Quick one this month. Being a paid subscriber gives you free access to every ebook Ashwood Publishing puts out, and the full library lives at one link:

https://ash-wood.link/library

Bookmark it. I update it as new titles come out, and I’ll send you a fresh reminder about once a month so nothing slips past you.

New this month: ‘The Warmest Place in…

Read more

How Mélanie Joly Went From Netflix Punchline to the Minister Taking On Stelco

In the fall of 2017, a Montreal clothing shop started selling a T-shirt with one word on it: Mélanie.

It wasn’t a tribute. Mélanie Joly, then Canada’s heritage minister, had just announced a deal with Netflix that Quebec hated with the passion it normally reserves for construction season. Critics had already nicknamed her “la cassette” for repeating scripted answers no matter the question. The shirt was the punchline.

Nine months later, she was demoted.

Last Friday, that same woman asked Canada’s competition commissioner to investigate one of North America’s most powerful steel companies, whose CEO had admitted on national television that he bought a Canadian steelmaker to stop it competing with his American mills.

Nobody’s selling T-shirts this time.

Who Is Mélanie Joly? The Girl From Ahuntsic Nobody Saw Coming

Key Insight: Mélanie Joly grew up in Montreal’s Ahuntsic neighbourhood, studied law at Oxford, and founded her own party at 34 to run for mayor. She finished second, and people have underestimated her ever since.

Joly was born in Montreal in January 1979 and grew up in Ahuntsic, the north-end neighbourhood she now represents in Parliament. Many politicians move to a riding. She came home to hers.

She studied law at the Université de Montréal and went to Oxford on a Chevening scholarship. According to The Canadian Encyclopedia, she practised at two of Montreal’s big firms, then became a managing partner at the public relations firm Cohn & Wolfe.

Then she did something polished people don’t usually do. In 2013, with no party machine and no seat, she founded her own municipal party, largely with personal friends, and ran for mayor against Denis Coderre, a longtime Liberal MP and former federal cabinet minister.

She took 26.5 per cent and finished six points behind him.

That made her a star candidate. In 2015, she won Ahuntsic-Cartierville, and Justin Trudeau made her minister of Canadian Heritage. She rose fast, and she fell just as fast.

The Netflix Deal That Nearly Ended Mélanie Joly’s Career

Key Insight: In 2017, Joly announced a $500 million Netflix commitment with no binding guarantee for French-language content. Quebec revolted, and in July 2018 she was moved to a junior portfolio.

In September 2017, Joly unveiled the government’s new cultural policy, and with it a deal that came out of weeks of secret talks: Netflix would invest $500 million in Canadian production over five years.

It sounded great for about an afternoon.

Then Quebec read the fine print, and there wasn’t much of it. Netflix also promised $25 million to develop French-language content, but it had no contractual obligation to spend it. Quebec’s culture minister accused Ottawa of trusting “the invisible hand of the market” to protect francophone culture. The chat shows tore into her. A Montreal shop printed the shirts.

On July 18, 2018, Trudeau moved her to Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie. He insisted it wasn’t a demotion. Everyone understood what had happened.

What she did next is what stuck with me. She didn’t disappear, and she didn’t sulk in public. She called the demotion a “great opportunity” and told the Globe and Mail that “it would have been shrewder, in political terms, to go more slowly.”

Politicians almost never put that kind of admission on the record. Most would rather blame the weather.

Keep one detail in mind: the Netflix deal blew up because a huge American company made a promise nobody could enforce. It comes back later in this story.

From Demotion to Diplomat: Joly’s “Pragmatic Diplomacy” Years

Key Insight: Three years after her demotion, Joly became foreign affairs minister in October 2021, four months before Russia invaded Ukraine.

On October 26, 2021, Trudeau handed her Foreign Affairs, one of the most senior jobs in cabinet. Her tenure covered sanctions on Russia, a diplomatic crisis with India and a long freeze with China. In July 2024, she became the first Canadian foreign minister in seven years to visit Beijing.

She called her approach “pragmatic diplomacy” and summed it up plainly: “We need to work with countries that we don’t see eye-to-eye with.”

That can be hard to stomach, but it turned out to be good training. Countries have interests, and so do companies. Even a friendly partner will hurt you if it pays.

When Mark Carney named her minister of Industry on May 13, 2025, people called it a strange choice. But her job now is diplomacy with a factory attached, and thousands of Canadian jobs ride on how it goes.

Mélanie Joly vs. Stelco: The CEO Who Said the Quiet Part Out Loud

Key Insight: Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves has said publicly that he bought Stelco partly to keep its steel out of the U.S. market. On November 6, 2026, Joly asked the Competition Bureau to investigate.

Steel has been made in Hamilton since 1910. Stelco’s Hamilton Works and Lake Erie Works in Nanticoke are as close as Canada gets to an industrial backbone.

When American steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs bought Stelco in 2024, it made binding commitments under the Investment Canada Act, including keeping Canadian employment at an average of at least 1,766 jobs a year. (Those commitments are the trade-off for letting a foreign company buy something this important, which we dug into in our look at foreign investment in Canada.)

On September 28, 2026, Cliffs announced up to 500 layoffs, blaming U.S. tariffs, weak demand and cheap imports.

On October 22, Joly sent an 11-page letter accusing Cliffs of breaking six binding commitments and gave it 15 days to fix things or face court. She also pointed out that Goncalves had backed U.S. steel tariffs before Congress in January, and that Cliffs was the first company to sign an industry memo asking Donald Trump for them.

So he asked for the storm, then blamed the storm.

“Cleveland-Cliffs has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that it is compliant with its undertakings,” Joly wrote on X. “That is unacceptable.”

Then Goncalves went on CBC. He said he bought Stelco because it was flooding the U.S. market and undercutting his prices. He added that he planned to sell within about a year, since he was now, in his words, “persona non grata” in Canada.

Joly called those remarks “confessions.” (Editor: So Do We)

On Friday, as her deadline ran out, she asked the Competition Bureau to examine whether Cliffs broke the Competition Act, calling the CEO’s comments “a shocking admission.” If the job commitments aren’t met, Ottawa says it could seek a court order, penalties of up to $10,000 a day, or a forced sale of Stelco.

The minister who once took Netflix at its word now writes 11-page letters listing exactly which promises a company broke.

To be fair, Cliffs insists Stelco is fully compliant with all 34 undertakings and that 175 Hamilton workers are only temporarily laid off. A referral isn’t a verdict, and the Bureau would have to prove harm to Canadian prices. Critics call her a paper tiger. That’s a fair challenge, because warnings only count if they lead somewhere.

Still, a Canadian minister has forced an American steel giant to defend itself in public, using its own CEO’s words. Not long ago, that would have been unthinkable.

The Stelco fight is only half the story.

Below this line: the $15 billion Joly hasn’t paid Stellantis yet, and why that money may be the most powerful card Canada holds. Plus the quiet $1.75 billion bet that could decide whether the next great Canadian company stays Canadian.

And the ending you saw coming since that T-shirt.

Subscribe for free to keep reading. No credit card, just your email.

Related Reading From The Sanity Project

• Foreign Investment in Canada

• The Honda EV Plant Debacle

• Elsie MacGill: Canada’s Forgotten Engineer

Sources

Mélanie Joly: background and career

• The Canadian Encyclopedia: Mélanie Joly

• Wikipedia: Mélanie Joly

• Postmedia via PressReader: Netflix deal trips up Joly in Quebec (Oct. 5, 2017)

• The Canadian Press via CFJC: Joly on Netflix and sales tax (Dec. 8, 2017)

• The Globe and Mail: Mélanie Joly draws lessons from her cabinet demotion

• CJAD: Joly recounts challenging political year in TVA interview

• The Globe and Mail: Joly makes first visit to China

• Deccan Herald (NYT profile): Joly’s “pragmatic diplomacy”

Stelco and Cleveland-Cliffs

• CBC News: Joly asks Competition Bureau to investigate Cleveland-Cliffs (Nov. 6, 2026)

• The Canadian Press via Lethbridge Herald: Joly asks Competition Bureau to probe Stelco deal (Nov. 6, 2026)

• Yahoo Finance: Joly refers Stelco merger to Competition Bureau (Nov. 6, 2026)

• Global News: Joly seeks Competition Bureau probe of Stelco (Nov. 6, 2026)

• The Canadian Press via Castanet: Joly consults lawyers on Stelco owner’s “confessions”

• CP24: Stelco given 15 days to make good on agreements (Oct. 22, 2026)

• SteelOrbis: Canada gives Cleveland-Cliffs 15 days (Oct. 23, 2026)

• Goldesel: Stelco reports compliance with all 34 undertakings (German)

Stellantis and Brampton

• Global News: Ottawa launches dispute resolution against Stellantis

• Just Auto: Canada warns Stellantis over U.S. plan

• CBT News: Stellantis explores Brampton plant sale to Roshel

• Allmind: Joly rejects Stellantis plan for Chinese EVs at Brampton

Venture and Growth Capital Plan

• Government of Canada: Venture and Growth Capital Plan backgrounder

• Digital Journal: Ottawa moves to strengthen venture and growth capital investment

The Sanity Project examines Canadian politics and public policy through evidence, context and independent analysis. If you value journalism that looks past the headline, subscribe for free.

Subscribe now

Elon Musk’s $400 Million Election-Night Reality Check

The world’s richest man spent a fortune trying to shape America’s midterms. Texas voters and many other Americans had different plans.

Elon Musk has built rockets that land themselves, electric cars that practically drive themselves, and an online platform where he can tell hundreds of millions of people exactly what he thinks.

In 2026, he tried another ambitious engineering project: using an enormous political fortune to help Republicans retain control of Congress.

The financial commitment was breathtaking. Musk poured more than US$400 million into Republican political efforts, according to post-election reporting. That’s more than the roughly $290 million he spent supporting Donald Trump and other Republicans in 2024.

On November 3, voters delivered a costly reminder that democracy does not come with a Buy Now button.

Texas: The Very Expensive Experiment

Texas was especially important to Musk. He lives there, Tesla and SpaceX have major operations there, and the state’s Republican leadership had provided a generally welcoming political environment.

Musk directed substantial financial support toward Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton. His donations to the Senate Leadership Fund totalled $168 million, much of which was later transferred to a political committee supporting Paxton.

By election day, Musk-financed political operations had poured enormous resources into supporting Paxton and attacking Democrat James Talarico.

The result?

Talarico won.

And he didn’t squeak across the finish line, either. He won by roughly ten percentage points.

During the campaign, Musk attacked Talarico on X with increasingly dramatic warnings about immigration, democracy and transgender issues.

Talarico, meanwhile, made the billionaire’s financial involvement part of his own campaign message.

After winning, he told supporters that Texans had shown that even extraordinary wealth could not guarantee an election victory.

That is a striking outcome for a contest in which money was supposed to be one of the Republican candidate’s greatest advantages.

And Then There Was the Governor’s Race

The surprises in Texas didn’t stop with the Senate.

Republican Governor Greg Abbott lost to Democrat Gina Hinojosa, changing the political leadership of a state central to Musk’s business empire.

