A country of roughly 102 million people could help Canada widen its trade options. The test is whether agreements become sales, projects and stronger ties.

If you picture Vietnam as a small market on the other side of the world, you may want to update the picture. Its population is projected at 102.3 million in 2026, more than twice Canada’s. And Canadian businesses already trade with it every day.

This week, Vietnam’s President and Communist Party General Secretary Tô Lâm visited Ottawa. He and Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a Canada–Vietnam Strategic Partnership. The name sounds like something assembled by a committee, but the question behind it is simple: Can Vietnam help Canada build more choices beyond the United States?

There is a good reason to ask. In 2025, 71.7% of Canada’s merchandise exports went to the U.S. That share is down from 75.9% in 2024, yet the American market still dominates our export economy. A country with 102 million people and a growing industrial base deserves our attention. It cannot replace the U.S., but it can become one of many stronger alternatives.

The number that changes the story

Canada and Vietnam traded C$20.6 billion in goods in 2025. That sounds like an even partnership until you look closer: Canada sold Vietnam C$1.3 billion in goods and bought C$19.3 billion from it. Vietnam is already Canada’s largest merchandise trading partner in Southeast Asia’s ASEAN group, but most of those goods are travelling in one direction.

That gap is not proof trade has hurt Canada. Canadians buy Vietnamese electronics, clothing, furniture and footwear. It does show how much work Canadian exporters have to do in a market we already know.

The new partnership covers eight areas, including trade, transportation, technology, energy, food, defence and education. Canada and Vietnam also signed or renewed four cooperation agreements on energy, maritime transport, the environment, and food safety. Those are useful steps. They are not purchase orders. Foreign ministers must now develop an action plan to turn the partnership’s goals into work.

Start with what Vietnam already buys

The strongest immediate case is food and farming. Vietnam imported C$47.2 billion in agri-food and seafood products in 2024, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Canada supplied about C$571 million, or just 1.2% of that market, ranking 17th among suppliers. Canada separately recorded C$549.9 million in exports to Vietnam; import and export records use different reporting methods.

We already have evidence of demand. Canada’s 2024 exports included C$163.1 million in wheat, C$86.3 million in soybeans, C$72.1 million in frozen boneless beef and C$42.5 million in frozen crab. These are actual sales, not products someone added to an aspirational list. Vietnam buys from large competitors, including Brazil, Argentina and the U.S., so Canadian producers have a market to pursue and rivals to beat.

There is a Prairie angle, too. The department records C$35 million in Manitoba agri-food and seafood exports to Vietnam in 2024, plus C$69.2 million from Saskatchewan and C$164.7 million from Alberta. Provincial figures depend on recorded shipment origins, but this relationship already extends to farms and businesses close to home.

The leaders have established a Canada–Vietnam Agriculture Dialogue and renewed an agreement between the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and its Vietnamese counterpart. That work focuses on food safety and the rules governing whether farm and seafood products can enter the market. It may sound dry, but an exporter cannot sell what cannot clear the border.

Energy offers promise, and hard choices

Vietnam also needs reliable power as its industries grow. The partnership names Canadian cooperation on liquefied natural gas, renewable energy, hydrogen, carbon management and possible civilian nuclear work. For Canadian companies, that could mean selling fuel, expertise, equipment or services. Today, though, these are areas for cooperation, not announced contracts.

There is an honest climate question here. A Canadian LNG sale might help meet demand, but its climate impact would depend on which fuel it displaces, methane leaks, and how long the project keeps gas in use. The agreement also gives Canada a chance to help build lower-carbon power. The World Bank says Vietnam’s updated power plan aims to add significant solar and wind capacity by 2030 and points to the need for grid investment and better regulations to make that possible.

We should judge the energy component of this partnership by the projects built and the emissions reduced, not by how many technologies appear in a joint statement. Canadian engineering, clean technology and finance may ultimately matter as much as any shipment of fuel.

A flight agreement is a doorway

One practical change was announced in aviation. The expanded air agreement permits direct flights between Canada and Vietnam, allowing each country up to 14 passenger flights per week and 7 dedicated cargo flights. It also gives cargo airlines more flexibility to serve other countries on a route linked to their home country.

Permission is only the first step. An airline still has to decide to operate a route. If service does begin, it could help business travel, tourism and time-sensitive shipments. It would also make visits easier for families among the roughly 275,000 Vietnamese Canadians. Cargo space may be better suited to higher-value goods, although bulk wheat will continue to move by sea.

This is what diversification looks like. A trade agreement sets rules. Food inspection clears obstacles. Financing helps a firm enter a new market. A transport link moves people and products. Together, they make commerce possible.

Why this is bigger than one visit

Canada and Vietnam are already members of the CPTPP, a Pacific trade agreement that provides businesses with a framework for selling and investing across member countries. Export Development Canada has a presence in Vietnam and has identified opportunities in infrastructure, clean technology, agriculture and advanced manufacturing. It has also partnered with a Vietnamese investment firm to explore projects in sectors such as energy, infrastructure and health care.

The two leaders want Canada and ASEAN to complete negotiations on a broader free trade agreement. That deal has not been concluded. Ottawa estimates a future ASEAN agreement could add nearly C$2 billion to Canada’s GDP and almost 14,000 jobs, but those are projections for an agreement covering the whole region. They are not jobs created by this week’s Canada–Vietnam announcement.

Vietnam can also help Canada form supply chains that rely less heavily on any one country. That does not mean every Canadian factory can move its work there, or that a Vietnamese supplier is automatically the right choice. It means Canadian businesses may gain another option when political shocks or trade barriers disrupt their usual routes.

A partner, with differences we should name

Vietnam’s government is not a Canadian-style democracy. Human Rights Watch reports that authorities restrict political dissent and do not allow independent unions to represent workers. The joint statement promises support for internationally recognised labour rights. Canada should keep raising those rights as it pursues trade, and should measure progress by what happens to workers, not only by what appears in diplomatic language.

There are business hurdles as well. Export Development Canada warns of bureaucracy, corruption, infrastructure gaps and the influence of state-owned firms. Canadian exporters face established competitors and a long journey across the Pacific. None of this makes the market unimportant. It means a handshake in Ottawa is the beginning of the work.

