump is the problem.

Wait him out.

Eventually Americans elect somebody more reasonable, the insults stop, the tariff war winds down and Canada and the United States go back to being the friendly neighbours we remember.

I wouldn’t bet the country on it.

Not because every future American president will behave like Donald Trump. They won’t.

Not because Democrats and Republicans are identical on trade. They aren’t.

But because underneath all the Trump noise, threats and economic bullying is something much less dramatic and much more permanent:

The United States has national interests that don’t disappear when presidents change.

That doesn’t make America our enemy.

It makes America a country.

Canada needs to remember that we’re one too.

Gavin Newsom Gave Us the Right Answer… Even If It Wasn’t the Comfortable One

Back in August, California Governor Gavin Newsom was making the Canadian media rounds.

He sounded very different from Donald Trump.

He spoke warmly about Canada, condemned Trump’s treatment of us and described California as a stable partner.

I welcomed it.

I’d much rather deal with an American president who respects Canada than one who talks about us like a piece of real estate he’d like to pick up at a bankruptcy auction.

But during a CBC interview, Newsom was asked an important question.

If a future Democratic president took office, should Canadians expect the tariffs to disappear and the old free-trade relationship to return?

He didn’t promise that.

His answer was: “I don’t know.”

That may have been the most useful answer he gave us.

Because Newsom wasn’t saying Democrats would continue Trump’s trade war.

He was acknowledging something Canadians need to understand.

Nobody can promise that changing the occupant of the White House puts the old Canada-U.S. relationship back together.

And increasingly, Canada isn’t behaving as though it will.

We Already Know Protectionism Can Survive a Change of President

Softwood lumber is the perfect example.

The dispute didn’t begin with Trump.

While Joe Biden was president, the U.S. Department of Commerce increased combined duties applying to most Canadian softwood lumber exports from 8.05% to 14.54% in 2024.

Canada called the duties unfair and unwarranted.

Then Trump returned.

And things got considerably worse.

Today, the current combined anti-dumping and countervailing cash-deposit rate for the “all others” category of Canadian softwood lumber exporters is 35.16%.

Canfor’s combined rate is 47.59%.

And since October 2025, certain Canadian softwood lumber has also faced an additional 10% U.S. Section 232 tariff.

That’s worth absorbing for a moment.

The dispute existed under a Democratic president.

It continued under a Republican one.

The severity changed enormously.

The underlying American protectionist pressure didn’t disappear.

That doesn’t prove every future U.S. president will keep every Trump tariff.

It proves Canada would be foolish to build its economic strategy around the assumption that they won’t.

And Then August Happened

When I first wrote about this, Canada and the United States had just walked away from another attempt at a trade agreement.

The numbers are clearer now.

On August 22, the United States imposed 50% tariffs on C$27.6 billion worth of Canadian goods under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

And these weren’t limited to some obscure corner of the economy.

They hit products including plastics, furniture, electronics, paper products, industrial machinery, wood products, textiles, apparel and sporting equipment.

Worse, these particular tariffs do not provide an exemption simply because the goods comply with CUSMA.

Canada decided not to swallow the deal Washington was offering.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said the proposed terms did not sufficiently protect Canadian workers, businesses, strategic industries and Canadian sovereignty.

Then Canada retaliated.

Not threatened to.

Not announced that maybe someday we would.

Did.

Since September 8, Canada has imposed counter-tariffs of 15%, 25% or 50% on C$27.6 billion worth of American products.

Steel and aluminum.

Dairy.

Appliances.

Agricultural equipment.

Pulp and paper.

Plastics.

Electronics.

Furniture.

Other existing Canadian counter-tariffs, including those affecting U.S. automobiles, remain in place.

This isn’t a hypothetical trade war anymore.

We’re living in it.

Something Else Has Happened While Everybody Was Watching Washington

Canada started selling more stuff somewhere else.

And now we have numbers.

In 2025, Canadian merchandise exports to the United States fell 5.8%.

Meanwhile, exports to countries other than the United States rose 17.2%.

Total merchandise trade with non-U.S. countries reached $553 billion, up 14.3% in a single year.

The U.S. remained overwhelmingly our largest export market… and nobody should pretend otherwise… but its share of Canadian merchandise exports fell from 75.9% in 2024 to 71.7% in 2025 on Statistics Canada’s balance-of-payments measure.

That is not economic independence.

It isn’t even close.

But it is movement.

And Ottawa has now made the objective explicit…

Double Canadian exports to non-U.S. markets over the next decade.

That requires more than diplomatic speeches and trade missions.

It means ports.

Rail.

Roads.

Energy infrastructure.

Critical minerals.

New trade agreements.

New customers.

New investment.

And the physical capacity to get Canadian products to markets that aren’t conveniently sitting on the other side of the 49th parallel.

That work has started too.

The federal government, for example, has committed support for major expansion at Roberts Bank in British Columbia as part of a plan it says could unlock more than $100 billion in additional trade capacity.

That’s what diversification looks like when it stops being a slogan and starts involving concrete.

Today’s Numbers Give Us a Useful Reality Check

Statistics Canada released the latest merchandise trade numbers today.

In August, Canadian exports rose 2.5% to $77.9 billion while imports fell 2%.

Canada recorded a $4.2-billion merchandise trade surplus with the world, our sixth consecutive monthly surplus.

Our surplus with the United States reached $11.2 billion.

Sounds terrific.

But there’s an important catch.

Exports to the United States surged 8.1% partly because American importers were rushing Canadian goods across the border before the new 50% tariffs took effect.

Meanwhile, Canadian exports to countries other than the United States fell 8.5% in August after rising the previous month.

That matters.

Because I’m not interested in replacing one fairy tale with another.

Canada hasn’t suddenly diversified itself out of dependence on the United States.

Not remotely.

What we’ve done is start.

And starting is very different from finishing.

This Was Never About Abandoning America

I keep seeing this argument reduced to some version of…

“So you want Canada to stop trading with the United States?”

No.

That would be economic lunacy.

The United States is a gigantic market sitting beside us. Our economies have been integrated for generations. Millions of Canadian and American jobs depend on that relationship.

We should trade with them.

A lot.

If relations improve, we should trade even more.

But there is a hell of a difference between having your best customer and having one customer with enough leverage to frighten your entire economy every time somebody in Washington changes the rules.

That’s the lesson.

Diversification isn’t divorce.

It’s insurance.

What Happens When Trump Is Gone?

Eventually Donald Trump will leave office.

Maybe the next president is a Democrat.

Maybe it’s Gavin Newsom.

Maybe it’s somebody we aren’t talking about yet.

Suppose the insults stop.

Suppose the annexation garbage disappears.

Suppose Washington once again treats the Canadian prime minister as the leader of a sovereign ally rather than the manager of some northern property America ought to own.

Wonderful.

I’ll take it.

Repair everything we reasonably can.

Shake hands.

Negotiate.

Trade like hell with them.

But don’t stop building ports.

Don’t stop expanding trade with Europe.

Don’t stop building relationships across Asia.

Don’t stop developing critical minerals.

Don’t stop expanding energy infrastructure.

Don’t stop strengthening east-west trade inside Canada.

And for God’s sake, don’t dismantle the new relationships we’re building because somebody in Washington starts smiling at us again.

Because the objective was never simply to survive Donald Trump.

The objective is to make sure no American president ever has this much economic leverage over Canada again.

That project lasts longer than one presidency.

Nobody Is Coming to Rescue Canada

I don’t mean that pessimistically.

Quite the opposite.

Canada doesn’t need rescuing.

We have energy.

Uranium.

Critical minerals.

Agriculture.

Forests.

Advanced manufacturing.

Technology.

An educated workforce.

Access to three oceans.

Free-trade agreements giving Canadian businesses preferential access to enormous international markets.

And countries around the world looking for many of the things we produce.

Our problem was never that Canada couldn’t trade beyond the United States.

Our problem was that for decades we had very little incentive to try hard enough.

The richest consumer market on Earth was sitting next door.

Of course we sold there.

It made perfect sense.

Until efficiency became dependency.

And dependency became leverage.

Trump didn’t create that vulnerability.

He exposed it.

That may turn out to be one of the most consequential things he ever did to Canada.

Because once Canadians saw the vulnerability, we started doing something about it.

Don’t Pay for the Same Lesson Twice

Canada is nowhere near economically independent of the United States.

Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something.

But we are moving.

Exports outside the United States grew sharply last year.

New trade relationships are being pursued.

Infrastructure is being expanded.

Canada has set a goal of doubling non-U.S. exports over the coming decade.

And perhaps most importantly, the old assumption that Washington will always provide a predictable, rules-based economic relationship has been broken.

Prime Minister Carney said it plainly after the August negotiations failed:

“America has changed, and we will not return to our old relationship.”

That doesn’t mean permanent hostility.

It doesn’t mean anti-Americanism.

And it certainly doesn’t mean we should stop trading with the United States.

It means something much simpler.

Canada’s economic security cannot depend on Americans electing the president we hope they elect.

So when Trump eventually leaves, welcome the improvement if improvement comes.

Repair the relationship.

Rebuild trust where trust can be rebuilt.

But keep building Canada.

Keep finding customers.

Keep opening markets.

Keep strengthening ourselves.

Because we learned something expensive.

Let’s not pay for the same lesson twice.

Trump isn’t the reason Canada needs greater economic independence.

He’s the reason we finally understood why it matters.

The Recap…

Trump will eventually leave the White House.

Canada’s economic vulnerability won’t automatically leave with him.

The United States will continue defending American interests, regardless of which party controls Washington.

Canada needs to permanently learn to defend ours.

And this time, we actually appear to be doing something about it.

The Gut-Punch…

The goal isn’t to survive Donald Trump.

It’s to build a Canada that never again has to worry this much about who Americans elect.

Source Credit

Statistics Canada… Canadian international merchandise trade, August 2026, released October 6, 2026.

Statistics Canada… Canadian international merchandise trade, 2025 annual results.

Global Affairs Canada… Current U.S. tariffs and duties affecting Canadian softwood lumber.

Government of Canada, Department of Finance… Canadian countermeasures responding to U.S. tariffs, effective September 8, 2026.

Trade Commissioner Service… Current U.S. Section 338 tariffs affecting Canadian exports.

Prime Minister of Canada… August 21–22 statements on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations and Canada’s trade-diversification strategy.

Prime Minister of Canada… Canada’s objective to double non-U.S. exports over the next decade and expansion of trade infrastructure at Roberts Bank.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I came across a Canadian poll this week that didn’t surprise me one bit.

Cost of living

That’s still the thing Canadians are worried about most.

In the latest Abacus Data survey, 63% of Canadians named the rising cost of living as one of their three most important issues facing the country.

Not 63% saying it was the single most important issue. That’s an important distinction.

But it still finished comfortably ahead of Donald Trump and his administration at 44%, the economy at 37%, healthcare at 31%, and housing at 27%.

Abacus Data… September 2026 Canadian Public Affairs Update

And right now, there’s a pretty good example of why affordability can be such a miserable thing for any Canadian government to control.

Diesel

You probably don’t think about diesel while you’re standing in the grocery aisle staring at a package of hamburger and wondering when it became a luxury item.

But somebody had to grow the food.

Somebody had to harvest it.

Somebody had to process it.

And somebody probably put it on a truck.

Diesel gets into damn near everything.

Statistics Canada pointed this out months ago. Higher energy costs work their way through transportation, warehousing, wholesale and eventually retail.

In the second quarter, about one-third of transportation and warehousing businesses expected input costs to be an obstacle, and nearly two-thirds of those businesses pointing to input costs specifically identified energy.

Statistics Canada… Fuelling inflation

Now look at what’s happening around the world

Russia has extended restrictions on diesel exports. Middle East refinery disruptions have squeezed supply.

China has restricted fuel exports to protect its domestic market. Global diesel inventories have been running dangerously low.

And the United States… currently one of the countries helping fill that global supply hole… has been considering restricting its own diesel exports in an attempt to bring domestic prices down.

President Trump confirmed on September 30 that an export ban remained under consideration.

Europe wasn’t impressed

The EU warned on October 2 that restricting American diesel exports would be counterproductive and damage trust in the United States as an energy supplier.

Reuters… Trump considers a U.S. diesel export ban

Reuters… EU rejects the prospect of a diesel export ban

Think about that for a minute.

A war thousands of kilometres away damages refining capacity.

Russia restricts exports.

China restricts exports.

Diesel gets scarce.

Prices rise.

Washington considers restricting exports.

Europe starts talking about releasing emergency reserves.

And eventually some Canadian standing in a grocery store wonders why everything costs so bloody much.

That’s the world we live in

Canada’s inflation rate was 3% in August. Food inflation had actually eased to 2.8%, which is worth mentioning because I’m not interested in pretending every grocery price is suddenly exploding.

But gasoline was still 22.8% more expensive than a year earlier, and Statistics Canada’s food-price data showed producer diesel prices up 75% year-over-year in August.

Statistics Canada… Food Price Data Hub

That’s why I’ve become increasingly convinced that we need to think about diversification as something bigger than trade retaliation.

This isn’t about punishing Americans

And it certainly isn’t about pretending we can stop trading with the United States.

They’re our largest customer, our neighbour and part of deeply integrated North American supply chains. Geography hasn’t changed because Donald Trump became president.

But geography isn’t an argument for putting too many eggs in one basket either.

The same lesson applies to energy, trade, manufacturing, defence procurement and critical minerals.

More suppliers.

More customers.

More ports.

More domestic capacity.

More routes to world markets.

Not because America is evil.

Because dependence carries risk.

Canada has spent decades enjoying an extraordinarily convenient economic relationship with the world’s largest economy sitting right beside us.