That doesn’t mean Musk personally financed Abbott’s entire campaign or that he paid for every dollar spent in Texas. Political donations, committee transfers and advertising expenditures must be counted carefully to avoid double-counting.

But the broader result is unmistakable: Texas voters rejected two prominent Republican candidates in races closely connected to Musk’s political and business interests.

The new administration could take a different approach to data-centre development, corporate tax incentives, and other policies affecting his companies.

The political outcome may therefore have implications well beyond election night.

The National Scoreboard

Texas wasn’t an isolated result.

According to WIRED’s analysis on November 4, candidates supported by Musk’s America PAC had lost 20 decided races and won just one, with another 21 contests still uncalled.

The PAC had advertised in seven Senate races. Of the six decided by Wednesday morning, all six had gone against its preferred candidates.

The results included Democratic victories in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Maine.

WIRED calculated that more than 99 cents of every traceable dollar assigned to races already decided had gone toward unsuccessful efforts.

That statistic needs context. It does not mean Musk lost 99% of his personal wealth or that every dollar of his political spending was wasted. It measures spending in races that were decided, and the remaining results could change the final picture.

Still, it illustrates the striking mismatch between the scale of the spending and the electoral outcomes.

Meanwhile, Democrats won control of both the House and Senate.

Musk’s political spending was intended to help Republicans retain congressional power. The electorate produced the opposite result.

The Wisconsin Warning

An earlier sign suggested that huge spending could not guarantee victory.

In 2025, Musk’s America PAC spent heavily on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, a contest Musk publicly described in civilisation-defining terms.

The conservative candidate lost.

The PAC spent money on advertising and controversial voter-participation incentives. Prosecutors ultimately declined to pursue charges over the incentive program.

Wisconsin showed that large amounts of money could fail to produce the desired result.

The 2026 midterms spread that lesson across many states and congressional races.

Even the Space Lasers Failed

As election results came in, Musk posted two memorable observations on X.

First, he suggested that data centres in space were looking increasingly attractive.

Then he joked that his election-interfering space lasers had failed.

It was a rare moment of self-deprecating humour from a man who had spent months treating the election as an existential political struggle.

And perhaps the most revealing detail of the evening.

Musk had warned that Democratic victories could threaten American democracy. Yet the elections proceeded, voters made their choices, and several heavily financed Republican campaigns lost.

The machinery of democracy worked without regard to the size of any single donor’s bank account.

What the Money Could Not Buy

Musk’s spending was not insignificant simply because many candidates he supported lost. Political advertising, voter outreach and campaign organisations can influence elections without determining their outcomes.

This election also does not prove that billionaires have lost their political influence. Musk remains extraordinarily wealthy, commands a massive communications platform and has extensive business interests affected by government policy.

But the midterms provide a compelling example of the limits of financial power.

Hundreds of millions of dollars can purchase advertisements, consultants, field operations and an astonishing number of political messages.

They cannot guarantee that voters will agree.

For a businessman used to measuring success by scale, investment, and technological control, the election offered a different kind of result.

More than $400 million in political spending. A string of high-profile defeats. And a Congress controlled by the other party.

The rockets may still land on schedule.

The voters, however, apparently prefer to make their own travel arrangements.

The Numbered Treaties: The Promises That Built Western Canada

In the summer of 1871, the tents stood in rows below the stone walls of Lower Fort Garry, north of where Winnipeg is today. Smoke from a hundred cooking fires hung over the Red River. The Anishinaabe and Swampy Cree of southern Manitoba had come in great numbers to hear what a brand-new country called Canada wanted from them.

What Canada wanted was the land.

On 3 August 1871, after eight days of hard talks, the chiefs signed Treaty 1, the first of the Numbered Treaties. In my new book, a young hunter asks his uncle that night whether they had just sold it. The uncle is quiet for a long time. Then he says: “We agreed to share it. That is what I agreed to.”

The young hunter and his uncle are invented. The question they’re asking is not. Canadians have been arguing about the answer for more than 150 years, and that argument is still in our courts today.

What are the Numbered Treaties, and why did Canada need them?

The story starts with a real estate deal. In 1869, the Hudson’s Bay Company surrendered Rupert’s Land, a territory covering much of what is now western and northern Canada, to the new Dominion for £300,000. No one who actually lived there was asked.

Ottawa had big plans for that land: farms, settlers and a railway to the Pacific. But it had a problem, and the problem was its own law. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, issued by King George III, said that Indigenous land could not simply be taken. Only the Crown could acquire it, in a public meeting, and only if the nation agreed. If Canada wanted the West, it had to sign treaties.

The First Nations had their reasons to talk too. The bison herds that had fed the Plains for centuries were collapsing. Settlers were coming, treaty or no treaty. A treaty at least promised help through hard times, and land that could not be taken away.

Subscribe now

How many Numbered Treaties are there?

Between 1871 and 1921, the Crown and First Nations signed eleven. Historians call them the Numbered Treaties because Ottawa numbered them in order, one through eleven. Together they cover a vast area, from northern Ontario west to the Rocky Mountains and beyond, and north to the Beaufort Sea. Here is the treaty map of Canada that most of us never saw in school.

Look at the map, and a pattern jumps out. The treaties followed whatever Canada wanted next.

Treaties 1 through 7, signed between 1871 and 1877, cover the Prairies and the routes leading to them, which was the land Canada needed for farms and the railway. Treaty 1 and Treaty 2 took in southern Manitoba in 1871. Treaty 3 followed in 1873, covering the route west from Lake Superior. Treaty 4 covered southern Saskatchewan in 1874, Treaty 5 covered central and northern Manitoba in 1875, and Treaty 6 covered the parklands of central Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1876. Treaty 7, signed with the Blackfoot Confederacy and their neighbours in 1877, covered southern Alberta.

Then Ottawa stopped for more than twenty years. The North could wait.

It waited until gold turned up. The Klondike Gold Rush sent thousands of prospectors north through First Nations land in the late 1890s, and in 1899 Canada signed Treaty 8, covering northern Alberta and parts of what are now British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. Treaty 9 covered northern Ontario in 1905 and 1906, and Treaty 10 covered northern Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1906 and 1907.

The last one, Treaty 11, was signed in 1921 along the Mackenzie River. The reason was oil, discovered at Norman Wells the year before.

So the map of the Numbered Treaties is also a map of Canada’s ambitions: farmland first, then gold, then oil.

What the Numbered Treaties promised

The treaties differ, but most made similar promises. Each band would receive reserves, starting at 160 acres for every family of five in Treaty 1 and rising to a square mile per family of five in most of the later treaties. Every member would receive an annual payment, forever. There would be schools, farming tools and animals, and the right to keep hunting and fishing on land the Crown had not taken up.

Some treaties went further. Treaty 6 promised a medicine chest, kept at the Indian agent's home, and help in times of famine and pestilence. First Nations have argued ever since that this was a promise of health care.

Not every chief signed willingly. The Plains Cree leader Mistahimaskwa, known in English as Big Bear, refused to sign Treaty 6 in 1876. He held out for six years, pressing for better terms. In 1882, with the bison gone and his people starving, he signed.

What the treaties actually say

Here is where the trouble starts.

The talks were held in Cree, Anishinaabemowin, Blackfoot, Dene and other languages, through interpreters. Crown lawyers wrote the treaties in English. And the written versions say the nations agreed to “cede, release, surrender and yield up” their lands to the Crown.

Few of the chiefs could read those words. Many First Nations, then and now, say that is not what they agreed to. They understood the treaties as agreements to share the land and live side by side, not to give it away.

Even the Crown’s own promises did not always make it onto the page. At Treaty 1, the commissioners promised oxen, cows and ploughs. None of it appeared in the written treaty. The chiefs complained year after year until, in 1875, Ottawa added the “outside promises” to the treaty and raised the annual payment from $3 to $5 per person.

Treaty Day: five dollars a year, forever

That payment is still made. Every year, on Treaty Day, most descendants of the Numbered Treaty signatories receive $4 or $5 each.

The amount has not changed in well over a century. In the 1870s, five dollars meant something. Today it buys a coffee, if you skip the muffin. First Nations in Alberta and Ontario have now gone to court to make Canada bring the payments in line with what the promise was worth when it was made.

That’s the thing about the Numbered Treaties. They aren’t history in the way the Plains of Abraham is history. They are living agreements. They still decide who has rights to land across much of the country, and their meaning, written and spoken, is still being argued in Canadian courts.

In Saskatchewan, you’ll hear a phrase used to explain it: we are all treaty people. If you live in Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton or Calgary, you live on treaty land. The deal made at Lower Fort Garry, and the ten that followed, are part of your story whether you have ever seen the map or not.

Read the whole story, free

This article grew out of one chapter of my new book, 40 Events That Forged Canada: The Most Important Events in Canadian History. It tells the story of this country in forty short chapters, from the Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Each one opens with a scene and puts you in the room with the people who lived it. Every event is real, and each chapter takes about five minutes to read.

The Numbered Treaties chapter comes with the full map, made for the book from Government of Canada data. Around it are the Royal Proclamation that made the treaties necessary, the Indian Act that followed five years after Treaty 1, and Louis Riel and the Red River Resistance that came just before.

You can get your copy at ashwoodpublishing.com/canadian-history-events.

And if you know someone who has never seen this map, send them the link.

Sources checked: Numbered Treaties, The Canadian Encyclopedia · Treaty Day, The Canadian Encyclopedia · Numbered Treaties, Indigenous Studies (eCampusOntario) · Unadjusted Treaty Annuities, JFK Law (October 2025) · Treaty 8, The Canadian Encyclopedia · Treaty 11, The Canadian Encyclopedia

The Night the Cold War Came to Canada, and the Woman Who Carried Its Secrets

Hi friends,

You know I spend most of my time here on Canadian politics, sovereignty and the people who would rather we didn’t pay attention. Today is something a little different. Well, sort of.

On the night of 5 September 1945, a young cipher clerk named Igor Gouzenko walked out of the Soviet embassy in Ottawa with 109 secret documents hidden under his shirt. They proved a Soviet spy ring was operating inside Canada, reaching into government offices and the race for the atomic bomb.

And then nobody would believe him.

The newspaper sent him away. At the Justice Building, a guard told him to come back in the morning. For thirty-six hours a frightened young family went from door to door in our own capital while the embassy hunted them.

Long before anyone in Ottawa held hearings on foreign interference, this was the original. Many historians mark it as the start of the Cold War.

I’ve written it as a short novel, The Keyhole, and I tell it from the side almost nobody remembers: his wife, Svetlana. Pregnant, with no English at all, she knelt at a neighbour’s keyhole on the second night and watched four men from the Soviet embassy break into her home.

Every event in it happened. Every name is real. It’s a story about courage, about a marriage under unbearable pressure, and about the ordinary Canadians on Somerset Street who opened their doors when it counted.

It’s yours, free. It’s a quick read, under an hour, with a map of 1945 Ottawa and a timeline of those thirty-six hours.