The test for Canada

Here is what I will watch over the next few years: Do Canadian exports to Vietnam rise beyond C$1.3 billion? Do Prairie food producers gain dependable customers? Do the energy talks produce worthwhile projects, especially ones that support cleaner power? Does an airline actually start direct service? And does Ottawa continue to press for labour rights while building the relationship?

Vietnam’s population makes the opportunity feel large. Its purchases from Canada show how early we still are. The strategic partnership matters because it could help close that gap, one customer, project and practical agreement at a time.

Canada will not find another United States. We can build strong enough relationships so that the United States has less power to decide our economic future. Vietnam may become an important part of that work. Now comes the part that counts: making it real.

Is Canada Really Broken? Four Claims Meet the Facts

Spend enough time online, and you can get a pretty bleak impression of this country. Canada is broken. Canadians are among the most heavily taxed people in the world. Crime has never been worse. The CPP won’t be there when you retire. We don’t make anything anymore, and apparently we can’t sell anything unless an American buys it.

You’ve probably heard some version of all of them. And here’s the thing: statements like these don’t necessarily begin with something completely invented.

Canada does have issues. Housing affordability is one. Healthcare systems are under pressure. Productivity deserves attention. Governments waste money. Crime matters, particularly if you or someone you love becomes a victim. Pretending otherwise wouldn’t make this a Reality Check. It would make it a brochure.

But somewhere between identifying an issue and sharing it for the thousandth time on social media, something happens. An issue becomes a crisis, a trend becomes a catastrophe, and eventually a complicated country of more than 40 million people gets reduced to two words: Canada’s broken.

I wanted to know how well some of these claims survived when we stopped arguing about them and simply checked the numbers. That little exercise eventually became The Canadian Reality Check, an illustrated guide examining 11 claims Canadians regularly encounter online and elsewhere.

For this article, I’ve pulled out four of the ones I found most interesting. And I’ll admit that at least one of the answers surprised me.

1) “Canadians Are Among the World’s Most Heavily Taxed”

I suspect this is one of those statements many Canadians accept almost instinctively. Taxes are high. Everybody knows that.

Except international tax comparisons are considerably more complicated than that.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, better known as the OECD, is an international organisation of 38 member countries that produces standardised economic data so countries can be compared using the same methodology. One of its measures is the tax wedge, which captures personal income tax plus employee and employer social contributions, minus applicable family benefits, as a percentage of the total cost of employing someone. OECD

For a single person earning the average wage in 2025, Canada’s tax wedge was 32.1 per cent. The OECD average was 35.1 per cent, while the United States came in at 30.0 per cent.

Here’s the part that caught my attention: Canada had the 12th-lowest tax wedge among all 38 OECD countries. Not the 12th highest. The 12th lowest. OECD

Now comes the important qualification, because I don’t want to replace one misleading statement with another. This does not mean Canada has the 12th-lowest overall taxes in the OECD. The tax wedge doesn’t capture all the taxes Canadians pay, including sales and property taxes. For Canada, the OECD calculation includes federal and provincial income taxes, using Ontario as the representative province, as well as employee and employer social contributions.

So I’m not arguing that Canada is a low-tax country. I’m saying something narrower and much more defensible: on one of the OECD’s standardised measures of labour taxation, the average Canadian single worker is nowhere near the most heavily taxed among OECD countries.

That’s quite different from what we’ve been hearing.

2) “Canadians Have Never Been Less Safe”

Crime is an emotional subject, as it should be. Statistics mean very little to someone whose home has just been broken into or whose family has been affected by violence. But the claim we’re examining isn’t that Canada has crime, or even that some forms of crime have increased. It’s the much broader suggestion that Canadians have never been less safe.

Fortunately, we have decades of Canadian data against which to test that idea.

In 1975, Canada’s homicide rate was 3.02 per 100,000 people. In 2025, according to Statistics Canada, it was 1.61. That’s roughly 47 per cent lower. Statistics Canada recorded 672 homicides in 2025, 125 fewer than the year before, with the national homicide rate falling 16 per cent in a single year. Statistics Canada

And once again, context matters. Statistics Canada also reports that the overall police-reported violent-crime rate in 2025 was 35 per cent higher than in 2015. The rate was essentially unchanged between 2024 and 2025, but there is no question that violent crime increased substantially from the relatively low levels Canada experienced a decade ago. Statistics Canada

Both things can be true at the same time. Canada has experienced a meaningful increase in violent crime compared with a decade ago, and Canada’s homicide rate can still be dramatically lower than it was 50 years ago.

That’s why I think the wording matters. The claim that “Violent crime has increased from the lows of a decade ago” is supported by the evidence. Saying Canadians have never been less safe is much harder to square with the historical record.

3) “The CPP Won’t Be There When I Retire”

I’ve heard variations of this one for years, particularly from younger Canadians. Why bother paying into CPP? By the time I retire, all the money will be gone anyway.

There’s just one problem. The people whose job it is to actually calculate this stuff aren’t seeing the same thing.

Canada’s Chief Actuary recently completed the 32nd Actuarial Report on the Canada Pension Plan, based on the plan’s financial position at the end of 2024. The base CPP held $651 billion in assets at that point. Those assets are projected to reach $963 billion by 2030 and approximately $2.9 trillion by 2050. OSFI

The more important number, however, isn’t the enormous pile of money. It’s the contribution rate required to sustain the plan.

The current statutory contribution rate for the base CPP is 9.9 per cent. The Chief Actuary calculated a minimum contribution rate of 9.21 per cent from 2028 through 2033 and 9.19 per cent from 2034 onward. Under the report’s assumptions, the current legislated rate is therefore above the minimum required to sustain the base plan, with projections extending to 2100. OSFI

That doesn’t mean anyone can guarantee what Parliament will do 30, 50 or 70 years from now. Governments can change laws, economic conditions change, and actuarial projections depend upon assumptions about everything from wages and demographics to investment returns.

But that’s a very different conversation from the one about the CPP running out of money. Under the Chief Actuary’s current projections, assets continue to grow, and the legislated contribution rate remains above the minimum required for the base plan.