There were enormous benefits to that.

There was also a vulnerability hiding inside it.

We’re discovering that now.

And here’s another interesting wrinkle.

While Canadians named cost of living as their number-one concern in that Abacus poll, their second most frequently selected concern was Donald Trump and his administration.

Those two issues aren’t identical.

But increasingly, they’re not entirely separate either.

Trade policy affects prices.

Tariffs affect prices.

Wars affect energy prices.

Export restrictions affect prices.

Supply chains affect prices.

The world can arrive at your kitchen table remarkably quickly.

Which brings me back to diversification.

I don’t see it as some grande anti-American crusade.

I see it more like insurance.

You don’t buy fire insurance because you hate your house.

You buy it because betting everything on nothing ever going wrong is a lousy plan.

Canada will continue selling things to Americans

I hope we sell them a hell of a lot.

But if we can sell more to Europe, Asia, Mexico and everywhere else too?

If Canadian businesses have more customers to call when one market suddenly becomes difficult?

If we can process more of our own resources instead of shipping them away and buying the finished products back?

If we can strengthen east-west transportation and energy links inside our own country?

Then the next time somebody thousands of kilometres away decides to close a market, impose a tariff, restrict an export or start a war, maybe Canadians aren’t quite as exposed.

That’s not turning our backs on anybody.

That’s finally remembering we’ve got more than one direction to look.

The Recap…

Canadians were asked for their three biggest national concerns.

Cost of living came first at 63%.

Meanwhile, a global diesel shortage is showing how quickly wars, refinery disruptions and export restrictions can reach Canadian wallets.

Diversification isn’t revenge.

It’s insurance.

The Gut-Punch…

**Canada doesn’t need fewer trading partners.

It needs fewer choke points.**

Source Credit:

Abacus Data, September 2026 Canadian Public Affairs Update; Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index and Food Price Data Hub; Reuters reporting on global diesel markets, U.S. export restrictions and European emergency fuel discussions.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I started watching a speech by Defence Minister David McGuinty expecting to hear the usual defence stuff.

This is the video:

More money.

More equipment.

More promises about fixing a Canadian military that everybody has known for years needs fixing.

Then I realized I was listening to something else.

This wasn’t really a speech about buying military equipment.

It was about building an industry.

And that’s a hell of a difference.

Canada has committed to spending roughly half a trillion dollars on defence over the coming decade as it works toward NATO’s new defence investment commitment.

NATO members agreed in 2025 to reach 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% devoted to core defence requirements and another 1.5% to defence- and security-related investments.

That’s the number everybody notices.

But I think we’re missing the more interesting part.

Where is all that money going to go?

For decades, Canadian defence procurement too often worked something like this…

Figure out what we need.

Find somebody who makes it.

Buy it.

Wait forever for it to arrive.

Canada’s new Defence Industrial Strategy is trying to change that equation.

The government calls its approach Build-Partner-Buy.

In plain English…

Build it in Canada when we reasonably can.

Build it with trusted partners when that makes more sense.

Buy it elsewhere when that’s the best or fastest option.

That may sound like bureaucratic rearranging until you look at the targets.

Over the next decade, the strategy aims to increase the share of Canadian defence acquisitions awarded to Canadian firms to 70%, increase Canadian defence exports by 50%, and create an estimated 125,000 jobs.

Those are targets, not achievements. Ottawa still has to deliver them.

But they tell us what the plan actually is.

Canada doesn’t simply want a bigger military.

It wants a bigger Canadian defence economy.

And we’re already seeing pieces of it.

Canada has selected Germany’s TKMS as the preferred supplier and begun negotiations for up to 12 new submarines.

The government says the first four are now targeted for delivery in 2034, ahead of the retirement of the existing Victoria-class fleet.

But here’s the part I find more interesting.

The deal is being structured so Canadian companies can become part of TKMS’s global supply chains, including through licensing and intellectual-property transfers.

In other words, don’t just sell us submarines.

Bring some of the business home with them.

We’re seeing the same thinking elsewhere.

Canada launched a Defence Drone Initiative in July designed to move Canadian drone and autonomous-system technology faster from development through testing and, where it meets military requirements, into production.

A secure defence innovation hub for autonomous systems has opened in Mirabel.

Another in Calgary is concentrating on quantum technologies.

An earlier hub in Halifax focuses on maritime technology.

These aren’t aircraft carriers and tanks.

They’re laboratories, researchers, software developers, engineers, startups and manufacturers.

That’s what a modern defence industry increasingly looks like.

Then there’s something else happening that I think Canadians should pay attention to.

We’re making new friends.

In July, Canada became the first observer country in the Global Combat Air Programme being developed by Britain, Italy and Japan.

That’s the project developing their next-generation combat aircraft.

Observer status doesn’t mean Canada has decided to buy the aircraft. It gives Canada access to the program’s development, governance and industrial framework while keeping future options open.

Canada has also formally applied to join the British-led Joint Expeditionary Force, a group of ten northern European NATO countries built around rapid military cooperation.

And then there’s Europe.

This one is worth stopping on.

Canada became the first non-European country allowed to participate in the European Union’s SAFE defence procurement program.

The Council of the European Union confirmed the agreement in June.

Think about what that means.

Canada isn’t simply shopping for European military equipment.

Canadian companies are being positioned to participate in a much larger European defence market.

That’s diversification with a helmet on.

And private money is beginning to notice.

At September’s Canada Investment Summit in Toronto, investors from nearly 30 countries managing more than $100 trillion in assets attended.

Canada’s major banks announced nearly $325 billion in new financing commitments for Canadian businesses and infrastructure.

CIBC alone committed $2 billion specifically for Canadian defence-related and dual-use small and medium-sized businesses.

Now, let’s keep our feet on the floor.

A financing commitment isn’t a factory.

A strategy isn’t a submarine.

A target isn’t 125,000 paycheques.

And anybody who has watched Canadian defence procurement for more than five minutes knows Ottawa has traditionally been capable of turning buying a canoe paddle into a 14-year consultation process.

McGuinty himself acknowledged the problem.

Strategies are easy.

Execution is harder.

That’s probably the most important sentence in his entire speech.

Because this thing should ultimately be judged by what actually gets built, delivered, exported and put into service.

But something has unquestionably changed.

Canada is connecting national defence with industrial policy, technology policy, skilled trades, exports, investment and trade diversification.

The military needs submarines.

Somebody has to maintain them.

The military needs drones.

Somebody has to design them, build them, program them and improve them.

The military needs quantum systems, cybersecurity, satellites, sensors and artificial intelligence.

Those require researchers, engineers, technicians, manufacturers and Canadian companies capable of competing internationally.

Suddenly defence spending isn’t only money leaving the treasury.

Some of it becomes industrial capacity.

Some becomes intellectual property.

Some becomes Canadian jobs.

Some becomes exports.

And some becomes something we’ve spent far too little time thinking about…

the ability to make more of the things we depend on ourselves.

That’s sovereignty too.

This doesn’t mean Canada builds everything.

It can’t.

No country does.

It means Canada decides what capabilities matter enough to maintain here, what should be developed with reliable partners, and what simply makes sense to purchase.

That is a much more grown-up conversation than arguing about whether Canada bought enough tanks this year.

The world has changed.

Supply chains have become security issues.

Technology has become a sovereignty issue.

Industrial capacity has become a national-security issue.

Canada appears to have finally noticed.

Now comes the hard part.

Building the damn thing.

The Recap…

Canada’s defence rebuild is becoming something much bigger than buying military equipment.

The government is trying to turn hundreds of billions in defence spending into Canadian factories, technology, skilled jobs, exports and stronger partnerships outside our traditional procurement patterns.

The targets are ambitious.

Now Canada has to deliver them.

The Gut-Punch…

A country that can’t build anything eventually depends on countries that can.

Canada appears determined to change that.

Source Credit:

This article was inspired by remarks by Canadian Defence Minister David McGuinty and independently checked against Government of Canada, NATO, European Union and other primary documentation.

Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy

Canadian Patrol Submarine Project

Canada joins GCAP as its first observer nation

European Union SAFE agreement with Canada

Canada Investment Summit commitments

NATO’s 5% defence investment commitment

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I started looking at this as an energy story.

I don’t think it is anymore.

I think it’s an industrial story.

Because while politicians keep arguing about electric cars, carbon and whether somebody is coming for your gas stove, something much bigger is happening underneath all that noise.

Countries are deciding what they want their economies to run on 10, 20 and 30 years from now.

And suddenly Canada is sitting in a very interesting position.

Europe did the math

In July, the European Commission laid out a remarkably blunt plan.

Today, electricity supplies about 23% of Europe’s final energy consumption.

Europe wants that number at 46% by 2040.

Why?

Climate is certainly part of it.

But read the European Commission’s own explanation and another word keeps showing up…

Independence.

Europe imports more than half of the fossil fuels it consumes. Recent geopolitical upheaval has demonstrated just how expensive that dependence can become.

The Commission estimates that accelerated electrification could reduce EU gas imports by more than 70% and crude-oil imports by more than 40% by 2040.

And here’s the number that grabbed me…

€260 billion a year.

That’s how much Europe says it could save on fossil-fuel imports by 2040 if the strategy works.

Not €260 billion once.

Every year.

That’s when this stops looking like an environmental program and starts looking like economic strategy.

Every tanker of imported fuel represents money leaving your economy.

Replace some of that imported fuel with electricity generated at home and you haven’t merely changed the energy source.

You’ve changed where the money goes.

Europe calls its ambition becoming the world’s first “electro-powered continent.”

Sounds like something dreamed up by a committee after too much coffee.

But the economics behind it aren’t silly at all.

Then I looked at Canada

And this is where things get interesting.

Canada already starts with an advantage most countries would kill for.

Roughly 80% of our electricity comes from non-emitting sources, depending on the year and how the statistics are counted.

Hydro does most of the heavy lifting, with nuclear, wind, solar and other sources contributing the rest.

Our problem isn’t a lack of energy resources.

Our problem has traditionally been connecting the damn things.

Canada’s electricity system developed largely province by province.

Which made sense historically.

It makes considerably less sense if electricity is becoming one of the foundations of national economic security.

The federal government’s new Powering Canada Strong strategy says Canadian electricity demand is expected to double by 2050 and calls for an electricity system capable of generating and delivering roughly twice as much power.

And this isn’t just about plugging in more Teslas.

The government’s own list of growing demand includes critical minerals, battery manufacturing, AI data centres, advanced manufacturing, new housing, transportation and building heating.

That’s the part worth paying attention to.

Electricity isn’t merely something you buy every month from BC Hydro.

It’s becoming industrial infrastructure.

And some of this has already moved beyond the PowerPoint stage.

In August, Ottawa announced up to $10 billion in federal financial support and investment tied to the enormous Labrador hydro expansion involving Churchill Falls, Gull Island and associated transmission and infrastructure.

The combined projects are valued at nearly $70 billion.

Then in September, construction officially began on Phase 1 of British Columbia’s North Coast Transmission Line, designed to carry substantially more electricity into the province’s northwest and enable mining, critical-mineral and industrial development.

There’s the connection I’ve been banging on about in our We Can Build It Here stories.

You don’t build advanced manufacturing first and then wonder where the electricity will come from.

You build the power that makes the manufacturing possible.

And yes, this is going to cost a fortune

Canada’s strategy estimates electricity-system expansion and modernization could require more than $1 trillion between now and 2050.

That’s a number large enough to make any taxpayer choke on his morning coffee.

But here’s the question we should be asking…

What happens if we don’t build it?

AI data centres require enormous amounts of electricity.

Mines require electricity.

Processing critical minerals requires electricity.

New factories require electricity.

Housing requires electricity.

Defence manufacturing requires electricity.

And if Canada wants to stop being merely the country that digs things out of the ground and ships them somewhere else to become valuable, we’re going to need a hell of a lot more power.

Preferably reliable.

Preferably affordable.

And preferably ours.

Then there’s the United States

This is where the comparison gets strange.

Coal produced about 17% of U.S. utility-scale electricity in 2025.

Natural gas produced 41%.

Renewables produced 24%.

Nuclear produced 18%.

So coal is no longer the backbone of American electricity generation.

Yet the Trump administration has made preserving and expanding coal generation an explicit federal priority.

And we’re not talking about a press release saying nice things about coal miners.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced $500 million in Defense Production Act funding to support coal-fired plants and coal-export infrastructure.

Yes.

The Defense Production Act.

Of that amount, up to $425 million is going toward coal-fleet projects and up to $75 million toward a West Coast export terminal.

That’s not all.

DOE also selected four coal modernization, recommissioning and development projects under another $350-million initiative, including work examining new coal plants and restarting or modernizing existing facilities.

Another $175 million was announced for six projects modernizing and extending the useful lives of existing coal-fired power plants.

Now, there’s an important distinction here.

Washington’s argument is that dispatchable coal generation strengthens grid reliability at a time when American electricity demand is growing rapidly.

That’s the government’s stated rationale.

Fine.

But it still leaves us looking at three very different bets.

Europe is trying to electrify its economy so it imports less fossil fuel.

Canada is preparing to roughly double its electricity system to support a more electrified and industrial economy.

The United States is using federal money and even national-security authorities to preserve and expand coal generation as part of its answer to growing electricity demand.

Those aren’t talking points.

Those are policy choices.

Here’s what I think Canada should notice

For years we talked about electricity mainly as an environmental issue.

I think that’s becoming obsolete.

Electricity is sovereignty.

It’s industrial capacity.

It’s national security.

It’s whether a mining company builds the processing plant here or somewhere else.

It’s whether the next AI data centre goes to Alberta, Quebec or Virginia.