Get Your Free Book Here

No catch. If you enjoy it, I’d ask one thing: pass it along to someone who loves Canadian history, or leave a quick review. That’s how small Canadian books find their readers.

Thanks for being here. More sanity soon.

Bo

P.S. At the back of the book you’ll find what became of everyone in it, including the family Svetlana left behind in Moscow. Read that part last.

Or....get it here as well

Canada's F-35 Debate: The Hidden Risks of American Military Dependence

Last week, Ukrainian drone crews discovered their equipment had a speed limit. Not one imposed by physics, engineering, or a shortage of batteries, but by restrictions apparently introduced thousands of kilometres away, on the satellite communications they depend on to fight a war.

And if you’re Canadian, that should make you uncomfortable.

On October 14, Ukrainian forces discovered that equipment using SpaceX’s military satellite communications service was losing connectivity at speeds above roughly 160 kilometres an hour. That’s a serious problem when your drones are trying to intercept Russian attack aircraft travelling considerably faster than that. As the Associated Press reported, Ukrainian officials suddenly began negotiating with SpaceX and the Pentagon to restore capabilities they had previously relied on.

Then came the finger-pointing. Elon Musk suggested that the United States military, and ultimately President Donald Trump, controlled such restrictions. Trump denied ordering them, while the White House disputed reports suggesting that Musk and Trump had discussed the decision beforehand.

By October 20, the story had become more revealing. CBS News reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that Musk himself had directed the restrictions after conversations with administration officials. Reuters separately reported similar findings from the Wall Street Journal. Exactly what Trump knew, approved or directed remains contested, but the available reporting now points more directly toward Musk’s involvement.

Think about what that means. Ukraine is defending its cities against Russian missiles and drones, yet an essential part of that defence can be restricted through decisions made by an American company and, potentially, the American government. Whether the immediate motivation was political, contractual or something else, the vulnerability was real.

And Canada is preparing to spend billions on fighter aircraft that raise an uncomfortable version of the same question.

When Someone Else Controls the Equipment

The timing of the restrictions deserves attention. They followed growing American pressure on Ukraine to stop attacking Russian energy infrastructure, including threats involving intelligence sharing. That sequence doesn’t prove the satellite restrictions were meant as punishment, but it does explain why Ukrainian officials suspected a political motive.

Ukraine’s experience with Starlink had already raised concerns about depending on privately controlled military communications. In 2022, reports emerged that satellite connectivity had been restricted around some Ukrainian operations, although SpaceX disputed aspects of those accounts. Then, in March 2025, Musk publicly promised that Starlink would never be turned off as a bargaining chip against Ukraine.

Nineteen months later, Ukraine was confronting another controversy over restrictions on the very communications network it needed to fight.

To be fair, that’s longer than some trade agreements with Washington have survived lately.

The latest restrictions were particularly troubling because they affected defensive operations, not simply Ukrainian strikes against Russian targets. Interceptor drones need reliable communications to pursue incoming threats, and some Russian attack drones travel well beyond the imposed speed threshold. A sudden loss of connectivity can mean losing the interceptor altogether, leaving civilians and infrastructure more exposed to Russian attacks.

Satellite services sometimes have legitimate technical and security restrictions. Nobody should assume that every service limitation is evidence of a political conspiracy. What makes this incident different is the combination of its sudden implementation, its battlefield consequences and the uncertainty surrounding who authorized it.

The broader lesson is difficult to escape. Ukraine owns many of the drones it flies, but it doesn’t independently control everything those drones need to operate. When a critical military capability depends on another country’s government or a foreign company’s decisions, national sovereignty comes with terms and conditions.

And those terms can change without much warning.

Why Canadians Should Care About a Ukrainian Drone

Canada isn’t Ukraine. We’re not fighting an invasion, and our military relationship with the United States is considerably deeper than a commercial arrangement involving satellite terminals. We share NORAD, continental defence responsibilities, intelligence networks and generations of successful military cooperation.

Those relationships matter, and Canadians shouldn’t casually discard them because the current American administration has made itself difficult to trust. But cooperation and dependence are very different, and recent events have given us good reason to examine where one ends and the other begins.

Canada selected the American-made F-35 in January 2023 to replace its aging CF-18 fighter fleet. The original plan called for 88 aircraft, providing the Royal Canadian Air Force with a modern stealth fighter capable of operating alongside American and other allied forces.

And the F-35 is an extraordinary aircraft. Its sophisticated sensors, stealth capabilities, and ability to exchange battlefield information make it one of the world’s most advanced fighter jets. Canada has entirely legitimate reasons to want those capabilities, particularly when defending North American airspace or contributing to NATO operations.

But purchasing a modern fighter aircraft isn’t like buying a pickup truck. You don’t take delivery, change the oil every few months and expect to operate independently for the next thirty years. Today’s combat aircraft depend on enormous networks of software, specialized parts, mission data, weapons integration, technical support and continuing upgrades.

In the F-35’s case, much of that support is organized through an American-led international program. Participating countries share certain responsibilities and industrial benefits, but they don't have complete independence over every system required to maintain and modernize the aircraft.

That doesn’t mean Washington can press a button and instantly shut down Canada’s fighters. No established evidence shows a secret remote kill switch, and suggesting otherwise would undermine a legitimate argument about the aircraft’s real dependencies.

The vulnerability is quieter and potentially more consequential over time. What happens when Canadian aircraft require specialized components, software changes or technical assistance from a partner whose government is involved in a serious political dispute with Ottawa? What protections exist against interrupted support, delayed deliveries or restrictions on future capabilities?

A fighter jet that can’t be properly maintained or updated eventually becomes a very expensive lawn ornament. Canadians deserve to understand who controls the maintenance shed before we buy an entire fleet.

And that brings us to the decision sitting on the federal government’s desk.

Canada Is About to Make a Multibillion-Dollar Decision. Who Will Really Hold the Keys?

Ukraine just discovered what happens when another country controls technology your military depends on. Canada has a chance to learn that lesson before it’s too late.

Ottawa is reconsidering its F-35 purchase. Sweden is offering an alternative. And Canadian companies are developing technology that could give us something we haven’t had enough of: genuine control over our own defence.

But there’s a catch. The Swedish option isn’t as independent as you might think, and the F-35 has advantages Canada can’t afford to ignore.

So which choice actually makes Canada safer, more independent, and less vulnerable to Washington’s political whims?

The answer isn’t nearly as simple as politicians would have us believe.

🔓 Subscribe FREE to keep reading. The rest of this investigation examines Canada’s options, the hidden trade-offs, and what it would really take to keep Canadian sovereignty in Canadian hands.

No paywall. No payment. Just independent Canadian journalism and a little healthy skepticism.

Subscribe now

Dumbass of the Week: Alberta Separatists

They got spanked and don’t even know how bad it is, yet

This week’s award was never really in doubt.

On Monday, the Alberta referendum on separation finally happened. Remain took roughly 75 percent. By Tuesday morning, the headlines had settled on the scary number: A quarter of Albertans want out.

Separatist organizer Jeffrey Rath was thrilled. He told CNN he was proud his movement went from nothing to winning over a quarter of voters in a year and a half. That’s a lovely thing to say right after losing three to one.

But let’s do the math nobody on TV bothered with.

A quarter of who, exactly?

About 3 million Albertans were eligible to vote. Roughly 470,000 picked the separation option. That isn’t a quarter of Albertans. It’s about one in six.

The 25 percent figure only works if you pretend the million-plus people who stayed home don’t actually live in Alberta.

And who stays home? People who are fine with how things are. Nobody skips a vote because they’re burning to secede. Angry people show up. Content people make supper. I can’t prove every non-voter is a quiet federalist, but I’d bet the farm most of them aren’t secretly sewing new flags.

They didn’t even vote to leave

Here’s the part that should sting. Those 470,000 people didn’t vote to leave Canada. They voted on whether the government should start the legal process for another vote. A referendum on a referendum. Even some separatists grumbled about the wording.

So the movement’s grand showing was half a million people saying “maybe later, with paperwork.”

And that paperwork is a monster. Earlier this year, a judge threw out the separatist petition because the province never consulted First Nations, whose treaties predate Alberta itself. Forty-seven of 48 chiefs and councils publicly opposed the question. First Nations turnout was strong enough that some polling stations ran out of ballots.

Leaving would mean constitutional negotiations, treaty obligations, pensions, borders, a currency, and a bill nobody has priced honestly. It isn’t a simple divorce. It’s a divorce where you also build a new house, find a new job, and explain it all to the neighbours who were there first.

The real number

My guess? Walk those 470,000 through what the exit actually costs, and half of them find something better to do on a Monday.

That leaves about 235,000 hardcore separatists, or roughly one in thirteen eligible voters.

That’s not a movement. That’s a well-attended Facebook group.

Meanwhile, UCP co-founder Jason Kenney says the party now faces a “reckoning.” The next provincial election is October 2027. Danielle Smith has a year to explain why she put a question on the ballot that Albertans answered with a hard no.

And the award goes to

So congratulations, Alberta separatists. You pushed for the fight, got your vote, and lost 3-to-1. Then you called it a victory.

Confidence like that deserves recognition.

Alberta voted. Alberta stayed. The rest is spin.

Sources:

• CNN: Alberta rejects secession referendum

• CTV: Albertans vote to reject a referendum on separation

• Globe and Mail live coverage

• CNBC: Alberta votes to remain part of Canada

• Poliwave live results

The Women Who Conquered Carnegie Hall

How Ethel Stark Made Canadian Music History

A Canadian Orchestra Nobody Expected

New York City. October 22, 1947.

Inside Carnegie Hall, one of the world’s most celebrated concert venues, a Canadian conductor prepared to lead her musicians through an ambitious evening of classical music. Her name was Ethel Stark, and she had travelled from Montreal with an orchestra that had spent seven years fighting for acceptance.

These musicians had rehearsed through the Second World War, struggled to find instruments, and overcome a musical establishment that rarely welcomed them.

And every single one was a woman.

That evening, the Montreal Women’s Symphony Orchestra became the first Canadian orchestra ever to perform at Carnegie Hall. Not the Toronto Symphony. Not Montreal’s established symphony orchestra. A group of determined women who had been told that professional orchestral music wasn’t their place.

Their remarkable journey began seven years earlier, when a talented Canadian violinist decided that if the doors of professional music wouldn’t open for women, she would build an orchestra of her own.

A Woman Who Refused to Accept the Rules

Ethel Stark was born in Montreal in 1910 and showed exceptional musical talent from childhood. After studying at the McGill Conservatorium, she became the first Canadian admitted to Philadelphia’s prestigious Curtis Institute of Music in 1928.

According to the Jewish Public Library’s historical collection, Stark studied under accomplished musicians and developed into an internationally respected violinist. By 1934, she had become the first Canadian woman to appear as a soloist on a nationally broadcast American radio program.

But talent wasn’t the problem.

In the 1930s, professional orchestras were overwhelmingly male institutions. Women could teach piano, perform in small ensembles, or appear as soloists, but permanent positions in symphony orchestras were another matter.