Apparently, nobody told the CPP that it’s supposed to be disappearing.

4) “Canada Doesn’t Make Anything Anymore”

This one might be my favourite because it’s so easy to say, even when surrounded by evidence to the contrary.

There is a serious conversation to be had about Canadian manufacturing. We’ve lost factories. Global supply chains have changed. Competition is intense. U.S. tariffs have created new challenges, and some Canadian industries are facing difficult transitions. But somewhere along the way, “Canadian manufacturing faces serious challenges” became “Canada doesn’t make anything anymore.”

Let’s start with cars.

According to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Stellantis and Toyota assembled more than 1.31 million light-duty vehicles in Canadian plants in 2024. The industry is supported by nearly 700 automotive parts suppliers, while Canada also produces medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, buses and specialised vehicles.

Then there’s aerospace. Canada’s aerospace sector contributed close to $34 billion to the economy in 2024 and supported more than 225,000 jobs, according to ISED. ISED Canada

And those are just two industries.

Canada still makes things. The much more interesting question is whether we’re making enough of them, whether we’re keeping enough of the processing and value-added work here, and what needs to happen for Canadian manufacturers to become more competitive.

That’s a discussion worth having. Declaring that we don’t make anything saves considerably more time, but it doesn’t help much.

And Those Are Only Four

Those four Reality Checks are part of a much larger exercise. I looked at 11 common claims about Canada, including whether Canada is drowning in debt, whether the federal bureaucracy really consumes the lion’s share of government spending, whether Canada can sell anything without the United States, and whether our economy is basically just oil.

Some of the claims became difficult to defend once I started digging into the numbers. Others contained considerably more truth than I expected and required important qualifications. A few sent me back to the research because the answer depended entirely on which measurement was being used.

And that’s really the point.

I didn’t set out to create a pamphlet explaining why everything in Canada is wonderful. It isn’t. I wanted to know what happened when we took statements we’ve heard hundreds of times and forced them to sit quietly beside the actual numbers for a few minutes.

The result became The Canadian Reality Check, a free illustrated guide containing all 11 claims, the numbers behind them, the context that matters and the sources so you don’t have to take my word for any of it.

Click the image above to access the free Canadian Reality Check.

Issues Deserve Facts Too

Canada has issues. Housing affordability is serious. Healthcare systems are under strain. Productivity matters. Governments make bad decisions and public money gets wasted. Crime deserves attention, and industries employing thousands of Canadians face enormous competitive pressure.

We should talk about those things. In fact, we need to talk about them, because pretending they don’t exist would be every bit as misleading as exaggerating them.

But we don’t improve those conversations by turning every setback into evidence of national collapse. And we certainly don’t improve them by repeating something so many times that repetition itself becomes the evidence.

Perhaps that’s one of the stranger things about the way we talk about Canada today. Acknowledging that the country has strengths can sometimes sound suspiciously like you’re ignoring its weaknesses, while declaring the entire place “broken” can pass for serious analysis without anyone stopping to ask what, precisely, that means.

I don’t think either optimism or pessimism deserves a free pass. Both should have to survive contact with the evidence.

Canada has issues. Some of them are serious. But before we decide the country is broken, perhaps we should check the numbers.

Same Country. A Clearer Conversation.

When Should Ottawa End a Strike?

Bill C-39 offers a better process for major labour disputes. It still needs a clearer definition of “national interest.”

A strike is supposed to be uncomfortable. That is not a flaw in the system. It is the leverage workers have when talks fail.

But Canada also has industries where a dispute can spread far beyond the people at the bargaining table. A grocery-store strike is serious for workers, customers and the company. A rail, port or airline strike can stop grain shipments, delay medicine, strand travellers and hit businesses across the country.

That is where this debate becomes difficult. Workers have a right to strike. The public also has a right not to become collateral damage in a labour dispute it did not create.

Bill C-39 tries to draw that line. It does not get everything right, but it is a better starting point than the law Canada has now.

Section 107 Was Already a Problem

Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code gives the federal labour minister broad power to act during labour disputes in federally regulated industries. The minister can refer questions to the Canada Industrial Relations Board and direct it to take steps meant to maintain industrial peace.

That language is broad enough to drive a truck through. And in Canada, trucks often carry something important.

In practice, Section 107 has been used to end strikes or lockouts by directing work to resume, extending a collective agreement, or imposing binding arbitration. The government used it once in 2023, eight times in 2024 and once in 2025. Those cases included major rail, port, postal and airline disputes.

That sharp rise is why unions are worried. A legal strike has value only if it creates real pressure on an employer. If Ottawa steps in whenever a strike becomes economically painful, workers can lose that leverage at the very moment it matters most.

The government’s answer is simple: negotiated deals are always better, but some disputes can hurt the country far beyond the two sides involved. That is also true.

The problem is that the old Section 107 did not clearly define where the line should be drawn

What Bill C-39 Would Change

Bill C-39 is a proposal, not law yet. It would amend Section 107 to require a more formal process before Ottawa could exercise its strongest intervention powers.

First, the minister would have to consider a report from a special mediator. That mediator could be appointed late in the conciliation process to work with both sides for a defined period and report on the remaining issues, the parties’ positions and the chances of a settlement.

Second, the minister would have to form the opinion that a legal strike or lockout is harming, or may harm, the national interest. Only then could the minister direct the labour board to order work to resume, temporarily extend the old agreement, or impose a binding method for resolving the dispute.

That is an improvement. It replaces a vague, open-ended power with a clearer sequence. It also puts more information on the public record.

But it is not a complete answer. “National interest” remains a very large phrase. Almost any major transportation strike has an economic impact. That cannot be enough on its own.

A strike is meant to have consequences. If it had none, it would be little more than a strongly worded group vacation.

Canada Is One Economic System

Canada is a big country with a surprisingly small number of key trade routes. Railways, ports, airports and border crossings are not isolated businesses. They are part of one national system.

When a rail line stops, grain may not reach port. When a port shuts down, manufacturers may not receive the parts they need. When flights are cancelled, people can miss medical appointments, family events, or connecting flights to places where winter is warmer and more tolerable.