It’s whether we sell somebody a tonne of ore or sell them the much more valuable product we manufactured from it.

And there’s another reason this matters.

The Strait of Hormuz has historically carried roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption.

One narrow stretch of water.

About 20% of the world’s petroleum liquids moving through it.

You don’t need an environmental bumper sticker to understand the vulnerability in that.

You just need a calculator.

The more energy a country can reliably produce within its own borders, the less exposed part of its economy becomes to somebody else’s war, somebody else’s shipping lane and somebody else’s political tantrum.

That doesn’t mean Canada stops producing oil and gas.

I’ve never understood why this has to be an either/or argument.

Canada can sell oil.

Canada can sell LNG.

Canada can produce uranium.

Canada can build nuclear reactors.

Canada can expand hydro.

Canada can build wind and solar where they make economic sense.

And Canada can build the transmission lines connecting all of it.

The point isn’t choosing the politically approved energy source.

The point is building an energy advantage.

Norway figured out part of this a long time ago

Norway remains one of my favourite examples because it wrecks the simplistic argument.

Norway is a major oil and gas producer.

It is also one of the most electrified economies in the developed world.

The International Energy Agency reports that electricity supplies almost half of Norway’s total final energy consumption and that its electricity system is almost entirely renewable, overwhelmingly because of hydroelectricity.

And in 2025, 95.9% of all new passenger vehicles registered in Norway were electric.

Norway didn’t decide petroleum was evil.

It figured out that having abundant domestic electricity while selling valuable petroleum to somebody else wasn’t exactly the dumbest business model ever invented.

There’s a lesson there.

Canada has spent too much time thinking small

We have hydro.

We have uranium.

We have nuclear expertise.

We have natural gas.

We have wind.

We have critical minerals.

We have enormous geography.

We have engineering talent.

And now we’re finally talking seriously about connecting those advantages.

The Canadian electricity strategy even explicitly calls for greater interprovincial integration and new interties…

something this country should probably have been much more serious about decades ago.

Railways helped build Canada.

Highways helped build Canada.

Telecommunications helped build Canada.

Maybe the next nation-building project isn’t something Canadians ride on.

Maybe it’s the wires running over our heads.

Because almost everything we’re talking about building next needs the same thing.

Power.

Lots of it.

And for once, Canada doesn’t need to look south and ask what America is doing first.

We have enough resources to build our own answer.

We just need to connect the damn things.

The Recap…

Europe wants to increase electricity’s share of its energy use from 23% to 46% by 2040 and says doing so could cut fossil-fuel imports by €260 billion a year.

Canada expects electricity demand to roughly double by 2050 and has begun treating generation and transmission as nation-building infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Washington is putting hundreds of millions of federal dollars… including Defense Production Act money… into extending, modernizing and expanding coal generation.

The interesting question isn’t which country has the catchiest climate slogan.

It’s which one is building the energy system its economy will need 20 years from now.

The Gut-Punch…

Canada spent a century building pipelines, railways and highways to move what we produced.

This century, we’d better make damn sure we’ve got enough wires to power what we want to build.

Source credit:

Primary sources: Natural Resources Canada and Government of Canada, Powering Canada Strong: A National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy and 2026 electricity-project announcements; European Commission, Electrification Action Plan; U.S. Department of Energy coal-program announcements and project selections; U.S. Energy Information Administration electricity and Strait of Hormuz data; International Energy Agency Norway energy analysis; Norway’s Road Traffic Information Council (OFV) 2025 vehicle-registration data.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I went looking at Alberta’s October referendum because I kept seeing it described as a vote on Alberta separation.

That sounded pretty damned important.

Then I read the actual question.

And discovered something rather interesting.

Albertans are not voting October 19 on whether Alberta should leave Canada.

They are voting on whether Alberta should remain in Canada or whether the Alberta government should begin a process leading toward another referendum someday that actually would ask that question.

That distinction isn’t mine.

It’s right there in the ballot.

Elections Alberta says Question 10 reads:

“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”

Option 1 keeps Alberta in Canada.

Option 2 tells the Alberta government to start pursuing a future binding referendum on separation.

And here’s the part I think every Canadian should know before October 19:

Question 10 itself is officially non-binding.

That comes directly from Elections Alberta.

So this isn’t Alberta’s Brexit moment.

It’s potentially the beginning of a process that might eventually produce one.

And that process is considerably messier than those few words on the ballot make it sound.

Canada has been down this road before

We actually have some pretty solid law on what happens when a province wants to leave Canada.

Thank Quebec for that.

In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether Quebec could simply declare independence following a referendum.

The answer was no.

A province cannot unilaterally leave Canada.

But the Court also said something important in the other direction.

If a clear majority of a province votes on a clear question in favour of secession, the rest of Canada cannot simply shrug and pretend nothing happened.

That would create a constitutional obligation to negotiate.

But negotiate is the important word.

A referendum doesn’t magically create a new country the following Tuesday.

The Supreme Court said negotiations would have to reconcile the interests of the separating province, the federal government, the other provinces and Canadians both inside and outside the province.

Then Parliament passed the Clarity Act in 2000.

And this is where Question 10 gets particularly interesting.

The Clarity Act says the House of Commons must determine whether a future referendum question is clear enough to represent an actual decision to leave Canada.

It even says a question merely asking voters for a mandate to negotiate cannot itself constitute that clear expression.

In other words, there isn’t a constitutional Easy Button labelled…

PRESS HERE TO LEAVE CANADA.

There are courts.

Parliament.

The provinces.

Constitutional negotiations.

And eventually a constitutional amendment.

Then come the things nobody can settle with a slogan.

Assets.

Debt.

Borders.

Minority rights.

Indigenous rights and territorial claims.

All specifically identified in federal law as matters that would have to be addressed.

That doesn’t mean Alberta couldn’t pursue independence.

It means nobody gets to pretend the path is simple.

And then there are the treaties

This isn’t some academic footnote either.

The citizen-led Alberta independence petition already ran smack into this issue.

In May, an Alberta Court of King’s Bench judge quashed approval of the petition after finding, among other things, that Alberta had breached its duty to consult affected First Nations.

The decision is under appeal.

And here’s where the original story I was looking at was already outdated.

The petition did not simply disappear.

Elections Alberta subsequently verified it.

The required threshold was 177,732 signatures.

After its verification process, Elections Alberta estimated 222,597 verified signatures.

So let’s give the separatist movement its due factual credit:

They cleared the threshold.

But Elections Alberta also says the next steps in that citizen-initiative process remain on hold pending the appeal and further direction from the courts.

That’s a much more accurate description than either “separation is happening” or “the separatist movement has collapsed.”

Neither is true.

Danielle Smith put a different question on the ballot

While that legal fight was unfolding, Premier Danielle Smith announced on May 21 that her government would put its own question before Albertans on October 19.

Smith has publicly said she supports Alberta remaining in Canada and intends to vote that way herself.

She has also said her government will respect the direction Albertans give it.

That’s how we ended up with Question 10.

And I think Canadians should pay attention to its wording.

Not because I’ve discovered some secret plot hidden between the commas.

I haven’t.

But because words matter enormously when you’re talking about breaking up a country.

The Supreme Court said so.

Parliament said so.

The Clarity Act says so.

A future referendum actually seeking independence would have to produce an unambiguous expression that Albertans want Alberta to cease being part of Canada and become an independent state.

October’s Question 10 doesn’t ask that.

It asks whether the government should pursue the process toward another referendum that would.

That is a very different thing.

Elections Alberta also managed one hell of an avoidable mistake

There’s another issue floating around online that I checked because it sounded almost too ridiculous to be true.

It wasn’t.

Albertans were told they could vote by mail without needing a special reason.

Then some early special-ballot packages arrived containing a declaration saying:

“I declare that I am unable to vote at an advance voting place or a voting place on Election Day.”

Oops.

Elections Alberta acknowledged the problem on September 3.

It explained that the sentence was leftover language from an older version of the Election Act.

Voters who received it were told they could cross out the sentence and complete the rest of the declaration.

Later packages were changed.

I’m not going to manufacture a conspiracy out of that because I haven’t found evidence for one.

But on a referendum containing ten questions… including one touching the future of Alberta inside Canada… sending voters obsolete instructions was one hell of an administrative screw-up.

So what happens October 19?

Albertans vote.

That’s it.

Question 10 is important. The political message coming from millions of voters could be enormous.

But it isn’t independence day.

If Option 1 receives the greater support, Albertans will have expressed their preference that Alberta remain a Canadian province.

If Option 2 receives greater support, the provincial government will have received political direction through a non-binding referendum to pursue the process toward a future binding referendum.

And if Alberta eventually reaches that second referendum?

Then things get serious.

A clear question.

A clear majority.

The Clarity Act.

Constitutional negotiations.

First Nations and treaty rights.

Assets and liabilities.

Borders.

And ultimately constitutional amendment.

None of those outcomes is predetermined.

That’s the part I wanted to understand.

Because “Alberta votes on separation October 19” makes one hell of a headline.

It just isn’t quite what Alberta is voting on.

The Recap…

Alberta’s October 19 Question 10 is not a binding vote to leave Canada.

It’s a non-binding choice between remaining in Canada and directing the Alberta government toward the legal process for a future binding referendum.

And even that future vote couldn’t simply make Alberta independent overnight.

Canada’s Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, the Clarity Act, First Nations treaty rights and negotiations with the rest of Canada would all come into play.

Sometimes the most important part of a referendum is reading the damned question.

The Gut-Punch…

On October 19, Alberta isn’t deciding whether to leave Canada. It’s deciding whether to start down the road toward a vote that could. Those are not the same thing.

Source Credit

Elections Alberta… 2026 Provincial Referendum and official Question 10; Elections Alberta… citizen initiative petition verification results; Government of Alberta — Premier Danielle Smith’s May 21 address; Supreme Court of Canada… Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998); Government of Canada… Clarity Act; Elections Alberta… September 3 special-ballot clarification.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I think we’ve been looking at Canadian leverage the wrong way.

For years, whenever Canada and the United States got into a trade scrap, somebody would eventually point out the obvious:

America is ten times our size.

Case closed.

Except economies aren’t bar fights.

And something rather interesting has happened while Washington has been busy reminding Canada how dependent we are on the American market.

Canada started doing something about it.

Not talking about it.

Doing it.

In July, Canadian exports to countries other than the United States hit a record $25.6 billion.

They jumped 7.4% in a single month.

Even more interesting, non-U.S. markets accounted for 33.7% of Canadian exports that month.

At the same time, exports to the United States fell 6.6%.

Those aren’t projections from some government strategy document.

Those are Statistics Canada numbers.

Statistics Canada… July 2026 merchandise trade

That doesn’t mean Canada has replaced the American market.

Not even close.

But it does mean something I think is much more important…

Canada is beginning to create options.

And options are leverage.

Then Washington pushed again.

On August 21, Prime Minister Mark Carney suspended the latest trade negotiations with the United States.

According to the Prime Minister’s statement, Canada had been seeking continued tariff-free access for most Canadian businesses, lower U.S. tariffs on strategic industries, protection for smaller businesses and preservation of Canada’s economic and policy independence.

Carney said last-minute changes to the American proposal didn’t meet those objectives.

So Canada walked away.

Prime Minister’s August 21 statement on Canada-U.S. negotiations

Then came the tariffs.

The United States imposed a 50% tariff on about $28 billion worth of Canadian goods.

Canada answered.

Effective September 8, Ottawa imposed matching counter-tariffs on $27.6 billion worth of American imports, with rates of 15%, 25% and 50% depending on the product.

Steel. Aluminum. Dairy. Appliances. Agricultural equipment. Pulp and paper. Electronics.

And the existing Canadian counter-tariffs on U.S. automobiles remained in place.

Department of Finance… Canada’s September 8 counter-tariffs

Now, I’m not going to pretend tariffs are painless simply because Canada is the one imposing them.

They’re not.

Canadian importers can pay them too. Canadian businesses can get hurt. Ottawa has exemptions and remission programs precisely because governments know retaliatory tariffs can whack their own companies along with the intended target.

That’s the ugly reality of a trade war.

But there’s a pretty large difference between absorbing a punch and refusing to throw one back because you’re afraid the other fellow is bigger.

Canada chose retaliation.

More importantly, it is simultaneously trying to reduce the vulnerability that made retaliation so dangerous in the first place.

Here’s the part I find most interesting.

Canada’s leverage isn’t really the tariff.

It’s the customer list.

In 2025, Canadian exports to the United States fell by $29.4 billion.

Exports to the rest of the world increased by $27.6 billion.

Some of that increase came from precious metals, particularly gold, so let’s not dress the number up as something it isn’t.

Take those metals out and Canadian exports outside the United States still increased by $14 billion.

Statistics Canada… Recent developments in the Canadian economy

Then July 2026 produced that record $25.6 billion month outside the U.S.

That’s starting to look less like a blip.

Canada is still enormously connected to the United States, particularly in energy.

Here’s a number that should prevent anybody from getting carried away…

In 2025, 90.1% of Canadian crude oil exports still went to the United States.

Canada supplied 63.4% of American crude-oil imports and nearly all of its imported natural gas.

The two countries are still joined at the economic hip.

Canada Energy Regulator… 2025 Canada-U.S. energy trade

But read those numbers again.

They describe mutual dependence, not Canada sitting helplessly outside America’s kitchen door waiting for scraps.

The United States matters enormously to Canada.

Canada matters to the United States too.

And now Canada is working on the part of that equation it can actually control.

Finding more customers.

That’s what has changed.

Earlier this month, Carney went to Europe proposing a substantially deeper Canada-EU relationship.