Certain instruments were considered especially unsuitable for women. The trombone was supposedly too masculine, the double bass too physically demanding, and the trumpet hardly ladylike.

Apparently, some people believed musical ability depended less on talent than on whether the musician wore trousers.

Stark wasn’t buying it. She had trained alongside accomplished male musicians and understood what professional performance required. She also knew that women could meet those standards.

What they lacked wasn’t ability. It was opportunity.

A Meeting Over Tea That Changed Canadian Music

In 1940, Stark met Montreal socialite Madge Bowen at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. Bowen wanted to create opportunities for women musicians, suggesting that an all-women string orchestra might be a good place to start.

Stark had considerably bigger ambitions. She wanted a complete symphony orchestra, including strings, woodwinds, brass, and percussion.

There was one rather obvious problem. Montreal didn’t have enough experienced women musicians to fill those positions, partly because women had been discouraged from learning certain instruments.

As historian Maria Noriega Rachwal explains in her University of Toronto interview, Stark and Bowen faced a remarkable challenge. They needed to recruit musicians, train beginners, find instruments, and build a professional organisation almost from scratch.

Stark refused to lower her expectations. If women weren’t already playing certain instruments, they would have to learn.

And so, in 1940, the Montreal Women’s Symphony Orchestra was born.

Building an Orchestra From Almost Nothing

The orchestra brought together women from different religions, social classes, ethnic backgrounds, and occupations. Some were trained musicians, while others were students, homemakers, or working women who had never imagined performing in a symphony.

Their instruments were sometimes borrowed, donated, or needed repair. Rehearsals demanded countless hours, often squeezed between jobs, household responsibilities, and raising children.

Stark was a demanding conductor. She expected careful preparation, discipline, and professional performances because she wasn’t creating a novelty act for curious audiences.

She was building a real orchestra.

The timing was remarkable. While Canada was fighting the Second World War, women across the country were challenging traditional expectations in factories, laboratories, and other workplaces.

We explored another example in our feature on Elsie MacGill, the Canadian engineer who helped build Canada’s wartime aircraft. Like MacGill, Stark refused to accept that being a woman should determine what she could accomplish.

The Montreal musicians worked hard for years, but for many, the orchestra offered something they had never experienced before: a place where their musical ambitions were taken seriously.

From Unlikely Experiment to Serious Orchestra

Only months after its founding, the orchestra began performing publicly. Its first concert took place on Montreal’s Mount Royal in July 1940, an extraordinary achievement for an ensemble assembled so recently.

The musicians tackled substantial classical works rather than light entertainment designed to impress curious spectators. Over time, the orchestra established regular performances at Montreal’s Plateau Auditorium and developed a growing reputation.

Sceptics remained. Critics sometimes expressed surprise that women could successfully perform music considered too demanding for them.

Imagine spending years mastering an instrument, only to have someone congratulate you for being surprisingly capable of playing it.

Nevertheless, the women continued, performing Canadian compositions alongside familiar European classics. Their growing success attracted attention beyond Montreal, and in 1946, Stark was invited to guest-conduct the Toronto Symphony Orchestra.

By the end of that year, the Montreal Women’s Symphony had presented dozens of concerts. The unlikely experiment had become a serious musical institution.

Then came an invitation that would change everything.

Carnegie Hall. New York City.

No Canadian orchestra had ever performed there. Now the women who had struggled to find professional opportunities in their own country were being offered the chance to make history.

But Carnegie Hall was one of the world’s most demanding stages. Could this orchestra, built from modest resources and years of determination, satisfy New York’s critics?

And would these women finally be judged as musicians rather than as women attempting something unusual?

Get the rest of the story…..

They built an orchestra when the world told them they couldn’t. Now came the night that would prove what they had accomplished.

In the rest of this Canadian history feature, we follow Ethel Stark and her musicians to Carnegie Hall, meet a remarkable Black Canadian clarinettist who broke barriers of her own, and discover what the New York critics actually thought.

Subscribe for free to The Sanity Project to continue reading. No payment required. Just more remarkable Canadian stories that deserve to be remembered.

From Canadian History to Historical Fiction

The remarkable story of Ethel Stark and the Montreal Women’s Symphony Orchestra inspired our latest historical novel, Thunder in Their Hands. Based on real events, the novel brings this extraordinary chapter of Canadian history to life through fictional characters, personal struggles, and the determination of women who refused to accept the limits placed on them.

The novel will be available for purchase on November 10, 2026, through Ashwood Publishing.

But there’s a special benefit for our most dedicated readers!

Everyone with an active annual paid subscription to The Sanity Project will receive this novel FREE, along with future novels published by Ashwood Publishing, for as long as their annual subscription remains active.

It’s our way of thanking the readers who support independent Canadian journalism, storytelling, and the preservation of our country’s remarkable history.

Great Canadian stories deserve to be told. And our annual Supporters deserve to enjoy them.

Pete Hoekstra and the Amazing One-Way Border

The U.S. ambassador warns Canada against political interference. Meanwhile, Washington’s welcome mat has been getting quite a workout.

Congratulations to Pete Hoekstra, U.S. Ambassador to Canada, on his nomination for The Sanity Project’s Dumbass of the Week Award.

Pete has discovered a fascinating new principle of international diplomacy: Americans can involve themselves in Canadian affairs, but Canadians should keep their noses out of American politics.

It’s a wonderfully simple system. Unfortunately, it only works if nobody remembers what happened last summer.

Reason #1: Keep Your Canadian Nose Out!

On October 14, Hoekstra warned Canadian politicians not to interfere in America’s November midterm elections.

His complaint included Ontario’s anti-tariff advertising and Canadian politicians speaking about American political decisions.

Apparently, criticising tariffs imposed on your own country is now dangerously close to meddling in someone else’s democracy.

Who knew?

For years, American politicians have had plenty to say about Canadian elections, trade policy, energy projects and political leaders.

But when Canadians speak up about American policies that hurt Canadian workers, suddenly the diplomatic smelling salts come out.

Foreign interference! Somebody alert the embassy!

Pete, buddy, there’s a difference between trying to manipulate an election and telling your neighbour that his economic policies are giving you a bloody headache.

Reason #2: The Ambassador’s Very Selective Guest List

Now comes the interesting part.

On July 4, Hoekstra hosted an Independence Day celebration at Lornado, the American ambassador’s official residence in Ottawa.

Among the guests was Tamara Lich, the Freedom Convoy organiser convicted of mischief in connection with the 2022 Ottawa occupation.

Lich received a conditional sentence that included a year of house arrest. She subsequently obtained permission to travel for work.

And where did one of those trips take her?

Straight to the American ambassador’s garden party.

Lich confirmed that she spoke with Hoekstra and thanked him, Trump and Americans for supporting the convoy.

To be clear, attending a diplomatic reception is not election interference. Nor does this establish that Hoekstra was secretly plotting with Alberta separatists.

But it certainly makes his sudden sensitivity about Canadians expressing political opinions south of the border rather entertaining.

Especially because there’s another piece to this puzzle.

Meanwhile, in Washington...

Representatives of the Alberta separatist movement have reportedly met U.S. State Department officials on several occasions.

Hoekstra has denied that the administration was strategising with separatists.

Fair enough. We should distinguish a documented meeting from an allegation about what happened behind closed doors.

But here’s the question.

Why is Canadian political speech about American tariffs so alarming, while American officials meeting people who want to break up Canada apparently requires considerably less public concern?

That’s not proof of a conspiracy.

However, it is an excellent reason to ask some very uncomfortable questions.

Reason #3: Apparently, Pete Has Done This Before

And when we thought this story couldn’t get any richer, the Netherlands came along.

In September 2020, while serving as America’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Hoekstra hosted an event at the U.S. Embassy attended by members and supporters of the right-wing Forum for Democracy party.

The gathering included businesspeople and party supporters. The invitation reportedly included contact information for the party’s head of fundraising.

Dutch politicians were not amused.

Several demanded answers, and one member of parliament explicitly called the event interference in Dutch elections.

Sound familiar, Pete?

Hoekstra denied that the gathering was a fundraiser. The embassy insisted it was an ordinary political discussion, something ambassadors routinely organise.

Fair enough. But the controversy was serious enough that Dutch government officials sought an explanation.

So let’s review.

In the Netherlands, Hoekstra hosted an embassy gathering that prompted accusations of political interference.

In Canada, he welcomed Tamara Lich to his Independence Day reception, while American officials met separately with Alberta separatists.

And now he’s warning Canadians to keep their noses out of American politics.

Apparently, Pete’s definition of foreign interference depends entirely on which side of the embassy door he’s standin ong.

Perhaps somebody should explain that diplomacy isn’t a one-way street.

Although, judging by the traffic, Pete seems to think it’s his personal driveway.

Congratulations, Pete!

So here’s your golden rake, Ambassador.

You can display it beside the diplomatic invitations, the tariff talking points and whatever handbook explains why political involvement is acceptable in only one direction.

And Pete, that rumbling noise you’re hearing from north of the border?

That’s millions of Canadian hosers telling you to get stuffed.

We’re perfectly capable of speaking for ourselves.

And we don’t need permission from Washington to do it.

Subscribe now

Danielle Smith Wants a $1,900 Fee. Alberta Needs Their Work.

Temporary papers. Real work. An extra bill.

Before we listen to Danielle Smith explain why temporary residents should pay more for health care, we should read what Danielle Smith said when she wanted more of them to stay.

In a 2024 letter to Justin Trudeau, Alberta’s premier asked for 20,000 provincial nominee places annually for 2024, 2025 and 2026. She also sought another 10,000 places for Ukrainian evacuees.

Her reason was direct. Alberta needed workers in construction, technology, health care and education. She explained that its nomination program focused heavily on helping temporary residents become permanent residents. alberta.ca

Keep that letter in mind. It makes her latest sales pitch considerably harder to swallow.

Smith has floated a $1,900-per-person health-care fee for temporary residents. At a September 22 business event, she distinguished between permanent and temporary residents, saying the latter should pay their own way. hcamag.com

Apparently, the work becomes essential before the paperwork does. While the province waits for that documentation to be updated, Smith would like permission to send an additional bill.

Their Immigration Status Is Temporary. Their Contribution Isn’t Imaginary.

Let’s get the proposal straight before somebody turns it into a Facebook panic grenade.

Alberta’s October 19 referendum asks whether people with non-permanent immigration status should pay fees or premiums for their own and their families’ use of health care and education. It explicitly preserves existing eligibility for Canadian citizens and permanent residents. Immigration Questions

The $1,900 figure is a floated amount, not an enacted charge. Important details remain undecided, including whether people already living in Alberta would have to pay. www.hcamag.com

These are people living in Alberta, not simply tourists dropping by for a subsidised checkup. Under the province’s current rules, qualifying temporary workers must establish residency, intend to stay at least 12 months, and hold acceptable immigration documents. Not every permit qualifies. Alberta.ca

That distinction matters because “temporary” describes permission to remain in Canada. It doesn’t tell us whether somebody works hard, pays taxes, raises children, or hopes to build a permanent life here.