That does not mean every disruption requires Ottawa to act. It means the government must show that the harm goes well beyond inconvenience or lost profits.

Bill C-39 also includes useful worker protections. It would expand successor rights in certain airport and air-transport contract changes, support earlier bargaining in high-risk disputes, require post-dispute relationship-building, and create authority for future penalties for bad-faith bargaining.

The government has also announced related work on wage theft, misclassification and workplace safety. Those are welcome steps, but they should not all be described as measures contained directly in Bill C-39.

The Union Argument Is Stronger Than It Sounds

The union concern is not that every strike should be free from public consequences. The stronger argument is that workers lose their bargaining power if the government routinely steps in once a strike begins to hurt.

That concern is real.

If an employer believes Ottawa will rescue it after a few difficult days, it has less reason to make a serious offer before the strike begins. The same danger exists if either side treats bargaining as a waiting room for government intervention.

Bill C-39 partly addresses that problem. It would allow future regulations to create administrative monetary penalties for failures to meet specific bargaining duties. Those penalties could apply to employers, unions or individuals.

But deliberately waiting for Ottawa to intervene is not automatically an offence under the bill. It could, however, become evidence of bad-faith bargaining. That judgment should be based on facts and made through the labour-relations system, not by a minister simply deciding who the villain is.

The Right to Strike Still Matters

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognised that the right to strike is part of meaningful collective bargaining. That does not mean the right has no limits. It does mean governments should be careful before taking it away.

Binding arbitration can settle a dispute. It can also change the balance of power.

Once arbitration replaces a strike, the employer no longer faces the same pressure to bargain. Workers lose the ability to withhold their labour. A neutral process may produce a fair result, but it is not the same as a freely negotiated deal.

That is why government intervention should be a last resort, not a standard operating procedure for any nationally visible dispute.

Where I Draw the Line

Ottawa should be able to intervene in a legal strike only when the public harm is serious and clear, and cannot reasonably be reduced in another way.

That should mean four things.

• The strike or lockout must be legal.

• Both sides must have made a genuine effort to bargain.

• The government should publish the evidence showing serious harm beyond the parties.

• Ottawa should show that practical alternatives, such as rerouting, partial service or emergency planning, cannot protect the public.

The minister should also provide written reasons. Canadians should be able to see why the government acted, what evidence it relied on and why it believed a lesser step would not work.

That would not satisfy everyone. Unions will still worry that “national interest” can become a political escape hatch. Employers will still argue that Canada cannot afford to let major trade routes shut down.

Both concerns are understandable. But neither should be allowed to settle the question on its own.

The Better Balance

Bill C-39 moves Canada in the right direction because it adds a process where there was too much discretion. It recognises that a major strike can cause real harm outside the workplace.

But the bill should go further. It should define a higher threshold for intervention and require more transparency before Ottawa takes away the strongest tool workers have.

The right to strike is not a blank cheque. Neither is ministerial power.

Canada needs a system that protects workers’ ability to bargain, protects the public from serious harm, and forces governments to explain themselves when they choose to step in. That is not radical. It is simply what fairness looks like when the whole country is affected.

Sanofi’s Toronto Vaccine Facility Rebuilds Canadian Capacity

There was a moment throughout COVID that I suspect most Canadians would rather not revisit.

We had money. We had scientists. We had an advanced economy and one of the world’s better medical care systems. What we didn’t have was enough capacity to manufacture the vaccines we desperately required here at home.

Canada was forced into the same global scramble as everybody else.

Five years ago, Ottawa looked at that vulnerability and essentially said, "Never again.”

Last week, we got to see what “never again” looks like when somebody actually builds it.

Sanofi officially opened the new Charles Best Building on its 52-acre Toronto campus, a $925-million vaccine manufacturing facility and what the company describes as the largest single investment in a biomanufacturing facility in Canadian history. (Sanofi Canada)

This isn’t a proposal. It isn’t a memorandum of understanding. And nobody is standing beside a map pointing at where something might eventually go.

The building is finished.

A Lesson Canada Learned the Hard Way

To understand why this matters, we need to go back to 2020.

COVID exposed a weakness that had been developing quietly for decades. According to the federal government’s own assessment, a roughly 40-year decline in Canada’s domestic biopharmaceutical industry had left the country without the large-scale, flexible manufacturing capacity needed to quickly produce COVID vaccines at home. (Government of Canada)

That’s a rather uncomfortable position for a G7 country.

Canada ultimately secured vaccines from international suppliers, but the experience demonstrated the difference between being able to buy something and being able to make it.

Those are not the same kind of security.

In March 2021, Ottawa announced up to $415 million toward a new Sanofi end-to-end influenza vaccine facility in Toronto. Ontario added another $55 million, while Sanofi committed more than $455 million, bringing the project to $925 million. The first agreement also included Sanofi creating and maintaining 1,225 highly skilled Canadian jobs and investing at least $79 million annually in Canadian research and development. (Government of Canada)

Five years later, that investment is concrete, steel, laboratories, production equipment and people.

What Canada Actually Got

The new Charles Best Building will manufacture Fluzone High-Dose, an influenza vaccine specifically designed for people 65 and older. It contains four times the antigen of a standard-dose influenza vaccine. (Sanofi Canada)

But the more important part of this story is what sits behind that particular product.

The facility provides Canada with industrial-scale, end-to-end vaccine manufacturing capacity on Canadian soil, including capacity to support the country’s response to a future influenza pandemic. It is fully operational now and, pending regulatory approval, production is expected to begin in early 2027 for the 2027-28 flu season.

About 300 highly skilled advanced-biomanufacturing jobs are being created at the facility. Meanwhile, Sanofi’s Toronto operation already produces vaccines distributed to more than 60 countries.

That last number matters.

This isn’t simply about building a factory so Canadians can consume what comes out the other end.

It’s about developing something in Canada that the rest of the world wants to buy.

Digging something out of the ground or growing something on a farm is valuable. But the real economic opportunity comes when we do more processing, engineering, manufacturing, and research here as well.

Vaccines are an unusually sophisticated example of the same principle.

Yes, Sanofi Is Foreign-Owned

There is an important distinction here.

Sanofi isn’t Canadian. It’s a French multinational pharmaceutical company.