Canada and the European Union are discussing expanded cooperation in critical minerals, defence manufacturing, energy, AI, space and financial services.

The EU is already Canada’s second-largest trading partner in goods and services, with about $178 billion in trade in 2025.

Prime Minister’s Office… Canada and Europe deepen ties

That’s the strategy I think matters far more than whatever tariff number appears in tomorrow’s headline.

Don’t replace America.

That’s ridiculous.

Replace dependence on America.

There is a difference.

Keep selling to Americans.

Keep buying from Americans when it makes sense.

Keep the border moving.

But build ports. Build pipelines to tidewater. Process more of our resources here. Knock down provincial trade barriers.

Sell more to Europe and Asia. Give Canadian companies enough customers that losing access to one market doesn’t put a gun to the country’s head.

Because leverage isn’t telling your biggest customer to get lost.

Leverage is being able to tell your biggest customer:

We’d like your business.

But we don’t need your permission.

That’s the Canada-U.S. trade story that looks very different today than it did when this fight started.

Canada hasn’t become independent of the United States.

It has finally started understanding the cost of being too dependent on it.

And judging by where Canadian exports are beginning to go, somebody appears to be doing something about it.

The Recap…

Canada didn’t suddenly become bigger than the United States.

It did something smarter.

Non-U.S. exports hit a record $25.6 billion in July while Canada matched Washington’s latest tariffs dollar for dollar.

The goal isn’t to stop trading with America.

It’s to make sure America is never again our only serious option.

The Gut-Punch…

You don’t gain leverage by yelling louder at your biggest customer.

You gain leverage by finding more customers.

Canada finally seems to have figured that out.

Source credit

Statistics Canada, Canadian International Merchandise Trade, July 2026; Statistics Canada, Recent Developments in the Canadian Economy: Spring 2026; Department of Finance Canada tariff measures and countermeasures; Canada Energy Regulator 2025 Canada-U.S. Energy Trade data; Prime Minister of Canada statements on the August 2026 Canada-U.S. negotiations and September 2026 Canada-EU discussions. All figures checked against primary government sources as of September 29, 2026.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I keep hearing about the enormous economic decisions being made in boardrooms and government offices.

Tariffs. Trade agreements. Pipelines. Factories. Export markets.

All important.

But I stumbled across another number that reminded me there are about 41 million other economic decision-makers in this country.

They’re called Canadians.

And apparently we’ve been busy.

Canada had a record tourism summer in 2025.

Between May and August, tourism generated an estimated $59 billion in revenue.

Up 6% from the year before.

Here’s the part that caught my attention…

$44.4 billion of it came from Canadians travelling in Canada.

Not Americans.

Not Europeans.

Not some foreign investment fund arriving with briefcases full of money.

Us.

Canadians deciding that maybe Quebec City, Vancouver Island, Newfoundland, Banff or Halifax wasn’t such a bad place to spend the vacation money after all.

Destination Canada says domestic travellers were a major reason for the record summer.

Statistics Canada has since given us the full-year picture.

In 2025, Canadians made 342 million visits within Canada, up 1.5% from 2024.

Meanwhile, Canadian visits to the United States fell 23.5%.

That is not a rounding error.

Something changed.

And you can see it in the money.

Domestic tourism spending reached $81.3 billion in 2025, an increase of 8.7% from the previous year.

That’s what “buy Canadian” looks like when nobody is holding a flag

This is the part I find interesting.

Economic patriotism doesn’t necessarily require some grand sacrifice.

Sometimes it’s just changing the destination.

Instead of Arizona, maybe Alberta.

Instead of Maine, maybe Nova Scotia.

Instead of California, maybe Vancouver Island.

Nobody needs to stand on Parliament Hill singing O Canada while booking the hotel.

You simply make a different purchase.

And enough people apparently did.

Destination Canada estimates that Canadians redirecting travel spending back home added about $1.5 billion to the Canadian tourism economy in 2025 alone.

They’re projecting the effect could reach $4.4 billion between 2025 and 2027.

That’s real money.

And unlike some economic statistics that disappear into spreadsheets somewhere, tourism money lands all over the place.

Hotels.

Restaurants.

Airlines.

Gas stations.

Museums.

Fishing guides.

Coffee shops.

Campgrounds.

The little family restaurant where somebody’s grandmother still thinks a serving size means you shouldn’t be able to walk afterward.

Statistics Canada says tourism supported roughly 700,000 jobs in 2026, and the industry touches accommodation, transportation, restaurants, recreation and plenty of businesses that don’t necessarily have the word “tourism” hanging over the door.

And here’s another number I didn’t expect.

In 2025, tourism generated $34.6 billion in government revenue.

For every $100 Canadian tourists spent travelling inside Canada, governments collected an average of $24.54 in attributable revenue.

Turns out taking the grandkids to Niagara Falls is economic policy.

Who knew?

And then I noticed the cars

This is where the story gets even more interesting.

Canadians didn’t just change where they vacationed.

Something similar started happening with automobiles.

According to the Trump White House’s own figures, U.S. motor-vehicle exports to Canada fell from approximately $25.9 billion to $20.3 billion when comparing April 2025–March 2026 with the same period a year earlier.

That’s roughly a 22% drop.

At the same time, Canadian imports of vehicles from Mexico increased about 23.6%, while imports from Japan, Korea and Germany increased by roughly 10% to 14%.

Altogether, Canadian vehicle imports from countries other than the United States increased by about $2.85 billion over the comparison period cited by the White House.

Now, let’s not get carried away.

Those numbers don’t prove every Canadian walked into a dealership, saluted the maple leaf and deliberately rejected an American vehicle.

Tariffs changed prices. Manufacturers changed supply. Dealers changed inventories. Consumers had different choices.

Economies are messy things.

But money moved.

That’s the part we shouldn’t miss.

One Canadian can’t do much. Millions can.

I’ve written a lot lately about Canada’s attempt to diversify trade.

Find new customers.

Build new infrastructure.

Sell more to Europe and Asia.

Reduce our vulnerability to one enormous customer south of the border.

Those are government and business decisions.

But there is another side to economic diversification that doesn’t require anybody’s permission.

Consumer spending.

A Canadian family deciding to vacation in Canada isn’t going to alter the national economy.

Neither is somebody choosing one vehicle over another.

But multiply small decisions by millions of households and suddenly you’re not talking about symbolism anymore.

You’re talking about demand.

And businesses follow demand.

That’s Economics 101 without having to buy the textbook.

There’s one more reason I’m paying attention.

The story didn’t end with that record summer.

Statistics Canada released its newest tourism figures just four days ago.

Canadian tourism GDP continued growing in the second quarter of 2026. Tourism spending reached $28.5 billion for the quarter, while tourism-related employment increased again.

And Canadian domestic trips in the first quarter of 2026 were up 2.3% from a year earlier, with domestic travel spending up 5.1%.

So I’m not calling this a revolution.

I’m calling it something more useful.

Evidence.

Canadians changed some spending habits.

Billions of dollars changed direction.

Businesses noticed.

The statistics noticed.

And maybe that’s worth remembering the next time somebody tells you ordinary Canadians don’t have much influence over what happens to this economy.

Individually?

Not much.

Forty-one million of us?

That’s a different bloody spreadsheet.

The Recap…

Canada’s record tourism summer wasn’t just tourists discovering Canada.

Canadians rediscovered Canada.

Domestic travel surged while Canadian visits to the United States dropped sharply.

Billions of dollars changed direction because millions of ordinary people changed relatively ordinary decisions.

Sometimes economic power isn’t sitting in Ottawa.

Sometimes it’s sitting in your wallet.

The Gut-Punch…

One Canadian changing where they spend their money is a choice.

Millions doing it is an economy.

Source credit: Statistics Canada; Destination Canada; Government of Canada; White House trade data.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I found a number the other day that grabbed my attention and made me stop.

$25.6 billion.

That is how much merchandise Canada exported to countries other than the United States in July.

Not in a year.

In one month.

And according to Statistics Canada, it was the highest monthly total ever recorded.

Now, before we start firing off the champagne corks, there’s another number we need to look at.

Canada’s total merchandise exports actually fell 2.3% in July.

Why?

Exports to the United States dropped 6.6%.

But exports everywhere else went the opposite direction.

They jumped 7.4% in a single month, reaching that record $25.6 billion.

That pushed the non-U.S. share of Canadian merchandise exports to 33.7%.

One-third.

That caught my attention.

Because for years we’ve been told some version of the same thing..

Canada needs the United States.

Of course we do.

The United States remains our biggest customer by a country mile, and pretending otherwise would be economic fairy dust.

But there is a very big difference between saying…

“The United States is our biggest customer.”

and…

“The United States has to be our only serious customer.”

Canada appears to be learning that difference rather quickly.

Look where the new business is going

Statistics Canada says July’s increase in non-U.S. exports included stronger shipments to the Netherlands, China and Germany.

Canadian canola exports were also up 43.2% in July, with increased shipments going to China, Pakistan and Japan. Through the first seven months of 2026, canola exports were up 32.2% compared with the same period in 2025.

That doesn’t mean Canada has somehow replaced the American market.

We haven’t.

What it means is that Canadian companies are finding customers somewhere else.

And that is exactly what diversification is supposed to look like.

Not a press conference.

Not a slogan.

A shipment leaving the country with somebody else’s address on the invoice.

Then I looked at the money coming IN

This is where things got even more interesting.

Foreign investors put $100.6 billion into Canadian securities during the second quarter of 2026.

That was unprecedented.

Foreign investment in Canadian debt securities reached $110.2 billion, also a record, including $80.8 billion in government bonds.

Foreign direct investment in Canada also increased, reaching $25.9 billion in the second quarter, up from $18.8 billion in the first.

By July, non-residents had accumulated a record $179 billion in Canadian securities during 2026.

Money doesn’t have feelings.

It doesn’t wave flags.

It doesn’t care what somebody yelled on social media this morning.

It goes where investors believe there is an opportunity worth taking.

That doesn’t mean Canada’s economy is suddenly bulletproof.

It isn’t.

The Bank of Canada is warning that new U.S. tariffs could hurt Canadian growth later this year.

But that’s what makes these other numbers important.

Canada is taking a hit from its largest trading partner while simultaneously building relationships elsewhere.

That isn’t immunity.

It’s insurance.

And now defence spending is becoming industrial policy too

Here is another piece of this puzzle.

On September 25, Canada announced a non-binding agreement setting the groundwork for negotiations to potentially buy six Saab GlobalEye surveillance aircraft.

The interesting part isn’t simply that Saab is Swedish.

It’s what Canada is asking to get along with the aircraft.

The federal government says Saab’s potential partnership with Bombardier could support domestic production, skilled Canadian jobs, Canadian suppliers, research and development, and even future exports of Canadian-built GlobalEye aircraft.

That’s a very different way of looking at defence procurement.

Instead of…

Here’s several billion dollars. Please send us airplanes.

The idea is closer to…

If we’re spending billions anyway, how much of the work can we build here?

That is a question Canada probably should have been asking more often for the last forty years.

Meanwhile, Canadian buying decisions are being noticed south of the border

This one really jumped out at me.

McManis Family Vineyards in California has put 3,500 acres, ten vineyards and its winery operation up for sale.

The Los Angeles Times reported that its exports to Canada collapsed.

Canada once accounted for about 40% of the company’s export sales.

Now?

About 5%.

The Canadian boycott isn’t the only problem facing California wine. The industry is also dealing with falling wine consumption, oversupply and other financial pressures.

But in this particular case, losing Canadian customers clearly mattered.

And that should tell Canadians something.

Our individual shopping decisions may feel insignificant.

One bottle of Ontario wine instead of California wine isn’t going to shake Wall Street.

But multiply that decision by millions of Canadians?

Companies notice.

Industries notice.

Eventually accountants notice.

This is the part I don’t want us to forget

None of these numbers proves Canada has “won” a trade war.

Trade wars aren’t hockey games.

There isn’t a horn at the end followed by somebody skating around with a trophy.

Canadian businesses are being hurt too. Some sectors remain heavily dependent on the American market, and replacing decades-old supply chains isn’t something you accomplish between breakfast and lunch.

But something important is happening underneath all the political noise.

Canada is discovering other customers.

Foreign investors are buying Canadian assets.

Defence procurement is increasingly being tied to Canadian industrial capacity.

And Canadians themselves are learning that where they spend their money matters.

Maybe the biggest mistake Canada made wasn’t becoming close economic partners with the United States.

That partnership made both countries enormously prosperous.

The mistake was allowing ourselves to believe there could never be a reason to need a Plan B.

We have one now.

It isn’t replacing America.

It’s making sure America isn’t our only option.

The Recap…

Canada’s exports to the U.S. fell sharply in July.

But exports everywhere else jumped 7.4% to a record $25.6 billion.

Foreign money is flowing into Canadian securities at record levels too.

Canada isn’t replacing the American market.

We’re building alternatives to depending on it.

The Gut-Punch…

A good neighbour is valuable.

Needing that neighbour for everything is vulnerability.

Canada is finally learning the difference.

Source credit:

Statistics Canada… Canadian International Merchandise Trade, July 2026; Canada’s Balance of International Payments, Q2 2026.

Government of Canada… Defence Investment Agency, GlobalEye negotiations, September 25, 2026.

Los Angeles Times… reporting on McManis Family Vineyards and the effect of Canada’s U.S. wine boycott.

Financial Post/Posthaste… foreign investment in Canadian securities.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I heard Pierre Poilievre describe Mark Carney’s summer the other day.

Apparently, it was the Summer of George.

If you watched Seinfeld, you’ll remember George Costanza trying desperately to look busy while accomplishing precious little.

That was Poilievre’s comparison.