Smith’s own letter recognised that temporary residents can become the permanent residents Alberta needs. A person waiting for that transition doesn’t suddenly become less useful between shifts.

Nor does a work permit make employment income magically tax-free. Employers generally deduct federal and provincial income tax from taxable pay under the rules that apply to the worker’s circumstances. What someone ultimately owes depends on income, credits and other factors. Canada.ca

“Immigrant” and “taxpayer” can describe the same person. We shouldn’t need to explain this to a premier, but here we are.

A Scary Number Needs More Than a Confident Delivery

The government’s referendum website says temporary residents cost Alberta more than $1 billion annually in social services. That’s a government estimate, not a complete account of their economic contribution.

It also isn’t a billion-dollar health-care bill. The estimate covers health care, education and other services. Immigration Questions

The Tyee investigated Smith’s claim that every dollar of guest-worker taxes corresponds to $10 in services. It reported that her office did not provide sufficient information to independently verify the tax-revenue figure.

Its economist also noted that the previously stated figures of $1 billion in services and $150 million in taxes produce approximately $6.67, before the government’s additional capital-cost argument. That doesn’t establish the correct net cost. It shows the calculation needs much more daylight. The Tyee

Income matters, too. A low-paid Canadian worker can owe relatively little provincial income tax while using public services. Comparing the services people receive using a single narrow tax measure cannot, by itself, tell us whether immigration status explains the gap.

We deserve consistent definitions, matching time periods, and a fair comparison with people doing similar work. A frightening ratio without those things is excellent campaign material and a lousy basis for public policy.

Before We Approve the Bill, Let’s Read the Fine Print

The price tag is only the beginning. Below, we examine who could pay, the exception in Smith’s British comparison, and the questions Alberta should answer before asking voters for permission. Subscribe for free to continue.

Subscribe now

Canadian Thanksgiving History: Frobisher’s 1578 Voyage to Today’s Tables

A dangerous trip through the Arctic, a group of thankful survivors, and the long path that led to our October celebration.

When the ship Dennis hit the ice, the expedition faced a much bigger problem than searching for gold. The crew had to escape a sinking ship in the Arctic, far from home.

Other ships sent out boats, and the men got away, but some of the timber meant for a winter shelter sank with their ship. In the summer of 1578, Martin Frobisher’s big plans met a land that did not care about them.

Storms separated the ships. Ice blocked their path, and sailors tried to protect the wooden hulls with anything they could find. According to Edwin M. Bacon’s account of the voyage, men hung cables, bedding, and planks over the sides of the ship and pushed ice away with poles and oars.

We can imagine the scene: men standing at the rail, using whatever they had to protect the ship from the ice, unsure if the other ships would make it to safety. It was a tough way to make a living.

Before we think about turkey and pumpkin pie, the history of Canadian Thanksgiving starts in a much colder place. One of the earliest stories is about people who were simply thankful to be alive.

Frobisher Was Chasing a Fortune

Frobisher had already travelled to the area twice. At first, he wanted to find a northern sea route to Asia, known as the Northwest Passage, but a piece of dark rock he brought back to England changed his plans.

Some people thought the rock contained gold. According to Royal Museums Greenwich, this hope helped fund more trips. By 1578, the expedition had grown to fifteen ships, and they planned to mine ore and leave a group there for the winter.

Investors hoped to get rich. The men who carried timber, worked on the ships, and dug for ore had the hard job of making those dreams possible. The Arctic quickly made things more difficult.

Losing building materials was a big problem, as were missing supplies and the short time before winter. In the end, the expedition gave up on leaving a colony, but the crews kept loading the ships with the rock they had travelled so far to get.

And what about the gold? The ore turned out to be worthless. The ships returned with a huge amount of rock, but it did not bring the riches the investors had hoped for.

Sometimes, history has its own sense of irony. Sadly, the men still had to do all the hard work before finding that out.

A Minister and a Reason to Give Thanks

One of the people on the expedition was Robert Wolfall, an English minister. According to an early account quoted in Frank Jones’s nineteenth-century biography of Frobisher, he left behind a settled life, a wife, and children to join the voyage.

Wolfall preached and held communion services during the journey. He carried out his religious duties in conditions very different from his comfortable parish back home.

Different accounts and later histories disagree about exactly when and where the services took place. Historian Donald D. Hogarth’s study of Wolfall’s thanksgiving gatherings found that there was more than one in 1578. We should not try to fit them all into one neat dinner scene.

The real meaning of the story is why they gave thanks: they were saved from danger and relieved to reach a safe harbour. Their dreams of wealth were still uncertain, but they could be grateful to have survived.

People often call this the first Canadian Thanksgiving, which took place in what is now Nunavut. According to Canada’s History, it happened 43 years before the well-known Plymouth harvest feast of 1621.

That comparison is a great fact to share at dinner, but the whole story deserves to be remembered, too.

Indigenous peoples had their own thanksgiving traditions long before Europeans arrived. Frobisher’s expedition was not the first European example either; the U.S. National Park Service notes a Thanksgiving Mass and meal in what is now Florida in 1565.

Frobisher’s records also show that he took Inuit captives to England on earlier trips. Bristol Museums documents a man, a woman, and a young child who were brought there in 1577. The survival story does not excuse everything the expedition did.

We can remember this remarkable history and tell it truthfully. Frobisher did not invent gratitude, and his expedition did not start an annual holiday that lasts to this day.

The Shipwreck Was Only the Beginning. Save Your Seat for the Rest.

How do we get from sailors battling Arctic ice to families arguing over the last slice of pumpkin pie?

The next chapter takes us to a winter settlement where supper became an event, neighbours helped newcomers survive, and an Order of Good Cheer gave people something to look forward to.

Discover how Thanksgiving found its home in October, and bring a story to this year’s table that goes well beyond “Canada did it earlier.”

Subscribe for free to keep reading. The best stories deserve company, and there’s a chair here for you.

Viola Desmond: The Woman Before Canada's $10 Bill

Viola Desmond was building futures for Black women long before she refused to give up her seat. Start with that work, not the theatre.

Viola Desmond had a business to run and a car that needed repairs. On November 8, 1946, she was travelling from Halifax toward Sydney when a breakdown stranded her in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. With time to fill, she went to the movies.

At the Roseland Theatre, she asked for a main-floor ticket. The cashier sold her a balcony ticket instead. When Desmond tried to exchange it and pay the difference, she discovered the real rule: the theatre would not sell downstairs seats to Black customers.

She took a seat downstairs anyway. When the manager told her to move, she refused. Police and the manager forcibly removed her, and she spent the night in jail.

The next morning, the court convicted her over a one-cent difference in amusement tax. The businesswoman who had offered to pay for her seat now had a criminal record.

Nine years before Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat, Viola Desmond took her own stand in a Canadian theatre. Keep the comparison in view, but let her story reach beyond it.

By then, she had already built a salon, a school, and a product business. She was helping other Black women earn a living in a country that kept narrowing their options.

Before the theatre, there was a business—and that business shaped the story.

Born in Halifax in 1914, Viola Davis grew up in a middle-class family. She first worked as a teacher in segregated schools for African-Canadian children. Teaching was one of the limited professional paths available to her.

Beauty work offered another possibility. Black women needed skilled hair care and products suited to them, but Halifax’s beauty schools excluded Black students. Desmond had to leave the city to get her training.

She studied in Montréal and the United States, earning a diploma from the Apex College of Beauty Culture and Hairdressing in Atlantic City. Then she brought those skills home. In 1937, she opened Vi’s Studio of Beauty Culture in Halifax.

The salon turned into a gathering place for women in her community. Customers could buy services from a trained professional who understood their needs, while Desmond built the business that supported her independence.

She went further. Her Desmond School of Beauty Culture attracted students from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Québec. Women facing barriers to training could now learn from someone who had dealt with those barriers herself.

Her first class graduated in 1945. The Canadian Museum for Human Rights preserves photographs of that class and another from 1947. Those women were earning qualifications before and after the night that would establish their teacher’s public legacy.

Graduates learned skills they could use to start their own businesses. Some also helped distribute her beauty products. A woman who came to Desmond for training could leave with a trade, a business opportunity, and a connection to a wider network.

The Nova Scotia Archives account of her work describes an enterprise that reached beyond a single salon. Desmond made and marketed her own products, filled orders, and travelled on business. That business travel is why she was on the road in November 1946, when a breakdown led her to New Glasgow and into the incident at the Roseland.

The woman in the notebook

A surviving powder compact gives that business a physical form. Its label identifies Viola Desmond’s Sepia Face Powder, one of the products she sold to customers that mainstream companies often overlooked.

Her business notebook, transcribed by the Bank of Canada Museum, brings us closer still. Its pages contain lessons on sanitation, product formulas, wig measurements, suppliers, and prices. There are instructions to keep a product’s scent consistent and reminders about cheaper ingredients.

One entry compares a fragrance costing $16 per pound with an imitation costing about $3. Another identifies a supplier on Sackville Street in Halifax. Alongside the technical knowledge sits the everyday arithmetic of keeping a business going.

These details let us see her at work. Before her face appeared on our money, she watched what things cost, learned her craft, and built something other women could use. That same business brought her onto the road in November 1946, and into the incident at the Roseland.

We have seen that practical determination in Elsie MacGill’s engineering career. The accomplishments deserve attention in their own right. Desmond’s salon, school, and products mattered before anyone knew what would happen at the Roseland.

A penny turned into a criminal record.

At the theatre, the boundary was clear. The theatre reserved the main floor for white customers and directed Black customers to the balcony—their ability or willingness to pay made no difference.

Desmond challenged that boundary by staying in her seat. The authorities then used the difference in taxes between the two ticket prices to prosecute her. Parks Canada’s historical account identifies that one-cent difference as the legal justification for her arrest and imprisonment.

She appeared in court without a lawyer. The penalty was a $20 fine and $6 in court costs, with thirty days in jail as the alternative. She paid the $26 and challenged the conviction.

The penny gave the prosecution its official explanation. The theatre’s refusal to sell her the ticket she wanted explains the injustice. Her business trip explains why she was there in the first place and how the arrest followed.

Canada gave her a criminal record. How did she end up on our money?

Viola’s arrest was only the beginning. Ahead, we follow the court fight, the sister who refused to let Canada forget, and the decades it took to clear a name that should never have needed clearing.

Subscribe for free to finish her story. The next time you reach for a $10 bill, you’ll have more than a familiar face looking back. You’ll know what it took for her to get there.

Subscribe now

A Thanksgiving thank-you: 20% off annual support 🍁

Stories like Viola Desmond’s remind us how much Canada’s progress owes to people who refused to give up. This Thanksgiving, we’re grateful to the readers helping us share those stories.

For Thanksgiving weekend, we’re offering 20% off an annual Supporter subscription. Your support helps The Sanity Project research the facts, challenge misinformation, and celebrate the people and achievements that make Canada worth believing in.

If our work matters to you, we’d love your support. Become an annual Supporter this weekend and save 20%.