But economic autonomy doesn’t require building a wall around the country and insisting that every company operating here have a maple leaf tattooed on its balance sheet.

The more useful question is: Where does the productive capacity live?

Where are the factories? Where are the researchers? Where are the highly skilled jobs? Where is the intellectual expertise being developed? And when the world suddenly discovers it desperately needs the product, where are the machines to make it?

In this case, a significant piece of that capacity now lives in Toronto.

Sanofi says it employs more than 2,000 people in Canada and is on track to deliver more than $2 billion in new Canadian infrastructure investments by 2028. Earlier this year, it also announced a further $ 294 million expansion of its Toronto AI Centre of Excellence.

That’s the kind of foreign investment Canada should understand very clearly: capital coming into the country to build productive assets here.

From Insulin to the Next Pandemic

There is also something wonderfully Canadian about the name on the building.

It honours Dr Charles Best, who co-discovered insulin with Frederick Banting and later served as an early medical director of what became Sanofi’s Toronto campus.

The campus stands on the historic site of Connaught Laboratories, where Best worked and where generations of Canadian researchers contributed to vaccine development and public health. Connaught scientists later played an important role in the development and large-scale testing of Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine. (Sanofi)

That makes the Charles Best name more than corporate decoration.

A century ago, Canada was helping push medical science forward.

Perhaps we should be doing more of that again.

This Is What Rebuilding Capacity Looks Like

One factory doesn’t make Canada self-sufficient in pharmaceuticals, and that shouldn’t be the goal. Modern supply chains are international, and Canada’s biomanufacturing strategy itself recognises that resilience requires multiple technologies, suppliers, research abilities and manufacturing platforms. (Government of Canada)

But there is a world of difference between participating in international supply chains and being completely dependent upon them.

COVID taught us that distinction rather brutally.

When Mélanie Joly attended the opening last week, she recalled the critical urgency of those early pandemic days and the vulnerabilities Canada discovered in vaccines, medical supplies and supply chains.

Her summary was considerably shorter than mine:

“Never again.” (CityNews)

Five years ago, that constituted a promise.

Today, on 52 acres in Toronto, part of it is a factory.

Why Canada’s Social Contract Helps Us Live Longer

Key Takeaways

• In 2024, life expectancy was 82.2 years in Canada and 79.0 years in the United States. The comparable-country average was 82.7 years.

• In 2024, the United States spent US$14,775 per person on healthcare, adjusted for purchasing power. Canada spent US$7,301 and covered everyone.

• In 2023, the American homicide rate was three times Canada’s. Firearms were involved in 76 per cent of US homicides and 38 per cent of Canadian homicides.

• Canada’s parental benefits can be taken for 12 or 18 months, although the longer option pays a lower weekly rate. The United States still has no universal federal paid parental leave.

• Canada’s childcare program has dramatically lowered fees, but the promise remains unfulfilled. Only six jurisdictions currently cap regulated fees at $10 a day or less.

Three years and a bit.

That is the statistical distance between two babies born on the same day, one in Canada and one in the United States. They may watch the same television programs, drive the same cars and grow up within an afternoon’s drive of each other. On paper, however, the Canadian child can expect to celebrate roughly three more birthdays.

In 2024, life expectancy in Canada was 82.2 years. In the United States, it was 79.0. Among a group of comparable wealthy countries, including Canada and several European nations, the average was 82.7 years.

That gap cannot be pinned on one hospital, law or program. Diet, poverty, drug deaths, inequality and chronic disease all matter. But underneath them sits a wider choice about what people should face alone.

Canada made a choice closer to Europe. Healthcare is treated as a public responsibility. Firearms are licensed and regulated. New parents can take extended leave, and childcare is increasingly treated as infrastructure rather than a private luxury.

Anyone who has tried to find a family doctor lately can explain Canada’s shortcomings, possibly while still on hold. But when we compare the Canadian healthcare system with its American counterpart, the difference isn’t simply how much each country spends. It is what each country believes about spending.

Every comparison in this series gets a full breakdown, including the parts Canada still needs to fix.

Subscribe to The Sanity Project so you do not miss Part 3.

The Most Expensive Healthcare Bargain on Earth

The United States does not spend too little on healthcare. It spends more than anyone else and still leaves millions of people outside the system.

According to the Commonwealth Fund’s 2026 international comparison, the United States devoted 18 per cent of its economy to healthcare in 2024, nearly twice the OECD average. About 27 million Americans, or 8 per cent of the population, remained uninsured.

The matched per-person comparison is even harder to explain away. Adjusted for purchasing power, the United States spent US$14,775 per person in 2024. Canada spent US$7,300.65, while the comparable-country average was US$7,860.

In other words, the United States spent slightly more than twice as much per person as Canada and had a life expectancy that was 3.2 years shorter. That does not prove healthcare alone created the gap, but it certainly makes the phrase “private-sector efficiency” work harder than it should.

Too many Canadians lack a regular primary-care provider. Emergency rooms are overcrowded, rural access is uneven, and some wait times are unacceptable. Pretending otherwise would not defend Medicare. It would make it harder to repair.

The difference shows up when illness arrives. Canadians may have to fight the system for timely access, but they do not normally have to ask whether an ambulance, surgery or hospital stay will bankrupt the family. In the United States, people can wait, pay enormous premiums and deductibles, and still find that the insurer has opinions.

Canada’s answer is more primary care teams, better use of nurse practitioners, faster credential recognition, and expanded training. A crowded waiting room argues for fixing capacity, not adding a cash register at the door.

The United States spends twice as much per person. Canadians live three years longer.

Fewer Guns, Fewer Funerals

Canada has not solved crime. Assaults have risen, organised crime is real, and many communities have legitimate safety concerns.

The measurable difference is guns.

A Statistics Canada comparison using Canadian and FBI data found that the United States recorded 5.7 homicides per 100,000 people in 2023. Canada’s rate was 1.9, exactly one-third as high.

Most of the gap was associated with firearms. Guns were involved in 76 per cent of American homicides, compared with 38 per cent in Canada. Strip out firearms, and the countries suddenly look remarkably similar: non-firearm homicide rates were 1.24 per 100,000 in the United States and 1.18 in Canada.