Carney, he said, had been flying around Europe, attending meetings, signing declarations, shaking hands and looking terribly busy.

Then came the line that caught my attention:

“Nothing is getting done under Mark Carney. Everything is getting worse.”

That wasn’t somebody paraphrasing him. Poilievre said it.

Fine.

So I did something terribly inconvenient.

I checked.

And there’s a fair bit happening for a country supposedly doing nothing.

Start digging holes

In May, construction officially started on Nouveau Monde Graphite’s Matawinie mine in Quebec.

This isn’t somebody announcing that someday they might think about building something.

Ground was broken.

The federal Major Projects Office says the project is expected to attract about $1.8 billion in investment, and the finished mine is expected to become the largest graphite mine in North America and the G7.

Canada has also put together a $459-million financing package through Export Development Canada and the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Graphite happens to be rather useful stuff when you’re trying to build batteries, advanced manufacturing and secure critical-mineral supply chains.

Then there’s British Columbia.

Hudbay officially broke ground in June on the New Ingerbelle expansion at its Copper Mountain mine near Princeton.

The expansion is expected to extend the mine’s life beyond 2040 while increasing copper and gold production.

Over in Saskatchewan, Sandvik broke ground in February on a $51-million mining equipment manufacturing and servicing facility in Saskatoon, expected to create about 30 skilled positions.

And no, despite one rather enthusiastic claim in the transcript I was researching, it isn’t a $51-million-square-foot building.

It’s 51,000 square feet.

That would have been one hell of a warehouse.

We seem to be building other things too

Construction is underway on the Contrecoeur container terminal expansion at the Port of Montreal.

When completed, it is expected to increase the port’s container capacity by roughly 60%.

In-water construction began this summer.

That’s particularly interesting when Canada is trying to sell more stuff to customers who don’t live south of us.

Ontario’s Darlington New Nuclear Project isn’t imaginary either.

Canada’s nuclear regulator lists the first small modular reactor as under construction, and Ontario Power Generation reported this summer that the reactor building was progressing upward after foundation work earlier in the year.

Cedar LNG in British Columbia is also under construction.

But here’s where I’m going to correct the version I originally heard.

Construction did not begin this summer.

The project reached its final investment decision in June 2024 and construction started afterward. What is true is that 2026 is a major construction year for the project.

Facts don’t need stretching.

Then somebody found $70 billion

In August, Canada announced a nearly $70-billion clean-energy development involving Churchill Falls, Gull Island, wind power and transmission infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The federal government is providing $10 billion in financing.

The combined projects are projected to produce 14,000 megawatts of renewable electricity and support 23,000 jobs.

The federal government describes it as the largest clean-energy investment in North American history.

That’s the government’s description, so I’m going to leave it precisely there rather than adding another adjective.

Seventy billion dollars is quite capable of looking impressive without my help.

And then there was that little meeting in Toronto

This month Canada held its first Canada Investment Summit.

Investors from nearly 30 countries attended. According to the federal government, the summit produced nearly $500 billion in investment commitments.

Notice the word commitments.

That is not $500 billion already spent.

Projects can change. Commitments can take years to materialize. Some undoubtedly will and some may not.

But the announced commitments included $50 billion for a new Maple Fund from CPP Investments and Brookfield, another $25 billion in Canadian investment planned by PSP Investments, $10 billion from Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and $5 billion from Sun Life.

That is somewhat more substantial than politicians exchanging business cards over coffee.

And Canada has been shopping for customers

Canada signed a free-trade agreement with Ecuador in July.

Two-way merchandise trade between the countries was already about $2 billion in 2025.

Canada’s investment protection agreement with the United Arab Emirates entered into force in May. The UAE had previously announced a $70-billion investment commitment in Canada.

Negotiations are also moving ahead with India, ASEAN, the Philippines and Mercosur.

Those are negotiations.

Not completed trade deals.

There’s a difference, and I’m not going to turn talks into victories before anybody signs the paperwork.

India and Canada are working toward concluding their Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement by the end of this year.

Canada and the Philippines are trying to conclude their negotiations this year as well, while ASEAN negotiations continue.

Europe is another one worth getting straight

Canada also joined the European Union’s SAFE defence procurement program this year.

Here’s another number that needed correcting from the version I heard.

SAFE itself is a €150-billion loan facility.

It sits inside the EU’s broader Readiness 2030 plan, which is valued at roughly €800 billion.

Canada’s agreement gives Canadian companies preferential access and treatment in procurement financed through SAFE.

That’s a potentially significant new market for Canadian defence companies.

But €150 billion is plenty impressive.

We don’t need to turn it into $1.3 trillion.

Which brings me back to George Costanza

None of this proves that everything is wonderful in Canada.

It isn’t.

It doesn’t settle arguments over unemployment, housing affordability, food prices, government spending or whether particular federal policies are working.

And it certainly doesn’t mean Mark Carney gets personal credit for every mine, port, nuclear reactor and LNG project being built across the country.

Some of these projects were underway before he became prime minister.

That’s how infrastructure works.

Governments inherit projects.

Companies build projects.

Provinces approve projects.

Investors finance projects.

Federal governments can accelerate, finance, regulate or occasionally get in the bloody way.

So let’s not replace one political exaggeration with another.

But that brings us back to Poilievre’s actual claim.

“Nothing is getting done.”

That’s a remarkably easy statement to test.

There are mines breaking ground.

A major port expansion is under construction.

Canada’s first commercial SMR is under construction.

A huge clean-energy development has moved forward.

New trade agreements have been signed while others are being negotiated.

Canada has entered Europe’s SAFE defence procurement system.

And investors gathered in Toronto this month and announced hundreds of billions of dollars in commitments to Canadian projects and assets.

You can argue about whether that’s enough.

You can argue about who deserves the credit.

You can argue about whether the government’s strategy will ultimately work.

Those are legitimate political arguments.

But they’re different arguments.

Because “nothing” has a meaning.

And this isn’t it.

The Recap…

Pierre Poilievre called Mark Carney’s summer a “big show about nothing.”

So I checked the “nothing.”

Mines. Ports. Nuclear. Energy. Trade agreements. European defence procurement. Investment commitments.

Plenty left to argue about.

But first, let’s argue from the same set of facts.

The Gut-Punch…

Politics works a lot better when we stop treating slogans as evidence.

Source Credit

Primary sources consulted include the Prime Minister of Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Statistics Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Canada’s Major Projects Office, the Government of Saskatchewan and official project/company disclosures. Poilievre’s quoted remarks were checked against the Conservative Party of Canada’s published transcript.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I came across a number that stopped me.

Not because it was enormous.

Because it explained something.

The International Energy Agency looked at what happens to the economics of electric vehicles when oil prices jump.

Their finding?

In most of the countries they studied, the operating-cost advantage of driving an EV instead of a gasoline vehicle increased by roughly 20% to 45% during the current oil-price shock.

In the United States, the estimated annual running-cost advantage for a home-charged EV jumped from about US$900 to US$1,300.

Nobody passed a law to make that happen.

Nobody introduced a carbon tax.

The oil market did it.

And that may be the most interesting part of this entire mess.

Oil just crossed $100 again

Brent crude settled Friday at US$104.32 a barrel.

Earlier this month it punched through $100 as fighting in the Middle East disrupted energy supplies and threatened shipping routes.

Prices have bounced around since…

because apparently the price of the stuff powering half the world’s transportation system should depend on whether somebody fires another missile before breakfast.

That alone ought to make us think.

Road transportation accounts for nearly half of global oil consumption, according to the International Energy Agency.

Which means an oil shock isn’t just an oil-company story.

It becomes a transportation story.

Then a trucking story.

Then a food story.

Then an airline story.

Then an inflation story.

Eventually it arrives at your house disguised as a grocery bill.

And here’s where things get interesting.

For years we’ve argued about whether governments should make fossil fuels more expensive to encourage people to use less of them.

Carbon taxes.

Fuel taxes.

Regulations.

Rebates.

Mandates.

Entire elections have been fought over this stuff.

Meanwhile, the international oil market occasionally wanders in and says…

Hold my beer.

Because when gasoline gets expensive enough, people don’t need a lecture about energy efficiency.

They get a calculator.

Suddenly electricity looks different

I’ve always thought there’s a weakness in the way we talk about electrification.

We make it sound like an environmental morality play.

Save the planet.

Reduce emissions.

Do your part.

Fine.

But there’s another argument that may eventually become much more powerful.

Stop buying so much energy whose price can be blown apart by a war thousands of kilometres away.

That’s not environmentalism.

That’s economic self-defence.

The IEA says electric vehicles worldwide displaced about 1.7 million barrels of oil per day in 2025.

China alone accounted for roughly one million barrels a day of that avoided oil demand.

And China is particularly interesting because it is also the world’s largest oil importer.

China didn’t build the world’s largest EV industry simply because somebody in Beijing suddenly hugged a tree.

Energy security matters.

If your transportation system depends less on imported oil, somebody else’s war has less power over your economy.

That’s a pretty damned useful feature.

Now look at Canada

Canada is in the strange position of being both a major oil producer and a country increasingly dependent on electricity.

And that isn’t me predicting some distant green revolution.

It’s already sitting in the Canada Energy Regulator’s numbers.

The CER’s latest Energy Future report models several different possibilities for Canada through 2050.

They disagree about plenty.

They agree on one thing.

Electricity demand goes up in every single scenario.

Depending on the assumptions, end-use electricity demand rises anywhere from 26% to 84% between 2023 and 2050.

Transportation is part of that increase.

So are buildings.

Industry.

Data centres.

AI.

Everything seems to be developing an appetite for electrons.

Canada therefore has two energy opportunities sitting in front of us at the same time.

We can continue producing and exporting oil while the world still wants it.

And we can build the living hell out of our electricity system so Canadians become less exposed to oil-price shocks.

Those ideas aren’t contradictory.

They’re what energy security looks like.

And that’s the part I think we’re missing

The argument about electrification is usually presented as oil versus electricity.

I’m beginning to think that’s the wrong argument.

For Canada, the smarter question is…

How much energy can we produce ourselves, and how much control can we keep over its price and delivery?

Oil can be exported.

Electricity can increasingly power transportation, heating, industry and technology at home.

Hydro.

Nuclear.

Wind.

Natural gas.

Whatever combination makes sense in each province.

Build the generation.

Build the transmission.

Build the interties.

Because the Canada Energy Regulator is already telling us electricity demand is coming whether politicians enjoy arguing about it or not.

And every time Brent crude blows through $100 because another part of the world catches fire, the economic case gets a little easier to explain.

You don’t have to hate oil.

Canada would be foolish to throw away a valuable resource people are willing to buy from us.

But we’d be equally foolish to remain unnecessarily dependent on it ourselves.

That’s the lesson hiding inside $104 oil.

The best energy system isn’t the one that wins an ideological argument.

It’s the one that keeps working when the world goes nuts.

Canada happens to have the resources to build one.

We should probably get on with it.

The Recap…

Oil jumped back above $100.

And something interesting happened.

The IEA says the running-cost advantage of EVs increased roughly 20% to 45% in most countries it studied.

Maybe the strongest argument for electrification isn’t climate.

Maybe it’s simply having fewer ways for somebody else’s war to reach into your wallet.

The Gut-Punch…

Canada doesn’t have to choose between selling oil and building electricity.

We can sell the world the barrel.

And stop letting the barrel run our lives.

Source credit

International Energy Agency, Electric Car Markets in a Time of Uncertainty and Global EV Outlook 2026; Canada Energy Regulator, Canada’s Energy Future 2026; Reuters energy-market reporting, September 2026.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I had to read this one twice.

Donald Trump announced that the United States was working on what he called a “massive deal” to buy potash from Belarus instead of Canada.

The reason?

According to Trump, Belarus could sell it to American farmers substantially cheaper.

Sounds impressive.

Until you ask Belarus.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said his country doesn’t have the spare volume Trump seems to be talking about.

Its potash is already largely committed under existing contracts.

That is what we in the old-guy business call a fairly important detail.

But there’s another one.

Canada isn’t some distant supplier loading fertilizer onto ships halfway around the planet.

Saskatchewan potash gets put on trains and shipped directly into the American agricultural heartland.

Belarus is landlocked.

With European restrictions still complicating its traditional export routes, significant Belarusian potash destined for the United States would face a much uglier logistical journey, potentially involving Russian ports before crossing the ocean and then travelling inland to American farmers.

And Canada isn’t a bit player here.

In 2024, roughly 79% of American potash imports came from Canada, according to U.S. Geological Survey figures cited in reporting on Trump’s announcement.

So Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe didn’t dance around it.

He attacked the Belarus idea, arguing that buying Belarusian potash would support a government aligned with Russia and questioning how hauling the stuff through Russia and across an ocean could possibly make more sense than buying it next door in Saskatchewan.

Fair question.

Then Canadian politics entered the room.

Conservative House Leader Andrew Scheer also condemned Trump’s proposal.

He called Belarus a dictatorship with a terrible human-rights record and called the suggestion that it would make a better trading partner than Canada ridiculous.

So far, so good.

Then Scheer added something else.

He argued that Prime Minister Mark Carney should remove the industrial carbon tax because it increases costs for Saskatchewan potash producers.

And that’s where things get strange.

Because Saskatchewan already paused its industrial carbon tax.

Effective April 1, 2025, Saskatchewan set the rate under its provincial Output-Based Performance Standards program to zero. The federal government’s own current description of Canada’s carbon-pricing systems notes that Saskatchewan announced that pause.

There is an important wrinkle here.

Ottawa still maintains national minimum standards for industrial carbon pricing, and the federal government is updating those standards.

Saskatchewan’s decision to pause its system therefore remains part of a larger federal-provincial policy dispute.