What Is the Notwithstanding Clause? How It Affects Your Rights

What the notwithstanding clause does, who it affects, and why Canadians should care.

Imagine a government telling us its new law is fair, necessary, and good for everyone. Then, in the same breath, it takes steps to prevent courts from striking down that law for violating certain rights.

That should get our attention. When politicians are that confident about their homework, we should wonder why they are so keen to stop anyone from marking it.

Canada’s notwithstanding clause allows legislatures to override certain Charter protections, preventing courts from striking down laws. It is legal, deliberate, and part of our Constitution. None of those facts makes every use of it wise or fair.

The question is bigger than whether a premier can use it. Which rights is the government overriding, and why should the rest of us accept that?

What is the notwithstanding clause, and how does it work?

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows Parliament or a provincial legislature to expressly declare that a law will operate notwithstanding specified Charter rights. Territorial legislatures can use it too.

An override can last up to five years, and the legislature can renew it. The declaration identifies which law or provisions the override covers. It does not switch off the entire Charter for everyone.

The federal government’s Charter guide explains which rights the clause can override:

Those first three rows are hardly decorative. They concern our ability to speak, organise, receive equal treatment, and challenge government interference in our lives.

A premier also need not declare an emergency or wait to lose a court case. Justice Canada explains that invoking Section 33 does not require a substantive justification for the override.

That is a remarkably effective tool to put beside rights we describe as fundamental. Canadians should know exactly what it can do before accepting a government’s cheerful explanation of why it needs one.

The Charter already allows reasonable limits.

A familiar defence goes something like this: governments need flexibility, judges cannot run the country, and rights cannot be absolute. We can understand the need for practical government without swallowing that argument whole.

The Charter already provides a mechanism for addressing reasonable limits under Section 1. A government defending a rights-limiting law normally has to show that its goal matters and justify the approach it chooses.

Courts examine whether the measure serves that goal, limits rights no more than is reasonably necessary, and produces benefits that justify the harm. The test leaves room for governing while demanding evidence and a serious explanation.

Section 33 allows a legislature to prevent courts from invalidating a law on the grounds of the rights its declaration names, even if it doesn’t meet that justification test. Using it does not automatically prove the law would fail. It does, however, shield the government from that consequence.

We should expect more than a slogan when governments limit our rights. We should not mistake a press conference announcing that everything is fine for proof.

A constitutional compromise, with consequences

The clause emerged from the negotiations that produced the Charter in 1982. Provincial leaders wanted to preserve a role for elected legislatures alongside the courts’ new power to enforce constitutional rights.

Its supporters were not all conservatives. Historical research by Eric Adams and Erin Bower describes Saskatchewan NDP Premier Allan Blakeney’s concern about protecting people from harm arising from economic and social systems.

That history matters because it keeps us honest. Section 33 was a deliberate compromise, rather than a secret trick invented by today’s premiers.

But knowing why a power exists does not settle whether a government is using it responsibly. A constitutional bargain leaders struck more than four decades ago deserves scrutiny when it reaches into today’s classrooms, workplaces, and personal lives.

How Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Quebec use the notwithstanding clause

Quebec adopted Bill 21 in 2019. The law banned certain public officials, including teachers and police officers, from wearing religious symbols at work. It included a notwithstanding declaration.

Whatever our own religious beliefs, we should be able to distinguish a government that treats religions equally from one that restricts what certain employees can wear. A person’s qualifications do not vanish because their faith is visible.

In Saskatchewan, the government invoked the clause in October 2023 for its Parents’ Bill of Rights. It required parental consent before school staff could use a new gender-related name or pronouns for students under 16.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission urged the government to reconsider, warning about the effects on vulnerable young people. Its objection was about the rights and welfare of real children, not an abstract legal puzzle.

Alberta provides more recent examples. Its government says it used the clause in October 2025 to end the teachers’ strike and impose terms for the central bargaining agreement.

Then, in December 2025, Alberta invoked it to shield restrictions involving gender-related health care, school names and pronouns, and participation in women’s and girls’ sports.

The government presents those measures as protecting children, parents, and fair play. We should judge them by the evidence and their effects, including what happens to the people whose rights the government pushes aside.

These examples show why the clause matters to ordinary Canadians. It can affect a teacher’s working conditions, a student’s treatment at school, or someone’s ability to work while wearing a religious symbol.

What can still stop a government that overrides rights?

An override is powerful, but Canadians still have ways to challenge it. Subscribe for free to read how workers and unions forced Ontario’s government to retreat, why the five-year limit offers less protection than it sounds, and the question we should put to every politician defending Section 33.

Subscribe now

A Factory, a Fee, and a Little Breathing Room

Three Canadian stories about protecting people, sharing the cost, and getting through the week.

Some weeks, the Canadian conversation feels like a competition to see who can make us angriest before breakfast. By the time we finish our coffee, somebody has declared the country broken, blamed Ottawa, and demanded that we panic immediately.

This week, let’s widen the view. We have a vaccine factory worth celebrating, a Danielle Smith proposal worth questioning, and a little extra help for Canadians staring down another grocery bill.

Three stories, with real people at the centre. Because behind every government announcement sits a question we should keep asking: What does this actually do for us?

Canada Learned the Lesson. Then Built the Factory.

Remember the early pandemic scramble? Canada could negotiate contracts and place orders, but we couldn’t simply manufacture all the vaccines we needed and distribute them ourselves.

When countries everywhere wanted the same thing at the same time, having money wasn’t the same as having control. We learned that lesson while waiting for deliveries that mattered to our health, our families, and our ability to leave the house.

On September 16, Sanofi inaugurated the Charles Best Building in Toronto, a $925-million vaccine manufacturing facility. Ottawa contributed $415 million, Ontario contributed $55 million, and Sanofi supplied the remaining investment.

The building is finished. Production is expected to begin in early 2027, subject to regulatory approval, for the 2027–28 flu season. That distinction matters: we’re celebrating a completed facility, while keeping its production timetable clear.

It will manufacture a high-dose influenza vaccine for adults 65 and older, and add industrial capacity to help Canada respond to a future flu pandemic. The expansion is also creating approximately 300 skilled jobs in advanced biomanufacturing. (Sanofi Canada)

Sanofi is French-owned. The factory, the jobs, and the manufacturing capacity are here, which is why we should examine what foreign investment actually builds inside Canada.

We shouldn’t pretend one facility makes us self-sufficient. But we can recognise progress when we see it, especially when it comes in the form of laboratories and production equipment rather than another artist’s sketch.

The building honours Charles Best, co-discoverer of insulin. That feels appropriate for a country with a proud medical history and plenty of unfinished work ahead.

Sovereignty takes more than a flag on a pickup truck. Sometimes, it takes a factory.

Danielle Smith’s Welcome Mat Comes With a Medical Bill

Now picture a worker who lives in Alberta, earns a paycheque, pays applicable taxes, and is still waiting for permanent immigration status. Under a proposal Danielle Smith wants Albertans to consider, that person could face an additional public health care charge.

Smith has floated $1,900 per person. The October 19 referendum asks whether people with non-permanent immigration status, and their families, should pay fees for health care and education. Canadian citizens and permanent residents would retain their existing eligibility under the proposal. (Alberta’s referendum questions)

This is a proposal, not an enacted surcharge. But a proposal says something about the government behind it, especially when it wants approval before explaining several important details.

Would people already living in Alberta have to pay? That remains undecided. Who would ultimately cover the charge? Smith has suggested businesses could take it on, while the Calgary Chamber of Commerce has voiced concerns about recruitment and added costs. (Reporting on Smith’s proposed fee)

Apparently, the welcome package may include a medical bill, with the fine print arriving sometime after the vote. That’s a hell of a way to ask for an informed decision.

There’s another detail worth remembering. In 2024, Smith asked Ottawa for 20,000 provincial nominee places annually, plus 10,000 additional places for Ukrainian evacuees. Her own letter stressed labour shortages in construction, technology, health care, and education. (Smith’s letter)

Those were requests for pathways to permanent residency, so they aren’t the same policy as admitting more temporary workers. Still, they sharpen the question: Why add costs for people your province wants to keep while they wait for a permanent pathway?

We’ll examine the government’s financial justification in a deeper article. For now, Albertans deserve clear answers before somebody asks them to approve the bill.

A Little More Breathing Room at the Grocery Checkout

Next, let’s talk about something useful for households trying to stretch a paycheque or pension. October 5 was the scheduled payment date for the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit.

If the name sounds unfamiliar, the program won’t. It replaced the GST/HST credit in July, with a 25% increase in benefit amounts for five years. Eligible people receive tax-free payments to help with everyday costs. (Canada Revenue Agency)

For the benefit year running from July 2026 through June 2027, a couple with two eligible children can receive up to $1,358, or $339.50 per quarter. A single adult without children can receive up to $679 annually. Actual amounts depend on income and family circumstances. (CRA payment amounts)

That won’t make a cart full of groceries cheap. But for a household doing the arithmetic before reaching the checkout, a few hundred dollars can help cover food, toiletries, and other essentials.

This week’s payment is part of the regular quarterly schedule. The separate one-time top-up began going out in June, so we shouldn’t confuse the two.

Here’s the practical part: file your taxes, even if you earned nothing. Most people don’t need a separate application; the CRA checks eligibility when it assesses their return. New Canadian residents may need to apply before filing their first return. (How to get the benefit)

Check “Benefits and credits” in your CRA account for your payment details. Your entitlement comes from your own circumstances, not from the maximum someone posted online.

And This Week’s Trophy Goes To… Peter Navarro

Peter Navarro takes our latest Dumbass of the Week Award for a performance that practically engraved its own trophy. Washington’s trade adviser attacked Canada for getting closer to China, then told Canadian lobbyists to “get the hell out” of the United States.

Apparently, Canada should neither find other customers nor defend its interests with its biggest trading partner. Just sit quietly, absorb the tariffs, and wait for permission to have an economy. Quite the neighbourly arrangement, Peter.

Our full article examines both outbursts and the double standards behind them. The award celebrates that special combination of bluster, hypocrisy, and spectacularly poor judgment that deserves a trophy with a rake underneath.

We’ll name one Dumbass of the Week every Saturday. Who should receive the next award? Reply to this email with your nominee, what they said or did, and a source we can check. Canada deserves better. Keep those nominations coming.

This article reflects information available on October 5, 2026. Government proposals, benefit rules, and production schedules can change.

Sources consulted

Sanofi Canada; Government of Alberta; Human Resources Director Canada; Canada Revenue Agency; Department of Finance Canada.

Why Everything Is So Expensive in Canada Despite GDP Growth

Canada’s growth figures are encouraging, while our budgets remain tight. Here’s how to make sense of both.

We open with an encouraging economic headline, then open the grocery bill. The country seems to be making progress. Our bank account seems less convinced.

That frustration deserves a proper explanation. We should be able to recognise economic gains and ask why they have not brought much breathing room to our household. Both reactions can be reasonable.

Our August economy report raised this question. Now let’s look more closely at what the headlines measure, what they miss, and how to judge whether growth is reaching our own lives.

What grew, exactly?