That does not make every Canadian firearm owner dangerous. Statistics Canada also cautions that many guns used in Canadian homicides were obtained illegally. It does show that licensing, background checks and storage rules shape the environment in which violence occurs.

Canada regulates guns more like European democracies do, as potentially dangerous tools rather than constitutional identity cards. We can debate individual rules, and we should. What we should not import is the American premise that virtually every restriction attacks freedom.

Freedom matters. So does getting home alive.

A Baby Is Not a Personal Financial Emergency

Imagine two couples welcoming a baby, one in Winnipeg and one in Minneapolis. Both are exhausted, both are trying to remember when the baby last slept, and neither knows what day it is. Only one couple lives in a country where paid parental benefits are part of the national system.

Outside Quebec, Canada’s Employment Insurance program offers maternity benefits followed by a choice between standard and extended parental benefits. The standard option pays 55 per cent of earnings, up to a weekly maximum, while shared parental benefits can be used within 12 months. The extended option stretches the period to 18 months at 33 per cent of earnings. Quebec operates its own parental insurance plan.

Benefits are capped, not everyone qualifies, and many families cannot live on 33 or 55 per cent of their wages. Job-protected leave and income benefits also come from different laws. “Eighteen months paid leave” sounds wonderfully simple until somebody opens the government website.

Still, the principle is clear. Canada treats time with a newborn as something society has an interest in supporting. The United States has job-protected unpaid leave for some eligible workers, but no universal federal paid parental-leave program.

Childcare extends the same idea. The Canada-wide early learning and childcare agreements have substantially cut regulated fees, but the familiar phrase “$10-a-day childcare” now needs an honest footnote.

According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ 2026 survey, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nunavut cap fees at $10 a day. Quebec’s pre-existing program charges $9.65.

Alberta’s cap is $15, and Ontario’s is $22, while British Columbia and Nova Scotia still rely heavily on provider-specific market fees.

The savings are nevertheless substantial. Families with infants in most cities save between $500 and $1,000 a month compared with projected fees without the program. Toronto families save more than $1,800, yet access to regulated spaces remains a serious obstacle.

That distinction matters. An affordable space that does not exist is not childcare. The next phase has to expand capacity, train and properly pay early-childhood educators, and close the gap between the national promise and the provincial reality.

Canada did not finish building affordable childcare. It did prove that governments can lower the bill.

Canada Is Not Europe, but We Made the Same Choice

Canada does not copy Europe line by line. Many EU countries provide more vacation time, stronger family benefits, and broader public coverage. Canada often occupies the middle ground between Europe and the United States.

The deeper alignment is philosophical. Canada and Europe generally treat healthcare, parental leave, childcare and firearm regulation as legitimate public responsibilities. The United States is more likely to treat them as private purchases, employer benefits or individual rights that government should hesitate to touch.

That choice shapes whether losing a job also means losing health insurance, whether a new parent must return to work immediately, and whether violence is likely to involve a firearm. It does not make Canada utopian. It makes certain disasters less likely to become personal catastrophes.

This is the central lesson in any serious Canada vs USA comparison. The border separates more than two tax systems. It distinguishes between two answers to the question of what people owe one another.

What Canadians Can Actually Do About It

Fix Medicare instead of Surrendering It, and make measurable progress on primary care, training in the gaps, rural service, and recognition of qualified internationally educated professionals. Universal access is worth defending, but “universal” must eventually mean being able to find care.

Finish the Childcare System

Lower fees were the first step. Governments now need enough regulated spaces and properly paid early-childhood teachers to make the promise a reality for families still on waiting lists.

Keep the Gun Debate Canadian

Judge firearm rules by evidence, public safety and enforceability. Do not import America’s constitutional absolutism or pretend that its much higher rate of firearm homicide is simply the unavoidable price of freedom.

For more evidence-based, Canada-first analysis, visit The Sanity Project.

The Verdict

CLEAR WINNER: CANADA

Not because every Canadian has a family doctor, every parent finds childcare, or every firearm rule makes sense. Canada wins because we decided that illness, parenthood and public safety are shared concerns.

We spend far less per person on healthcare, live longer and experience far fewer firearm homicides. Our social contract is unfinished, occasionally infuriating and still demonstrably better than leaving every family to negotiate the hardest moments of life alone.

Part 3 comes next: what Canada’s European connection can deliver through CETA, critical minerals, Arctic security and less dependence on the United States.

Subscribe at thesanity.org so you do not miss it.

This is Part 2 of a three-part Canada-EU Future series from The Sanity Project. Part 1 examined how Canada governs more like a European parliamentary democracy than an American presidential republic. Part 3 examines how shared values can become economic and military leverage.

Corrections & Updates Protocol

The Sanity Project corrects errors transparently. Any factual correction to this piece will appear here as an inline “Update (Month Year):” note rather than a silent edit.

Publications Consulted

Statistics Canada; Statistics Canada Life Tables; Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker; OECD health expenditure data; Commonwealth Fund; Government of Canada Employment Insurance; Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; US Department of Labour.

Canadian Kitchen Appliances Worth a Closer Look

Something has changed in Canada. More Canadians are looking at the things they buy every day and asking a question that probably didn’t cross their minds nearly as often a few years ago: Is there a Canadian option?

We’ve seen it in the grocery aisle, where people who once grabbed the same familiar products without thinking are now turning packages around to read labels. We’ve seen it with clothing, cosmetics, cleaning products and household goods. Canadian brands that may have been sitting quietly on store shelves for years are suddenly getting a second look.

And that got me wondering about another part of the store.

What about the kettle on your counter? The coffee maker you use every morning? The toaster, blender, air fryer, rice cooker or slow cooker you’ll eventually have to replace?

Most of us have probably never given much thought to where those brands come from. We recognise a familiar name, compare a couple of prices, perhaps check the reviews, and take the box home. We’ve been buying some of these brands for decades, so reaching for them feels almost automatic.

But what happens if, before reaching for the familiar box, we look one box over?

That’s really how this guide began. I wanted to know how many legitimate Canadian kitchen appliance alternatives were already on the shelves of stores Canadians shop at every day. Not obscure products that require ordering from some website nobody has heard of, but practical alternatives you could actually walk into a store and buy.