But telling Canadians that Carney can simply “lift” the industrial carbon tax currently making Saskatchewan potash more expensive leaves out the rather inconvenient fact that Saskatchewan’s own industrial carbon price has been sitting at zero.

Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney noticed.

He praised Moe’s response and criticized federal Conservatives for turning Trump’s potash threat into another domestic carbon-tax argument instead of concentrating on the threat to Canadian industry.

And that is the part of this story that caught my attention.

Not some grand theory about Trump secretly manipulating Canadian politics.

We don’t need one.

Look at what actually happened.

The president of the United States publicly suggested replacing Canadian potash with potash from Belarus.

Belarus itself says its available production is already committed.

The logistics are considerably more complicated than hauling Saskatchewan potash south by rail.

Canada currently dominates American potash imports.

And within hours, Canadians were arguing with each other about carbon taxes.

Maybe that’s the lesson worth remembering.

Every time Trump throws another grenade across the border, Canadians don’t have to pull the pin for him.

Sometimes we could just look at the grenade.

The Recap…

Trump says Belarus can sell American farmers cheaper potash than Canada.

Belarus says its potash is already committed.

Canada already supplies most American potash imports.

And somehow we managed to turn that into another Canadian carbon-tax fight.

We’re talented that way.

The Gut-Punch…

Before Canadians start fighting each other over Trump’s latest threat, maybe we should check whether the threat actually works.

Source credit:

Reporting and verification: Reuters, The Canadian Press, Government of Saskatchewan, Environment and Climate Change Canada, U.S. Geological Survey data reported by AFP, and contemporaneous reporting on statements by Scott Moe, Andrew Scheer and Jason Kenney.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

There’s something happening around Canada right now…

that I don’t think we should dismiss as another bunch of diplomatic handshakes.

Countries are starting to connect the dots.

And those dots increasingly lead around the United States instead of through it.

Canada has put retaliatory tariffs on $27.6 billion worth of American imports.

Not symbolic tariffs.

Real ones.

Rates of 15, 25 and 50 percent covering products in sectors including steel and aluminum, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, plastics and electronics.

The Canadian government says they’re designed to match the American tariffs dollar for dollar and rate for rate.

That’s the stick.

But what interests me more is what Canada is doing with the other hand.

We’re building exits.

Not an exit from America.

An exit from dependence on America.

And there’s a hell of a difference.

Europe just said something worth paying attention to

EU Ambassador to Canada Geneviève Tuts says Europe and Canada are working toward a new partnership that doesn’t neatly fit any of the EU’s existing models.

Her word was “unique.”

Not Switzerland.

Not Norway.

Not Britain.

Something designed specifically for Canada and the European Union.

Prime Minister Mark Carney heads to Strasbourg next week, where he’s expected to address the European Parliament after what Tuts described as an exceptional invitation for a non-European leader.

And discussions are expected to continue toward a possible announcement at the Canada-EU summit in late October.

That doesn’t mean Canada is joining Europe.

It doesn’t mean we’ve replaced the United States.

And it sure as hell doesn’t mean somebody flipped a switch and redirected two countries’ economies overnight.

It means something much more believable.

Canada and Europe see value in becoming more important to each other.

That’s enough.

Because this isn’t starting from scratch.

Canada and the EU already have CETA.

We already signed a Security and Defence Partnership in 2025.

Canada has also become the first non-European country to participate in the EU’s SAFE defence procurement program.

The conversations now reach well beyond simply buying and selling more stuff.

Defence.

Critical minerals.

Industrial policy.

Energy.

Economic security.

Digital issues.

Manufacturing.

That’s starting to look less like another trade agreement and more like an economic relationship being deliberately widened.

And Europe isn’t the only one looking north

Something similar is happening across the Pacific.

New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay says his country is working on deepening trade with Canada and that an announcement on two-way trade is coming.

Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell was standing beside him when he made those remarks.

Farrell said something I thought was particularly interesting.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand are countries operating in the space of free and fair trade.

And he believes we can do a lot more together.

Here’s the convenient part.

We don’t have to invent the plumbing.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand are already members of the CPTPP.

The pipes exist.

We just haven’t been pushing nearly enough through them.

This is where Trump’s trade strategy may have badly miscalculated Canada

For decades, Canada’s relationship with the United States was built around a perfectly rational idea.

They’re huge.

They’re rich.

They’re next door.

Sell them stuff.

Lots of stuff.

The problem wasn’t trading with America.

The problem was allowing one customer to become so important that losing access to that customer could threaten entire Canadian industries.

Anybody who has ever run a business understands this.

If one customer represents most of your revenue, you don’t really have a customer.

You have a boss.

Canada spent decades telling ourselves geography made that unavoidable.

Trump may have finally convinced us it isn’t.

The numbers are already moving

Canada is still enormously dependent on the American market.

Nobody should pretend otherwise.

But dependence has been declining.

Statistics Canada data showed the U.S. accounted for about 66 percent of Canadian exports in July, while the year-to-date share was roughly 68 percent, down from about 73 percent previously.

Exports to non-U.S. markets increased 7.4 percent in July.

That’s not Canada divorcing America.

That’s diversification.

And there’s an important distinction.

I don’t want Canada to stop selling to Americans.

I’d like Americans buying everything Canadian companies can profitably sell them.

But I’d also like Europe buying it.

And Australia.

And New Zealand.

And Japan.

And South Korea.

And Mexico.

And whoever else wants to trade with us without demanding the keys to the bloody house.

This may be the biggest unintended consequence of Trump’s trade war

Trump’s strategy seems built around American market power.

The United States is enormous.

Everybody wants access.

Therefore Washington can use that access as leverage.

There’s only one little problem.

Leverage works best when people believe they have nowhere else to go.

Canada is now spending enormous political and economic energy proving that we do.

Europe is looking for reliable democratic partners.

Canada is looking for markets beyond the United States.

Australia and New Zealand want stronger relationships with countries committed to predictable trade.

Everybody suddenly has the same incentive.

Build more doors.

That’s why I think we’re looking at something bigger than another Canada-U.S. tariff spat.

The old Canadian strategy was basically…

Keep Washington happy and hope nothing changes.

That strategy died.

The replacement is starting to become visible.

Trade with America.

Trade with Europe.

Trade across the Pacific.

Build Canadian manufacturing.

Process more Canadian resources here.

Strengthen defence partnerships.

Build supply chains that don’t depend on one border staying friendly forever.

And make damn sure no foreign president ever again gets to look at Canada and think:

They have nowhere else to go.

Because we’re building somewhere else to go right now.

The Recap…

Canada just slapped counter-tariffs on $27.6 billion of U.S. goods.

At the same time, Europe is talking about a “unique” new partnership with Canada, while New Zealand and Australia are talking about deeper trade.

That’s not Canada abandoning America.

That’s Canada making sure America is never our only option again.

The Gut-Punch…

America’s biggest advantage was never its tariffs.

It was that its allies believed they couldn’t afford to go anywhere else.

Trump is teaching them that they can.

Source credit:

Research inspired by the video “Trump PANICS as Canada, EU, Australia and New Zealand UNITE — USA EXCLUDED.” Facts independently checked against Government of Canada trade measures, Canadian Press reporting on EU-Canada discussions, Statistics Canada/Global Affairs Canada trade data, and reporting from New Zealand.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I stumbled across something yesterday that sounded almost too good to be true.

The claim was that every Canadian province except Alberta had banned American companies from government contracts.

Nine against one.

Great headline.

One small problem.

It isn’t true.

At least not the way it’s being presented.

So I started digging.

And damn if the real story isn’t more interesting.

Because Canadian governments are doing something that doesn’t get nearly the attention tariffs get.

They’re starting to use the chequebook.

Think about that for a minute.

Every year our governments spend enormous amounts of money buying everything from software and vehicles to construction services, medical equipment, office supplies and God knows what else.

That’s taxpayer money.

Our money.

And increasingly, provinces are asking a pretty simple question:

Why shouldn’t more of it stay here?

Ontario isn’t fooling around

Ontario now has a Buy Ontario Procurement Directive covering provincial ministries, agencies and much of the broader public sector.

And this one really does have teeth.

Ontario’s directive says covered government and public-sector entities must exclude businesses meeting its definition of a U.S. business from new procurements, although there are exceptions… for example, when the American supplier is the only viable source and the purchase can’t wait.

Ontario is also giving preference to Ontario and Canadian businesses at various procurement levels.

That’s not somebody waving a Canadian flag at a press conference.

That’s procurement policy.

That’s money.

And money tends to get people’s attention.

British Columbia went after existing contracts too

Here in B.C., the government didn’t stop at asking who gets the next contract.

Premier David Eby directed ministries, health authorities and core Crown corporations to review their existing contracts with American companies and look for opportunities to move away from U.S. suppliers.

Where viable, B.C. wants those contracts shifted elsewhere.

Canadian companies first.

Trusted trading partners where necessary.

American dependence reduced.

That strikes me as considerably more important than whether somebody removed a bottle of California wine from a government reception.

We’re talking about changing long-term purchasing relationships.

Nova Scotia made its position pretty damn clear

Nova Scotia announced in March 2025 that American businesses could no longer bid on provincial business as part of its response to U.S. tariffs.

The province also began looking at cancelling existing contracts.

Newfoundland and Labrador took a somewhat different approach, saying it would review and stop U.S. procurement where possible.

Those last two words matter.

“Where possible” isn’t a ban.

It’s a direction.

And that’s exactly why I didn’t run with the original claim that nine provinces had simply banned American companies.

The details matter.

Manitoba just took another step

Manitoba’s Buy Canadian Act came into force July 1, 2026.

Then, beginning September 14, Manitoba started implementing its Buy Manitoban Buy Canadian procurement policy.

The idea is pretty straightforward.

Give Manitoba and Canadian suppliers greater opportunities when the government spends public money.

Canadian vendors.

Canadian goods and services.

Canadian construction materials.

And Manitoba says the policy will expand progressively through government departments, agencies and the broader public sector.

Once again, this isn’t about putting a maple leaf sticker on the procurement office.

It’s about deciding where the money goes.

Saskatchewan is an interesting case

Saskatchewan doesn’t fit neatly into the “ban America” headline either.

But look at its numbers.

The Saskatchewan government reported in 2025 that nearly 90% of its procurement had gone to Saskatchewan companies over the previous five years.

More than 99% went to Canadian companies.

Less than 1% went to U.S. companies.

So I’m not going to yell at Saskatchewan because it doesn’t have the right wording on a piece of paper.

If more than 99 cents of every procurement dollar is already landing with Canadian companies, I think we can safely say somebody got the memo.

And that’s when the bigger picture finally clicked for me.

This isn’t really about punishing America

That’s the mistake I think we’re making when we look at these policies only through the Trump trade-war lens.

Retaliation may have started some of this.

But there’s a much bigger opportunity here.

Build Canadian capacity.

If Canadian governments buy Canadian software, Canadian steel, Canadian vehicles, Canadian technology, Canadian construction services and Canadian manufactured goods, somebody has to supply them.

Companies grow.

Factories get orders.

Workers get hired.

Supply chains develop.

Investment becomes easier to justify.

And suddenly “Buy Canadian” isn’t a slogan on Facebook.

It’s industrial policy.

This fits directly into something I’ve been writing about for months…

We Can Build It Here.

Not everything.

I’m not suggesting we dig a moat around Canada and manufacture every computer chip, banana and left-handed screwdriver ourselves.

Trade matters.

The United States will remain an important customer and supplier.

But there’s a hell of a difference between trading with somebody and becoming so dependent on them that they can threaten to turn off the tap whenever their politics go sideways.

Canada learned that lesson the expensive way.

Here’s what changed for me

I started researching this because somebody claimed nine Canadian provinces had banned American companies.

I expected either to confirm it or shoot it down.

I shot it down.

But underneath the exaggeration I found something better.

Ontario is restricting defined U.S. businesses.

B.C. is reviewing American contracts.

Nova Scotia restricted American access to provincial procurement.

Newfoundland and Labrador said stop American procurement where possible.

Manitoba has legislated Buy Canadian purchasing and is rolling out a new preference policy.

Saskatchewan was already sending more than 99% of its procurement to Canadian companies in the period it reported.

The rules aren’t identical.

They shouldn’t be described as identical.

But the direction is hard to miss.

Canada spent decades worrying about whether Washington would buy what we produced.

Maybe it’s time we paid a little more attention to what we’re buying ourselves.

Because governments don’t just make speeches.

They buy things.

Lots of things.

And every time Canada writes one of those cheques, we get to decide whose economy we’re helping build.

I know which one I’d like to start with.

Ours.

The Recap…

I went looking to verify a viral claim that nine Canadian provinces had banned American companies.

It wasn’t true.

What I found was better.

Across Canada, governments are increasingly using billions in public purchasing power to favour Canadian businesses, Canadian workers and Canadian supply chains.

Canada doesn’t just have tariffs in the toolbox.

We have a chequebook.

The Gut-Punch…

For decades we asked:

Will America buy Canadian?

Maybe the more important question now is:

Will Canada?

Source credit

Government of Ontario… Buy Ontario Procurement Directive

Government of British Columbia… Premier directs government to cancel American contracts wherever viable

Government of Nova Scotia… Statement on U.S. Tariffs

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador… Statement from the Premier in Response to U.S. Tariffs

Government of Manitoba… Buy Manitoban Buy Canadian Policy and Buy Canadian Act

Government of Saskatchewan… Government Procurement 90 Per Cent from Saskatchewan; 99 Per Cent Canadian

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I found a number this week that made me stop.

$104 billion.

Not government spending.

Not some ten-year promise.