Gross domestic product, or GDP, measures the value of goods and services produced in an economy. “Real” GDP adjusts for price changes, so a larger dollar total caused solely by higher prices does not reflect more production.

In the second quarter of 2026, Canada’s real GDP rose 0.8% from the previous quarter. Real GDP per person rose 1.0%, partly because the population declined. These are quarterly changes, not yearly growth rates.

That is meaningful progress. It also rules out a convenient explanation for this particular quarter: we cannot say all the growth disappeared once population was taken into account. Output per person improved too.

But GDP per person is an average amount of production, not a payment deposited into each person’s account. It does not tell us whose wages rose, who found work, or whose housing bill swallowed the extra income.

The details of production matter. As our May GDP breakdown explored, different industries contribute to the national result. A stronger export business can benefit its workers and suppliers before households elsewhere notice much change.

Nor does one good quarter mean growth keeps arriving evenly. The latest monthly GDP release, published September 29, reported that July output was essentially unchanged. Progress can arrive in uneven steps.

More dollars can still buy less

When we ask whether we are better off, the size of our paycheque is only the beginning. We also need to know what it buys.

Statistics Canada’s August Labour Force Survey reported that average hourly employee wages rose 2.0% from a year earlier. Over the same August-to-August period, consumer prices rose 3.0%.

Adjusting that wage increase for inflation leaves average hourly pay buying about 1% less against the national basket. That is our calculation using the rounded published rates: divide 1.02 by 1.03, then subtract one.

This is an average, not a finding that every worker received the same real pay cut. The mix of employees can change, and an individual raise can be larger or smaller. The national price basket also differs from our own spending.

The same wage release reported just 1.1% growth for employees in the lowest hourly wage quartile. That makes the affordability question especially pressing for workers with little room to absorb higher costs.

Hourly pay still does not describe a whole household. Our position also depends on hours worked, another earner’s employment, taxes, benefits and other income. A respectable hourly raise can coexist with a smaller monthly paycheque if shifts disappear.

That is why we should ask about purchasing power and reliable income, rather than stopping at the announcement of a wage increase. The useful question is whether our income stretches further across the bills we actually pay.

Why is everything still so expensive in Canada?

Part of the answer is that inflation measures how quickly prices change. It does not tell us that earlier increases have been reversed.

If a bill rises from $100 to $120, then increases more slowly to $123, the slower increase helps. We still need $23 more than we did at the starting point. Getting back to $100 would require prices to fall.

The grocery figures make this concrete. Statistics Canada reported that store-bought food prices were 2.8% higher in August than a year earlier, and 29.0% higher than in August 2021.

Picture an indexed grocery basket costing $100 five years ago and $129 now. That illustrates the reported increase; it is not a prediction for every family’s cart. Substitutions, discounts, and different purchases change how much each household spends.

For relief, our income needs to catch up, some costs need to fall, or both. A smaller new price increase helps that process. It does not erase the accumulated gap we are still trying to close.

The latest overall inflation rate was 3.0%, unchanged from July. So even the description “inflation is falling” needs a date and a specific measure. A reassuring phrase can conceal very different developments across the things we buy.

When Does Growth Reach the Kitchen Table?

Two households can earn similar incomes and have very different amounts left after paying the bills. Beyond this point, we explore how a new lease, a mortgage renewal and national averages can hide the pressures behind an encouraging headline.

We’ll also look at what could turn economic growth into lasting relief, and four questions that help us judge whether households are actually getting ahead. Subscribe for free to The Sanity Project to keep reading and get beyond the headline.

Subscribe now

Quebec: Things Change, With a Check on Power

Quebec has elected a new government, and the central result is clear: the Parti Québécois will have to work with others. Voters gave it the largest caucus, but not a majority.

According to The Canadian Press, the PQ captured 59 seats, five short of the 64 needed for a majority. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon now faces the challenge of governing while other parties together hold more seats.

We can congratulate Quebecers for exercising their right to choose a new direction. We can also note that the result requires the incoming government to listen beyond its own benches, which is the key political change.

But before we declare the separation debate safely packed away, another number is worth knowing: nine. That is how many seats Québec solidaire won, and it also supports independence.

What Those Five Missing Seats Actually Mean

Here, we need to keep the champagne cork firmly attached to the bottle. A minority government makes the road to a referendum less straightforward, but it does not close that road.

Under Quebec’s Referendum Act, the National Assembly must approve the referendum question, or adopt legislation submitted to voters. The premier cannot simply announce a question and bypass that step.

With 59 seats, the PQ cannot guarantee approval on its own. It would need enough opposition support or abstentions to win the vote, depending on attendance and how members vote.

The 64-seat threshold tells us whether a party holds a majority of seats. It does not mean every parliamentary vote requires exactly 64 supporters, regardless of how many members participate.

The encouraging part is that the PQ must negotiate. The important point is that it has a potential negotiating partner that shares its central goal, which keeps the question alive.

Five Seats Short Doesn’t Mean the Door Is Closed

The PQ needs help, and Québec solidaire could supply it. But would they share power, strike a deal, or cooperate just long enough to put a referendum question before voters?

Subscribe for free to explore the three possible paths, the differences that could complicate a partnership, and what both leaders have already signalled. There’s room for optimism here, but the seat count tells only half the story.

Subscribe now

LNG Canada Phase 2: What Canada Could Gain From a $33-Billion Expansion

LNG Canada Phase 2 is a $33 billion private investment that could help Canada reach more customers. The project faces a crowded market, but it gives Canada a reason to compete.

Canada has spent plenty of time discussing what we could build, where we could sell it, and why we should rely less on one customer. This week, that conversation gained something concrete: a $33 billion investment decision.

On September 29, Ottawa welcomed LNG Canada’s decision to expand its export facility in Kitimat, British Columbia. The federal announcement describes the investment as private capital, making it a significant commitment from companies willing to back Canada’s export potential.

A reader raised a fair concern: what if the expansion opens just as the world faces a glut of liquefied natural gas? We should take that warning seriously, while remembering that tougher competition does not erase the case for this project.

There is good news here, with conditions attached. We can welcome the investment, examine the market, and expect strong environmental standards without losing sight of the main point: this project matters.

What LNG Canada Phase 2 Actually Builds

LNG is natural gas chilled into a liquid so it can be shipped. With that basic definition in place, the practical significance for Canada is clear: it provides another way to deliver our gas to customers overseas.

Phase 2 adds two processing units, called trains, and doubles this facility’s annual production capacity from 14 million to 28 million tonnes. Shell expects commercial operations to begin in the early 2030s.

That is a major expansion, but capacity is what a facility can produce, not a guarantee of what it will sell. So doubling LNG Canada’s capacity also does not mean doubling every Canadian LNG export from every terminal.

The expansion builds on an existing site and infrastructure designed for further development. LNG Canada’s announcement also describes five new compressor stations to increase capacity along the existing Coastal GasLink pipeline, rather than constructing an entirely new pipeline route.

Who Is Putting Up the Money?

Shell goes further than announcing approval. It says the expansion is projected to produce double-digit investment returns and clear its internal investment threshold. That is Shell’s forecast, with all the uncertainty it entails, but it gives us a concrete commercial case to assess as we move from approval to financing.

We should not treat a corporate forecast as a guarantee. Equally, we should not assume the people committing capital have somehow failed to notice that other countries are building LNG terminals too.

Ottawa’s announcement indicates support from the Major Projects Office following a referral in September 2025. Governments can help projects advance through coordinated decisions, even when companies supply the headline capital.

Private financing does not answer every question about public support. Tax measures, infrastructure commitments and any guarantees still deserve examination on their own terms.

As we explored in what foreign investment really means for Canada, capital arriving from overseas can help build productive assets here. From there, the useful questions concern where the work happens, what Canadians gain, and the terms governing the investment.

The Benefits Reach Beyond the Terminal

LNG Canada forecasts up to 4,000 construction jobs in Kitimat, including approximately 2,100 for compressor-station work. Those are separate estimates, so we should avoid presenting them as a guaranteed combined peak.

For households, construction work means wages. For communities, it can mean business for suppliers, contractors, and service providers, though the extent to which it stays local depends on procurement and hiring decisions.

The company also expects roughly 90 additional full-time roles and 150 contractor positions once the expansion is operating. That is a smaller continuing workforce than the construction numbers, a distinction worth making clear.

LNG Canada estimates Phase 2 could generate more than $50 billion in lifetime government revenues associated with the project. That is a projection, not money already available for a hospital budget, and its value depends on the project’s performance.

This fits into the broader picture we examined in the 20 biggest projects Canada wants to build. The opportunity is to turn this investment into useful work and operating businesses, and then ensure the benefits reach Canadians.

Five First Nations Have an Ownership Opportunity

One of the most promising parts of this story concerns five neighbouring Nations: Gitga’at, Gitxaała, Haisla, Kitselas and Kitsumkalum. Through MNT Investments LP, they can invest up to $1 billion for majority ownership of an entity that would own the new storage tank, creating a direct ownership path.

Under the agreement announced in July, the tank would be leased back to LNG Canada for the project’s operating life, while the Nations’ entity would own it. LNG Canada would continue to operate and maintain it.

That creates a route to ownership and income from a specific piece of infrastructure. More precisely, it is an ownership option for the tank entity, rather than a full purchase of the terminal.

The financing and lease terms will determine the financial benefits and risks. But the opportunity itself deserves attention, because ownership gives participating Nations a different economic relationship with the development.

Canada’s Pacific Location Has Value

In his September 29 remarks, Carney put the voyage to Asian markets at eight to ten days, less than half the duration of the comparable journey from the U.S. Gulf Coast. The comparison depends on the destination, but the geographic advantage is clear, and it leads directly to the question of competitiveness.

We assess that shorter voyages can help Canada’s competitive position. They will not make us the cheapest supplier in every market, but they strengthen the case for building this route to customers.

Still, having another route to customers gives Canada more choices. A trading country should welcome that flexibility, as long as the business can deliver competitively.

A Bigger Opportunity Deserves a Closer Look

Canada’s expansion comes with advantages, but what happens if the global LNG market gets crowded? Subscribe for free to explore why this investment still matters, what could challenge it, and the signs that will tell us whether it is delivering.

Could Canada Come Out Ahead Even in an LNG Glut?

A crowded market could squeeze profits. But it could also make Canada’s advantages matter more, especially when buyers can choose whom they trust with their energy supply.

In the second half, we examine what could give Canada an edge, why the forecasts point in different directions, and the three signs that will reveal whether this investment is delivering. The glut warning deserves attention, but there’s more to Canada’s opportunity than that headline suggests.

Subscribe for free to read the rest and see how this investment could turn into lasting Canadian prosperity.

Subscribe now

Canada’s 2025 Crime Statistics Challenge the Panic

Canada’s latest annual crime figures contain something that deserves far more attention: improvement. The overall police-reported crime rate fell in 2025, and the measure that gives greater weight to serious offences fell too.

That creates a problem for a familiar strand of right-wing outrage: presenting frightening crime stories as evidence that the entire country keeps getting worse. A disturbing incident can establish that something terrible happened. Establishing a national trend takes more work.