The answer surprised me.

There are Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled brands scattered throughout the small-appliance aisle. Some have been around for decades. In many cases, we’ve probably walked past them dozens of times without realising there was a Canadian connection at all.

Buying Canadian Doesn’t Have to Mean Sacrifice

There’s also an assumption worth challenging: buying Canadian must mean paying considerably more, accepting fewer choices or settling for an inferior product simply because there’s a maple leaf somewhere in the corporate paperwork.

That’s not the kind of patriotism I’m interested in, and it isn’t how we approached this guide. Supporting Canadian businesses shouldn’t require abandoning common sense.

Sometimes the Canadian product costs more. Sometimes the difference is negligible. And one of the more pleasant surprises from our research was discovering several categories where the Canadian option actually cost less than the familiar alternative.

Quality matters just as much. If a Canadian product has mediocre customer reviews, we’ll tell you. If the price premium is substantial, you’ll see it. And if we couldn’t find a Canadian product we were comfortable recommending, we looked for a strong alternative from elsewhere, whether that meant Italy, Australia, France, Germany, or Scotland.

Our philosophy became pretty simple: Canadian first. Non-U.S. second. Quality always matters.

Perhaps an even better way of putting it is this: Give Canada the first look, not an automatic win.

What Does “Canadian” Actually Mean?

There’s an important distinction we need to make before we start shopping. Very few small kitchen appliances are actually manufactured in Canada anymore. Like most consumer electronics and appliances, much of the physical manufacturing takes place within global supply chains.

So when we describe a company as Canadian-owned or a brand as Canadian-controlled, we are not claiming the appliance itself was “Made in Canada”. Those are two very different things, and throughout this article we’ll try to make that distinction clear.

What we’re interested in is whether Canadians have another reasonable choice. Who owns or controls the brand? Is there a genuine Canadian business connection? Is the product competitive? Is it well reviewed? Is the price reasonable? And, importantly, can you actually find it in Canadian stores?

Because this isn’t supposed to become homework.

Nobody needs to conduct a corporate genealogy investigation before they’re allowed to buy a toaster. Nobody needs to throw out a perfectly good American coffee maker because they suddenly discovered where its parent company is headquartered.

The idea is much simpler than that. Appliances wear out. Kettles stop boiling, toasters stop toasting, and coffee makers eventually decide that 6:30 on a Monday morning would be an excellent time to retire.

When that happens, we’re going shopping anyway.

And if millions of Canadian households begin giving Canadian companies the first opportunity to earn some of that spending, all those seemingly insignificant purchasing decisions start looking a little less insignificant.

No grand gesture is required.

Sometimes it’s simply a matter of looking at the other box on the shelf.

And that’s where we’ll begin.

🇨🇦 Electric Kettles: Salton

If you’re looking for an easy place to start buying Canadian, the humble kettle is a great place to start. Salton is 100% Canadian-owned and operated, although its appliances are manufactured abroad.

OUR PICK: Salton 1.7L Cordless Electric Glass Kettle
REGULAR PRICE: $39.99
RATING: 3.3/5 from 182 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

Its 1,500-watt element, automatic shutoff, boil-dry protection and removable filter cover the essentials.

The Price Check

The comparable Hamilton Beach glass kettle was $59.99 when we researched the guide.

YOU SAVE: $20

WHY WE LIKE IT: The rating isn’t spectacular, and we’re not hiding that. But it’s Canadian-owned, practical and $20 less than the familiar U.S. alternative.

Same store. Different box. 🇨🇦

🇨🇦 Toasters: Salton

A toaster may not seem like much of a patriotic purchase, but this is where small choices become interesting. Salton is 100% Canadian-owned and operated, and its straightforward 2-slice toaster proves that looking Canadian first doesn’t necessarily mean spending more.

OUR PICK: Salton 2-Slice Toaster, Stainless Steel
REGULAR PRICE: $39.99
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire, Home Hardware, Giant Tiger and London Drugs

It features two extra-wide slots, six browning settings, defrost, reheat and cancel functions, plus a removable crumb tray.

The Price Check

The comparable U.S. brand was $54.99.

YOU SAVE: $15

WHY WE LIKE IT: Reliable, practical and Canadian-owned. No patriotic premium required. In fact, keeping Canada first leaves an extra $15 in your pocket.

🇨🇦 Drip Coffee Makers: Salton

For something many of us use every morning, the coffee maker is a pretty good place to put Canadian ownership into the conversation. Salton’s 14-Cup Stainless Steel Digital Coffee Maker is built for households where one small pot simply won’t cut it.

OUR PICK: Salton 14-Cup Stainless Steel Digital Coffee Maker, Model FC2149
REGULAR PRICE: $119.99
WHERE TO BUY: Staples Canada

You get a 24-hour programmable timer, brew-strength control, iced-coffee mode, an adjustable keep-warm function, and a reusable filter.

The Price Check

The comparable U.S. 12-cup model was $79.99.

CANADIAN PREMIUM: $40

WHY WE LIKE IT: Salton costs more, but it’s also a larger, more feature-rich machine. Canadian first doesn’t mean pretending the price difference isn’t there.

🌍 Espresso Machines: De’Longhi

Here’s where our Canadian-first rule meets reality. We couldn’t find a Canadian espresso machine that met our standards, so rather than force the issue, we moved to our second principle: look for a strong non-U.S. alternative. That brought us to Italy.

OUR PICK: De’Longhi Stilosa Espresso Maker, Model EC260BK
REGULAR PRICE: $149.99
RATING: 4.1/5 from 437 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

The Stilosa offers 15-bar pump pressure, a manual steam wand, a stainless-steel boiler and single- or double-espresso filters.

The Price Check

The comparable U.S. model was also $149.99.

SAME PRICE: $0 DIFFERENCE

WHY WE LIKE IT: No Canadian standout? Choose a non-U.S. model without paying a premium.

🇨🇦 Coffee Grinders: Salton

Freshly ground coffee is another easy place to check the Canadian box first. Salton’s Essentials Coffee, Spice & Herb Grinder is inexpensive, compact and versatile enough to handle more than your morning beans.