Not politicians announcing money they might spend someday.

Foreign investors bought $104 billion worth of Government of Canada bonds in the first seven months of 2026.

Statistics Canada calls that amount unprecedented.

For comparison, during the same period last year, foreign investors bought just $13.8 billion.

That got my attention.

Because while all of us have been watching tariffs, trade threats, summits and political fireworks, something much quieter has been happening underneath it all.

Money has been moving.

And money doesn’t give a damn about campaign slogans.

Look at what happened in July

Foreign investors added another $20.7 billion of Canadian securities to their holdings.

Canadian investors, meanwhile, sold a record $31 billion of U.S. shares that month.

They also sold another $5.1 billion of U.S. government bonds.

That made July the sixth consecutive month in which Canadian investors reduced their holdings of U.S. government bonds.

Total since January?

$37.3 billion sold.

That’s not my interpretation.

That’s Statistics Canada.

Now, before somebody runs off screaming that the American dollar is collapsing and Wall Street is moving to Moose Jaw, settle down.

That’s not what these numbers prove.

Canadian investors also bought a record amount of U.S. shares during the first half of the year before that big July reversal.

Capital markets are complicated beasts.

But something significant has happened in Canadian debt markets.

During the first half of 2026, foreign investors bought a record $175 billion of Canadian debt securities.

Same period in 2025?

$20.9 billion.

That’s an eightfold increase.

That deserves more attention than another politician yelling into a microphone.

Now look south

At almost exactly the same time, U.S. government borrowing costs were climbing.

On September 15, the yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury moved above 5%, reaching its highest level since 2007.

The Federal Reserve then raised its target interest-rate range by a quarter point to 3.75%–4.00%.

Higher Treasury yields matter because they eventually crawl into damn near everything.

Mortgages.

Business borrowing.

Government debt-servicing costs.

Car loans.

Credit.

But here’s where I part company with some of the stuff I’ve been seeing online.

You can’t look at rising American yields and simply declare…

“The world doesn’t trust America anymore.”

It’s a hell of a headline.

It’s just not what the evidence proves.

This has been a broader global bond selloff. Germany, Japan and other major borrowers have also experienced sharply higher yields.

Inflation worries, government debt levels, interest-rate expectations and geopolitical risks are all involved.

So I’m not going to manufacture a prettier story than the numbers give me.

I don’t need to.

Because the Canadian numbers are already remarkable.

Then Carney put $100 trillion in one room

On September 15, Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed the Canada Investment Summit in Toronto.

The people in the room represented investors from nearly 30 countries managing more than $100 trillion in assets.

Read that again.

Not $100 billion.

$100 trillion.

The summit produced announcements representing nearly $500 billion in new Canadian investment commitments and opportunities, according to the Prime Minister’s Office.

And Carney knew exactly what those people were listening for.

Not slogans.

Risk.

Debt.

Predictability.

Returns.

He told them Canada had what he called its strongest fiscal position in the G7 and announced that the government expected to balance its operating budget next year, a year earlier than planned.

He also said the government was reducing the size of the federal civil service by 10%, cutting spending on consultants by 20%, and reducing annual operating-spending growth from more than 8% to less than 2%.

Whether Ottawa actually delivers all of that will eventually be measurable.

For now, those are government commitments… not accomplishments we should count before they happen.

But here’s what isn’t a promise…

Investors are already buying Canadian government debt in record amounts.

That’s the part I keep coming back to.

There’s another word creeping into this story

Trust.

Carney used it himself after the investment summit.

He told reporters Canada’s greatest strength was something that doesn’t appear on a balance sheet…

trust.

A couple of days later, standing before the European Parliament, he explained what Canada was trying to build with Europe.

Not another superpower bloc.

Not another bully.

He said Canada and Europe were pursuing resilience so that nobody could control their markets, impair their sovereignty or dictate their choices.

That word… resilience… matters.

Because I don’t think Canada’s lesson from this trade war should be…

Replace America with Europe.

That would just be buying ourselves a new basket for all those eggs.

The smarter lesson is…

Never again leave Canada dependent on one customer, one supplier, one market or one government behaving itself.

The United States remains enormously important to Canada.

It isn’t disappearing.

Neither is the largest economy in the world.

But diversification isn’t divorce.

It’s insurance.

And for years Canadians talked about diversification as though it were one of those jobs we’d get around to after cleaning the garage.

Then somebody finally gave us a reason to clean the damned garage.

Now we’re building trade relationships elsewhere, attracting international capital, strengthening ties with Europe and trying to give Canadian businesses more than one door to knock on.

And while that is happening, global investors are buying Canadian government bonds in amounts Statistics Canada has never recorded before.

That doesn’t prove Canada has “won.”

It doesn’t prove America has “lost.”

And it certainly doesn’t mean every dollar currently flowing toward Canada will stay here forever.

It tells us something simpler.

Canada has options.

More than we had before.

And after the last couple of years, I’ll take that.

The Recap…

Foreign investors bought an unprecedented $104 billion in Government of Canada bonds during the first seven months of 2026.

Canadian investors sold $37.3 billion of U.S. government bonds over the same period.

And investors managing more than $100 trillion recently showed up in Toronto to look at Canadian opportunities.

Forget the slogans for a minute.

Watch where the money goes.

The Gut-Punch…

Canada doesn’t need America to fail for Canada to succeed.

We just need enough alternatives that nobody gets to decide our future for us.

That’s what economic sovereignty looks like.

Source credit:

Statistics Canada… Canada’s international transactions in securities, June and July 2026; Statistics Canada… Canada’s balance of international payments, second quarter 2026; Prime Minister of Canada… Canada Investment Summit, September 15, 2026; Prime Minister of Canada… Address to the European Parliament, September 17, 2026; Reuters reporting on global government bond markets and U.S. Treasury yields; U.S. Federal Reserve, September 16, 2026 monetary-policy decision.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I found a number buried in the latest Canadian trade figures that deserves a hell of a lot more attention.

$25.6 billion.

That’s how much merchandise Canada exported to countries other than the United States in July.

It was an all-time record.

And suddenly this whole argument about Canada diversifying its trade gets a lot less theoretical.

We’re actually doing it.

According to Statistics Canada’s July trade report, exports outside the United States jumped 7.4% in a single month and reached $25.6 billion.

For the month, 33.7% of Canadian merchandise exports went somewhere other than the United States.

Now, before somebody gets carried away and declares that Canada has replaced the American market, we haven’t.

Not remotely.

The United States remains our largest customer by a country mile. Geography alone makes that relationship enormously valuable.

But that isn’t the interesting part anymore.

The interesting part is the direction we’re moving.

And we’ve been moving for a while.

Statistics Canada looked at the full year of 2025 and found something remarkable.

Canadian exports to the United States fell by $29.4 billion.

Exports to countries outside the United States rose by $27.6 billion.

Some of that increase came from precious metals, especially gold. But even after removing gold, silver and platinum-group metals from the calculation, non-U.S. exports still increased by $14 billion.

That’s not Canada replacing America.

That’s Canada discovering it has other phone numbers.

Aluminum showed us how fast things can move

This one is especially interesting because tariffs were supposed to give Washington leverage over Canadian aluminum.

Instead, Canadian metal started heading across the Atlantic.

Statistics Canada reported that exports of unwrought aluminum and aluminum alloys jumped 50.7% in May, driven largely by shipments to the Netherlands, Italy and Greece. They reached $1.2 billion that month.

Reuters later reported that Canadian aluminum exports to Europe had risen 276% in 2025, while shipments to the United States fell 25%. European shortages and higher prices also helped make that shift possible.

That’s an important distinction.

Canada didn’t suddenly become brilliant at diversification because somebody in Ottawa discovered a map.

Markets changed.

Tariffs changed the economics of selling into the United States.

Europe needed aluminum.

Canadian producers found buyers.

That’s what businesses do.

And once you’ve gone to the trouble of building those relationships, some of them tend to stick around.

Then I looked at what else Canada has been doing

On July 24, Canada signed a free-trade agreement with Ecuador.

That wasn’t a gigantic deal by itself.

But Ecuador completes Canada’s free-trade coverage along the Pacific coast of South America.

Then, on that same day, Canada and the United Arab Emirates announced they had concluded negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement designed to expand trade and investment between the two countries.

Europe is another matter entirely.

Canada already has CETA with the European Union, but the relationship is now being pushed considerably further.

Reuters reported this month that Prime Minister Mark Carney is pursuing deeper Canadian integration with Europe across defence, energy, critical minerals, research and other areas.

Canada is still heavily dependent on the American market, which is precisely why diversification has become such a strategic issue.

And that brings me back to that $25.6-billion number.

Because governments can announce trade missions until everybody falls asleep.

They can sign agreements.

They can shake hands.

They can issue communiqués nobody outside Ottawa reads.

Eventually I want to see the goods moving.

They’re moving.

Canada’s economy grew 0.8% in the second quarter of 2026.

Exports of goods and services rose 3.6% … the fastest quarterly increase in more than three years.

Passenger vehicle exports rebounded strongly. Energy exports increased. Metal products increased. Machinery and equipment increased.

That doesn’t mean everything is rosy.

July’s overall merchandise exports actually fell 2.3%, largely because of lower energy and metal exports.

Canada’s trade surplus dropped from $4.2 billion in June to $769 million in July.

Those numbers matter too.

But underneath them was something I find much more interesting:

Exports to the United States fell 6.6%.

Exports everywhere else rose 7.4%.

And non-U.S. exports set a record.

There’s the story.

Not “Canada doesn’t need America.”

That’s nonsense.

We do.

And America benefits enormously from Canada too.

The lesson is simpler.

For decades Canada built an economy around the convenience of having the world’s largest economy sitting next door.

Hard to blame us.

If you’ve got a gigantic customer living across the street, why haul your stuff halfway around the planet?

But convenience eventually became dependence.

And dependence works beautifully right up until the dependable part disappears.

That’s what changed.

Canada has learned that access to the American market can become a political bargaining chip.

So we’re doing what any business owner with half a brain would do after watching one customer become unpredictable.

We’re building the customer list.

Europe.

Asia.

South America.

The Middle East.

Not instead of America.

In addition to America.

That’s the part Washington may eventually regret.

Tariffs were supposed to create leverage.

But if they persuade Canadian companies and Canadian governments to spend the next decade finding other customers, building other supply chains and signing other agreements, something else happens.

The leverage starts shrinking.

One customer can push you around when they’re responsible for almost everything you sell.

It’s considerably harder when you’ve got options.

Canada doesn’t have enough options yet.

But for the first time in a very long time, we’re seriously building them.

And now the trade numbers are starting to show it.

The Recap…

Canada exported a record $25.6 billion in goods to countries outside the United States in July.

Non-U.S. exports jumped 7.4% in one month.

America is still our biggest customer.

But it isn’t the only number in Canada’s phone anymore.

The Gut-Punch…

Washington wanted more leverage over Canada.

Instead, it gave Canada a very expensive lesson in why depending on one customer is dangerous.

We appear to have learned it.

Source credit

Research independently verified using Statistics Canada trade and GDP releases, Global Affairs Canada material on the Canada-Ecuador FTA and Canada-UAE CEPA, and Reuters reporting on Canadian aluminum exports and Canada-Europe relations.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

I don’t get terribly excited about individual polls.

Never have.

Show me one poll saying Canadians suddenly love somebody and I’ll show you another one coming next Tuesday saying we’ve changed our minds.

We’re Canadians. Changing our minds while complaining about the weather is practically a constitutional right.

But something caught my attention this week.

It wasn’t one poll.

It was the pile.

Abacus Data has the Liberals at 47%, Conservatives at 33% … a 14-point gap and the largest Liberal lead Abacus has recorded since 2017. Government approval sits at 59%.

Abacus Data… September 2026 polling

Then look elsewhere.

Recent polling reported by Nanos had the Liberals at 48% and Conservatives at 31%.

Léger had them 49% to 33%.

Liaison had them 44% to 32%.

Different pollsters. Different methodologies. Different samples.

Same general direction.

Nobody should confuse that with an election result. Polls measure opinion at a particular moment. They don’t hand anybody the keys to 24 Sussex.

But then Canadians actually voted.

On August 31, there were three federal by-elections.

The Liberals won all three.

In Beaches… East York, Liberal Tanveer Shahnawaz took 55.8%. The Conservative candidate finished third at 15.5%.

Elections Canada… Beaches… East York result

In North Vancouver… Capilano, Liberal Braeden Caley won 58.7% compared with 29.2% for the Conservative candidate.

Elections Canada… North Vancouver… Capilano result

And in Chicoutimi… Le Fjord, the Liberals didn’t merely hold a seat.

They took one from the Bloc.

Daniel Gobeil won 51.6%. The Bloc finished second at 32.8%. The Conservatives finished third with 12.6%.

Elections Canada… Chicoutimi… Le Fjord result

Now I’m interested.

Because we’ve moved from somebody answering a polling question while eating supper to somebody putting pants on, leaving the house and voting.

That’s a slightly more persuasive focus group.

And then there’s that 70% number.

You’ve probably seen it floating around.

Let’s get it right.

A large Spark Advocacy survey of 6,535 Canadians found 70% approved of the way the federal government led by Mark Carney was handling its responsibilities.

That’s government approval… not a 70% personal approval rating for Carney.

Still, seventy bloody percent is seventy bloody percent.

The same survey had the Liberals at 49% and Conservatives at 29%.

Spark Advocacy… September polling

So what the hell is happening?

I don’t think Canadians suddenly woke up one morning and discovered an uncontrollable passion for the Liberal Party.

I certainly didn’t.

There’s a much bigger thing happening around us.

Donald Trump has changed Canadian politics.