We can take crime seriously and demand evidence for claims about Canada. The word “wave” should be accompanied by a timeframe, a location, and numbers. Otherwise, it describes the mood of the commentary more clearly than the direction of crime.

The Numbers Interrupt the Narrative

Statistics Canada’s July 22 release reports four clear improvements between 2024 and 2025:

The Crime Severity Index combines the frequency and relative seriousness of police-reported offences, giving more serious crimes greater weight. Its decline was the second consecutive annual decrease.

These are national annual measures. They establish a recent improvement in the measures listed, rather than a verdict on every neighbourhood or a running count of events in 2026.

There is no need to dress that finding in party colours. Readers can check the national figures themselves. The argument stands on published evidence, without a politician supplying the punchline.

For people concerned about stolen cars and break-ins, those directions matter. Public discussion should allow room for both results and alarm. An improvement does not become irrelevant because it makes a dramatic political argument less convenient.

A claim about worsening crime has to explain improving crime measures. It cannot simply substitute another frightening headline and expect us to forget the question.

A Headline Is a Starting Point

Imagine opening a report about a serious offence in your community. Concern would be a reasonable response, and wanting answers would be reasonable too. But that report alone cannot tell us whether similar offences are becoming more frequent nationally.

That requires a comparison: the same measure, the same geographical area, and a stated period. Without those ingredients, we are being asked to move from one event to a conclusion about an entire country.

We examined that leap in our wider look at whether Canada is really broken. Here, the test is narrower: does a story of relentlessly worsening crime account for the latest annual evidence of improvement?

Keep the Facts. Lose the Panic.

Subscribe for free to continue. Below, we give you three questions that put sweeping claims about crime to the test, and a concise response you can use when the next alarming headline becomes an argument about Canada.

Mary Ann Shadd Cary turned the printing press into a weapon for freedom. In 1853, she founded The Provincial Freeman in Canada West, becoming the first Black woman in North America to publish a newspaper.

Mary Ann Shadd Cary: The Woman Who Fought Lies With a Printing Press

In 1848, Frederick Douglass asked readers of his newspaper a question: what, exactly, should Black Americans do to improve their situation?

A 25-year-old teacher from Delaware wrote back. She had watched conventions come and go, heard the speeches and read the resolutions condemning slavery and demanding equality. She wasn’t especially impressed with all the talking.

Her response could almost serve as a motto for anyone frustrated by politics today: “We should do more and talk less.” Her 1849 letter was published in Douglass’s North Star, a remarkable early glimpse of the philosophy she would spend the rest of her life putting into practice. Library of Congress: Mary Ann Shadd Cary

Her name was Mary Ann Shadd, and for the next four decades she did her best to live by those words. She taught children, challenged segregation, published a newspaper, recruited Black soldiers during the American Civil War and, at 60, earned a law degree.

Some of her most important work happened here, in what is now Ontario. It began because the country where she was born decided that even reaching a free state might no longer keep you safe.

Key Takeaways

• Mary Ann Shadd Cary moved to Canada West in 1851 after America’s Fugitive Slave Act made life more dangerous for freedom seekers and the people who helped them.

• In Windsor, she established a racially integrated school and challenged the idea that Black Canadians should accept segregated institutions.

• In 1853, she founded The Provincial Freeman, becoming the first Black woman in North America to publish a newspaper.

• Her newspaper promoted abolition, education, self-reliance and Black emigration to Canada while confronting racism and discrimination inside Canada itself.

• She became naturalised in Canada West in 1862.

• Her archives are now part of Canada’s Memory of the World Register, recognised as documentary heritage of national significance.

The Law That Changed Everything

Mary Ann Camberton Shadd was born free in Wilmington, Delaware, on October 9, 1823. That word, free, needs some context because Delaware was a slave state.

Her parents, Abraham and Harriet Shadd, were free Black abolitionists, and their home was a station on the Underground Railroad. They helped people escaping slavery, so Mary Ann grew up with the issue quite literally at her doorstep. Parks Canada: Mary Ann Shadd

Educational opportunities for Black children were severely restricted in Delaware. Shadd was educated in Pennsylvania and eventually became a teacher herself, beginning a career in education that would follow her for much of her life.

Then, in 1850, Washington changed the rules.

The United States Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act, strengthening the machinery used to capture people who had escaped slavery and return them to enslavers. It also imposed serious penalties on people who helped them.

The most frightening part was that reaching a free state no longer guaranteed safety. For families like the Shadds, this wasn’t an abstract argument taking place in Washington. It changed the calculation of where freedom might actually exist.

Thousands of Black Americans began looking north, and Mary Ann Shadd did too. In 1851, she crossed into Canada West, the British colony that would later become Ontario, and settled in Windsor. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography records both her arrival and the extraordinary decade of activism that followed. Dictionary of Canadian Biography: Mary Ann Shadd Cary.

She had found greater legal freedom. Now she wanted to see what she could build with it.

Her First Canadian Fight

One of the first things Shadd did in Windsor was open a school, but not the kind some people expected. Her school was integrated, with Black and white children learning together. U.S. National Park Service: Learning from Mary Ann Shadd Cary

That distinction mattered because segregation existed in Canada too. This is where the comfortable version of Canadian history needs a little adjustment.

Canada offered Black Americans something enormously important. Slavery had been abolished throughout most of the British Empire in 1834, and people escaping American slavery could find legal freedom here. But freedom from slavery did not mean freedom from racism.

Black Canadians still encountered discrimination in employment, housing, public life and education. Separate schools existed in parts of Canada West, and Shadd wanted no part of the argument that segregation was an acceptable price for safety.

She believed Black settlers should participate fully in Canadian society. That put her into conflict with white Canadians who opposed integration, but also with some Black abolitionists who believed separate institutions offered Black communities greater independence and protection.

Shadd was never particularly frightened by disagreement.

Canada Wasn’t Just an Escape Route

In 1852, Shadd published A Plea for Emigration; or Notes of Canada West. It was an unusual combination of information guide, political argument and recruitment brochure.

She wanted Black Americans to know that Canada offered possibilities the United States increasingly did not. People could work, educate their children, own property, establish businesses and build communities without living under the institution of slavery.

A larger argument underpinned the practical advice. Every successful Black family in Canada West was evidence against the racist claim that Black people were incapable of independence.

Not everyone agreed with Shadd’s solution. Some Black American leaders opposed emigration because they believed leaving the United States meant surrendering their claim to equality in the country of their birth.

Others favoured separate Black settlements where refugees could build their own institutions. Shadd rejected that approach as well. She believed integration and self-reliance offered a better path.

Yet A Plea for Emigration had an obvious limitation: it was a pamphlet. Shadd wanted something that could answer critics regularly, report what was actually happening in Black communities and document the lives people were building.

She needed a newspaper.

The Provincial Freeman

On March 24, 1853, the first issue of The Provincial Freeman appeared. Fourteen years before Confederation, a Black woman was building an anti-slavery newspaper in Canada.

Eventually published in Windsor, Toronto, and Chatham, the paper promoted abolition, education, and self-reliance while encouraging Black emigration to Canada. Its motto made the philosophy pretty clear: “Self-Reliance is the True Road to Independence.” Digitised issues survive today in the Canadiana collection. Read The Provincial Freeman in Canadiana

The newspaper also reported something central to Shadd’s argument. Black people were succeeding in freedom.

That mattered because the fight over slavery was also a fight over information. Supporters of slavery had devoted generations to manufacturing arguments that Black people were incapable of independence and required white control.

Shadd had an answer that was difficult to dismiss because she could point to actual people. Black families were establishing homes, businesses, schools and communities across Canada West. The evidence was happening around her, and The Provincial Freeman gave her a way to publish it.

There was just one problem. In 1853, even many people sympathetic to abolition weren’t quite ready to take instructions from a Black woman.

So the woman running the newspaper couldn’t put her own name on it at first.

🔒 She Made It to Canada. That’s Where the Story Really Starts.

By this point, Mary Ann Shadd had already done more than most people accomplish in a lifetime.

She had watched American law make freedom less secure, crossed into Canada, opened an integrated school, challenged segregation and created a newspaper to prove that Black families could build successful lives in freedom.

And she was barely 30.

What happened next is even more remarkable.

Behind the free subscriber gate: the woman secretly running her own newspaper, her refusal to give Canada a free pass on racism, the wonderfully familiar problem of subscribers who wouldn’t pay, her return to America during the Civil War, a law degree at 60, and the fight for women’s voting rights that occupied the final decades of her life.

And there is one more Canadian detail that changes how we should remember her.

Subscribe for free to read the full story of Mary Ann Shadd Cary.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Why Peter Navarro Is Our Dumbass of the Week

Congratulations to Peter Navarro, White House trade adviser and this week’s recipient of The Sanity Project’s Dumbass of the Week Award.

Competition was stiff. But Peter understood the assignment. Why say one ridiculous thing about Canada when you can squeeze two into the same week?

Reason #1: Canada Is Apparently Sleeping With China

Navarro took aim at Canada for getting too cosy with Beijing, portraying Canadian engagement with China as a threat, while Washington itself continues to negotiate with Beijing.

This is apparently diplomacy according to Peter Navarro: when America talks to China, it’s strategy. When Canada talks to China, we’re “getting in bed” with Beijing.

Perhaps Canada is supposed to sit quietly on the edge of the bed until Washington tells us whom we’re allowed to trade with.

There is, however, a small problem.

Canada has spent decades overwhelmingly dependent on the American market. Now, after Washington repeatedly weaponised that dependence through tariffs and trade restrictions, Canada is trying to diversify.

And Navarro is upset about it.

That’s a bit like setting your neighbour’s house on fire and then getting offended when he starts pricing fire extinguishers.

Reason #2: Stop Interfering With Our Elections!

Then Peter really got rolling.

Speaking in Washington, Navarro told Canadian lobbyists to “get the hell out of our country.” He compared Canada economically to a rowboat facing an American aircraft carrier and warned that if Canada interfered in elections in Maine or Michigan, we would “pay even more dearly.”

Apparently, Canadian lobbying and trade retaliation now qualify as election interference.

This lecture might carry slightly more weight if the Trump administration hadn’t recently sent Vice President JD (Couch-Boy) Vance to Hungary five days before its national election to campaign for Viktor Orbán.

Vance appeared at an Orbán rally, announced that he wanted to help him win, and then put Donald Trump on speakerphone so the president could praise Orbán to thousands of supporters.

But Canada is talking to American politicians?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Election interference!

Apparently foreign election involvement is unacceptable unless you fly there, climb onto the campaign stage and bring the President along by speakerphone.

So congratulations, Peter.

For complaining that Canada is finding other trading partners while simultaneously complaining that Canada is defending itself in Washington, you’ve earned this week’s trophy.

And Peter, that rumbling noise you’re hearing from north of the border?

That’s millions of Canadian hosers politely inviting you to get stuffed.

Enjoy the trophy, Peter.

And watch where you step.

There’s a rake underneath it.