Abacus found 46% of Canadians named the Trump administration among their top concerns, behind only the cost of living, while 68% said the Liberals were the party they trusted most to deal with the Trump administration.

That matters.

Because Canadian politics is no longer happening inside the old Liberal-versus-Conservative box.

We’re arguing about tariffs.

Trade.

Economic independence.

Defence.

Europe.

Energy.

Critical minerals.

And whether Canada’s relationship with the United States can ever go back to what it was.

Carney happens to be prime minister while that argument is taking place.

And right now, the polling suggests a lot of Canadians approve of how his government is handling it.

That’s a political fact.

Not a prediction about the next election.

Then Calgary did something interesting.

On September 14, Alberta held a provincial by-election in Calgary-Shaw.

This wasn’t exactly downtown Vancouver.

Calgary-Shaw has been reliable Conservative territory for decades. The UCP won it comfortably in 2023.

The NDP’s Kyle Campbell just flipped it.

He defeated UCP candidate Mike Derry by more than 500 votes.

Calgary-Shaw by-election result

One riding does not mean Alberta has turned orange.

Good grief.

But when a governing party loses a seat it was widely expected to hold, political people notice.

They should.

And over here in British Columbia, things have become downright weird.

The B.C. Conservatives elected Kerry-Lynne Findlay leader in May.

Since then, nine MLAs have left her caucus.

Nine.

Findlay said this week that she’s “not going anywhere” and described the party as going through growing pains.

Canadian Press report on the B.C. Conservatives

You can decide whether losing nine MLAs qualifies as growing pains.

At my age, if nine pieces suddenly fall off me, I’m calling an ambulance.

But here’s where I stop trying to squeeze all of this into some grand theory about Canadians permanently abandoning one political philosophy for another.

Because the evidence doesn’t say that.

Manitoba’s Wab Kinew currently has the highest approval among premiers measured by Angus Reid at 63%.

Saskatchewan Conservative Premier Scott Moe is at 48%.

Ontario Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford jumped ten points to 31%, although he remains the lowest-rated premier in that survey.

Alberta’s Danielle Smith sits at 38%.

Angus Reid… September premier approval ratings

That’s messy.

Politics usually is.

But something is moving.

And I think the more interesting question isn’t whether Canadians have suddenly become Liberal, Conservative, NDP or anything else.

It’s whether the thing Canadians are rewarding has changed.

For years our politics revolved around housing, inflation, immigration, health care, carbon taxes and Justin Trudeau.

Those issues haven’t disappeared.

But another question has barged into the room…

Who do Canadians trust to handle Canada in a world where our largest trading partner has become unpredictable?

That question didn’t dominate Canadian politics a couple of years ago.

It sure as hell does now.

And at this particular moment, the polling and the ballot boxes are telling us something remarkably similar.

Canadians aren’t merely listening to what politicians are saying.

They’re watching how they respond when Canada gets pushed around.

That’s the political shift I’m watching.

Not left versus right.

Not Liberal versus Conservative.

Competence under pressure.

Because Trump didn’t just start a trade war.

He changed the test Canadian politicians are being graded on.

And some of them haven’t figured that out yet.

The Recap…

Something is moving in Canadian politics.

One poll? Ignore it.

Several pollsters showing roughly the same movement… followed by three Liberal federal by-election wins and an NDP upset in Calgary-Shaw?

Now I’m paying attention.

The interesting question isn’t whether Canada moved left or right.

It’s whether Canadians changed the test.

The Gut-Punch…

Trump may have accidentally done something Canadian political strategists couldn’t.

He changed what Canadians expect from their leaders.

The old question was…

“Which party do you support?”

The new one may be…

“Who do you trust when Canada gets pushed?”

That’s a very different election question.

Source credit:

Research notes originated from a political commentary transcript supplied for this article. I independently checked the central claims against current polling and election reporting before using them.

Primary and supporting sources: Abacus Data, Spark Advocacy, Elections Canada, Elections Alberta/Canadian Press reporting, Angus Reid Institute and Canadian Press reporting on the B.C. Conservative caucus.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

If you’ve been watching the news lately, you’d think the whole world revolves around Donald Trump.

Every day it’s another tariff.
Another victory speech.
Another promise that everything is going beautifully.

Meanwhile, shipping costs keep rising.
Economic data is becoming harder to find.
Immigration raids dominate the headlines.

Experienced public servants are walking away from government in record numbers.

It’s loud.
It’s chaotic.
And it’s sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

Which is exactly why many people have missed what’s happening up here.

While America argued with itself, Canada quietly got to work.

No fireworks.

No daily drama.

Just the slow, often boring work of building a stronger country.

Canada opened a new Strategic Exports Office to help Canadian companies reach markets around the world instead of depending on a single customer.

Northern Ontario’s Crawford Nickel Project cleared another major hurdle, bringing us one step closer to developing critical minerals the world desperately needs.

Canada’s premiers spent time tackling housing, infrastructure, and the internal trade barriers that have frustrated businesses for decades.

At the same time, Prime Minister Mark Carney continued expanding trade relationships, strengthening ties with allies, and helping Canadian businesses find opportunities far beyond the United States.

None of those stories dominated social media.

None generated millions of angry comments.

But together they tell a much bigger story.

Canada is changing.

For decades we treated the American market as if it would always be there.

Now we’re acting like grown-ups.

We’re finding new customers.

Building new partnerships.

Investing in industries that create long-term jobs instead of simply shipping raw materials somewhere else and buying them back at a premium.

That doesn’t put extra money in your pocket overnight.

But that’s never how real prosperity works.

Strong economies aren’t built by one announcement.

They’re built by thousands of decisions that slowly make a country more resilient.

When businesses have more customers, they hire more people.

When we process more of our own resources, more wealth stays in Canada.

When provinces trade more freely with each other, transportation becomes cheaper, businesses become more competitive, and consumers benefit.

None of it is flashy.

All of it matters.

And here’s the part I find most interesting.

Canada isn’t alone.

Countries around the world are diversifying their trade, strengthening regional partnerships, and reducing their dependence on a United States that has become increasingly unpredictable.

This isn’t an anti-American movement.

It’s a risk-management strategy.

When your biggest customer keeps changing the rules, smart businesses find more customers.

Countries do exactly the same thing.

That’s the world we’re living in now.

The relationship with the United States hasn’t disappeared.

But the assumption that America will always be Canada’s reliable economic anchor has.

That chapter is closing.

A new one is already being written.

So the next time the headlines are filled with another day of political theatre south of the border, remember something.

The loudest story isn’t always the most important one.

Sometimes history is written by the people quietly laying bricks while everyone else is busy arguing over the blueprint.

The Recap...

While much of the world’s attention stayed fixed on Washington, Canada spent July doing something far less exciting… and far more important.

We expanded trade, advanced major resource projects, tackled internal barriers, and kept building an economy that depends less on one customer.

Quiet progress rarely makes headlines.

But it’s often how countries become stronger.

The Gut-Punch...

A nation doesn’t become more independent because it makes one bold speech.

It becomes more independent because it makes thousands of smart decisions nobody notices… until one day everyone realizes the country has quietly changed.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.

There’s something strange happening in this Canada–U.S. trade war.

Every time Washington announces another tariff, another threat or another round of economic punishment, we Canadians are supposed to react like the roof just blew off the house.

And yes, some Canadian industries are getting hurt.

Let’s not bullshit ourselves about that.

Steel. Aluminum. Forestry. Autos. Companies and workers caught directly in the crossfire aren’t reading economic statistics and celebrating.

But pull the camera back a little.

Because something else is happening at the same time.

Canada is becoming harder to corner.

And the United States is discovering that tariffs aren’t free just because somebody else’s name is written on them.

The Bill Doesn’t Disappear

Here’s the part about tariffs that Donald Trump has never managed to repeal with a speech…

A tariff is a tax on an imported product.

Someone importing that product into the United States pays it.

That doesn’t mean every penny automatically lands on the American consumer.

Companies can absorb some of it, suppliers can cut prices, currencies can move and supply chains can change.

But the cost doesn’t magically get mailed to Ottawa.

And right now there are some rather uncomfortable numbers coming out of the United States.

The U.S. Producer Price Index rose 5.4% over the 12 months ending in August, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Producer prices increased another 0.4% in August alone. Energy was particularly ugly… final-demand energy prices were up 24.4% from a year earlier.

Those aren’t Canadian numbers.

Those are American numbers.

And they matter because producer prices measure costs further up the economic food chain… before many of them eventually work their way toward households.

Tariffs aren’t the only thing driving those increases. Energy prices and the Iran conflict have been major factors too.

Pretending every increase was caused by tariffs would be every bit as silly as pretending tariffs cost Americans nothing.

But deliberately making imported goods more expensive while you’re already fighting inflation is one hell of an interesting economic experiment.

Especially when you’re the guinea pig.

Then There’s the Bond Market

This is where the story gets more serious.

The yield on the benchmark U.S. 10-year Treasury recently crossed 5% for the first time since 2023.

Reuters reported that inflation concerns, higher oil prices, heavy debt issuance and worries about America’s fiscal outlook were among the forces pushing yields upward.

Again, I’m not going to tell you Trump’s tariffs single-handedly caused that.

They didn’t.

But a 5% 10-year Treasury yield matters.

Higher Treasury yields tend to work their way through the economy.

Mortgages.

Car loans.

Business financing.

Government borrowing.

Suddenly the world’s largest economy is paying considerably more for money.

That’s not exactly the picture you’d expect if the country wielding all this economic power were emerging from the confrontation without costs of its own.

Meanwhile, Look North

Now we get to the Canadian side of this story.

Back in May, the Global Infrastructure Investor Association released its latest survey of major infrastructure investors.

Guess which country ranked as the world’s most attractive infrastructure investment market?

Canada.

Not the United States.

Canada.

The association represents investors managing almost C$3 trillion in infrastructure assets, and Canada moved ahead of Germany and the United States in its survey.

It was the first time Canada had overtaken its southern neighbour.

That’s worth sitting with for a minute.

We’re in the middle of a trade war with our largest customer.

We’re being hit with tariffs.

We’re being told repeatedly that Canada has no leverage and nowhere else to go.

And the people responsible for deploying trillions of dollars into infrastructure looked around the world and put Canada at the top of the list.

That doesn’t mean we’ve suddenly become economic Disneyland.

We haven’t.

Canada still has productivity problems. We still have regulatory problems.

We still need enormous amounts of infrastructure if we’re serious about selling more energy, minerals and manufactured products beyond the United States.

But money notices stability.

Money notices opportunity.

And money really notices when countries start building things.

Canada Changed the Question

This may be the biggest shift of all.

For decades Canada’s economic question was basically…

How do we maintain access to the American market?

That’s understandable.

They’re next door.

They’re enormous.

And in 2025, 71.7% of Canadian exports still went to the United States.

Nobody with a functioning calculator should suggest Canada can simply replace that market overnight.

We can’t.

But the question has changed.

Now we’re asking:

How do we keep the American market while making damn sure we’re never this dependent on it again?

That’s an entirely different economic strategy.

Canadian exports to non-U.S. markets increased 17.2% in 2025, according to reporting on Canada’s diversification push.

And Ottawa is now actively courting global capital for Canadian energy, mining, technology, transportation and infrastructure projects. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has been pitching investors on more than 160 projects as part of an effort to attract enormous amounts of new investment.

Whether all of those projects actually get built is another question.

Announcements aren’t bulldozers.

Investment conferences aren’t factories.

And political speeches don’t load ships.

I’ll judge the results when the money gets committed and the projects start moving.

But the direction is unmistakable.

Canada is trying to build alternatives.

And That’s Where Washington May Have Miscalculated

The assumption behind economic coercion is pretty straightforward.

Make resistance expensive enough and the other guy eventually gives you what you want.

That works beautifully if the other guy has nowhere else to go.

Canada’s answer has been to start building somewhere else to go.

More customers.

More trade relationships.

More domestic processing.

More infrastructure.

More investment.

More capacity to move Canadian products east, west and overseas instead of automatically pointing everything south.

None of that happens quickly.

And none of it makes the United States unimportant.

America will remain one of Canada’s most important trading partners because geography isn’t going anywhere.

But dependence and partnership are two very different things.

Canada is finally learning the difference.

This Isn’t Victory. It’s Leverage.

That’s why I’m not declaring Canada the “winner” of the trade war.

Trade wars are lousy things to win.

People lose jobs.

Businesses lose customers.

Consumers pay more.

Investment gets delayed.

Supply chains get scrambled.

Both countries can come out poorer.

The more interesting question is what Canada looks like after this mess.

If we emerge with more export markets, more domestic processing, more infrastructure, more international investment and less dependence on a single customer, something fundamental will have changed.

Because then the next American president who threatens Canada economically faces a different calculation.

Canada can say…

We’d rather trade with you.

We don’t have to depend entirely on you.

That’s leverage.

And leverage lasts a hell of a lot longer than a tariff announcement.

The Recap…

Washington keeps reaching for tariffs.

Canada keeps reaching for new customers, new investment and new infrastructure.

Meanwhile, U.S. producer prices are up 5.4%, the 10-year Treasury yield has crossed 5%, and global infrastructure investors have put Canada at the top of their attractiveness rankings.

This isn’t about declaring victory.

It’s about becoming harder to push around.

The Gut-Punch…

Canada doesn’t need to replace the United States.

We need to make sure the United States can never again mistake Canadian dependence for American ownership.

Source credit:

Research notes supplied from the transcript “The Real Reason Canada Is Winning The Trade War.” Key economic claims independently cross-checked against the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Government of Canada, Global Infrastructure Investor Association, Reuters and other current reporting.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.