OUR PICK: Salton Essentials Coffee, Spice & Herb Grinder, Model CG203
REGULAR PRICE: $22.99
RATING: 4.0/5
WHERE TO BUY: Rossy

Its 150-watt motor, stainless-steel blade and pulse control can grind coffee beans, spices and herbs.

The Price Check

The comparable U.S. blade grinder was $21.99.

CANADIAN PREMIUM: $1

WHY WE LIKE IT: For one extra dollar, you’re supporting a Canadian-owned company. That’s about as painless as buying Canadian gets.

🇨🇦 Full-Size Blenders: Salton

When it comes to a serious blender, choosing Canadian can mean a bigger purchase, and Salton’s Professional Grade Power Blender offers a credible homegrown option with plenty of muscle.

OUR PICK: Salton Professional Grade Power Blender
REGULAR PRICE: $199.99
RATING: 4.5/5 from 35 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

It delivers 1,500 watts, a 2-litre capacity, five presets, variable speed control and a five-year warranty.

The Price Check

The comparable U.S. Ninja BlendSense was also $199.99.

SAME PRICE: $0 DIFFERENCE

WHY WE LIKE IT: No Canadian premium here. The same price, strong reviews, and a five-year warranty make Salton worth a serious look.

🇨🇦 Personal Blenders: Starfrit

For smoothies and smaller jobs, Quebec-based Starfrit gives us one of the guide’s more affordable Canadian choices. Its compact Personal Blender won’t replace a full-size machine, but that’s not what it’s designed to do.

OUR PICK: Starfrit Personal Blender with Locking Lid
REGULAR PRICE: $29.99
RATING: 3.4/5 from 54 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

It combines a 750 mL blending cup, a 300-watt motor and three speeds in a simple grab-and-go design.

The Price Check

The comparable U.S. Magic Bullet was $54.99.

YOU SAVE: $25

WHY WE LIKE IT: The rating is only average, but the $25 saving is substantial. Canadian first doesn’t mean hiding the trade-offs.

🌍 Food Processors: Braun

This is one of those categories where our Canadian-first rule hits a wall. We found smaller Canadian options from Starfrit and Salton, but nothing in the conventional full-size category that we were comfortable recommending. So we moved to a strong non-U.S. alternative.

OUR PICK: Braun 8-Cup Food Processor, FP3020
REGULAR PRICE: $129.99
RATING: 4.3/5 from 92 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

Its 550-watt motor handles chopping, slicing, shredding and mixing.

The Price Check

The comparable Black+Decker 8-cup model was $79.99.

NON-U.S. PREMIUM: $50

WHY WE LIKE IT: This isn’t the cheaper choice. It’s the stronger non-U.S. option when a suitable Canadian full-size processor isn’t available.

🇨🇦 Air Fryers: Vida by PADERNO

Air fryers have become countertop royalty, and this category gives us a strong Canadian-controlled alternative. Vida by PADERNO is part of Canadian Tire’s brand portfolio, so it fits our Canadian-first philosophy well.

OUR PICK: Vida by PADERNO 9-Qt Trizone Air Fryer
REGULAR PRICE: $219.99
RATING: 4.6/5 from 81 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

You get a large 9-quart capacity, three cooking zones, six cooking functions and dishwasher-safe baskets.

The Price Check

The comparable Ninja Foodi 8-quart model was $229.99.

YOU SAVE: $10

WHY WE LIKE IT: It’s Canadian-controlled, costs $10 less and gives you an extra quart of capacity. Same store. Different box.

🇨🇦 Toaster Ovens: Toastess

The countertop oven aisle gives us another Canadian-owned option hiding in plain sight. Toastess is part of Salton Canada, and its compact four-slice toaster oven handles everyday basics without taking up much counter space or costing much.

OUR PICK: Toastess Variable Temperature 4-Slice Toaster Oven
REGULAR PRICE: $59.99
RATING: 5.0/5 from 3 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Rossy

You get adjustable temperature, toast, bake and broil functions, a timer and automatic or manual shut-off.

The Price Check

The comparable Black+Decker four-slice model was $67.99.

YOU SAVE: $8

WHY WE LIKE IT: Canadian-owned, simple and inexpensive. One caution: that perfect rating comes from only three reviews, so we’re not declaring victory quite yet.

🇨🇦 Slow Cookers: PADERNO

Slow cookers aren’t glamorous, but neither is coming home hungry at six o’clock. PADERNO’s 6-Quart Digital Programmable Slow Cooker is a well-reviewed, Canadian-controlled choice for one of the kitchen’s great set-it-and-forget-it appliances.

OUR PICK: PADERNO 6-Qt Digital Programmable Slow Cooker
REGULAR PRICE: $134.99
RATING: 4.6/5 from 154 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

It offers programmable time and temperature controls, four heat settings and dishwasher-safe stoneware.

The Price Check

The comparable Crock-Pot MyTime was $124.99.

CANADIAN PREMIUM: $10

WHY WE LIKE IT: You’re paying $10 more, but getting excellent reviews and a two-year warranty. Canadian first, but with the price tag clearly visible.

🇨🇦 Rice Cookers: Starfrit

Rice cookers are wonderfully uncomplicated appliances, and this is one category where the Canadian choice is hard to argue against. Quebec-based Starfrit delivers a highly rated little machine at an equally attractive price.

OUR PICK: Starfrit 6-Cup Rice Cooker with Steam Basket
REGULAR PRICE: $24.99
RATING: 4.8/5 from 395 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

It includes a steam basket, automatic Keep Warm function and a PFAS-free ceramic-coated inner pot.

The Price Check

The comparable Black+Decker 6-cup model was $29.99.

YOU SAVE: $5

WHY WE LIKE IT: Canadian brand, lower price and an excellent rating from nearly 400 customers. This is exactly the kind of easy switch this guide was created to find.

🇨🇦 Immersion Blenders: Starfrit

Starfrit scores again, this time with a surprisingly versatile hand blender. At $34.99, it isn’t merely the Canadian alternative. On paper, it actually gives you more for less.

OUR PICK: Starfrit Compact Hand Blender, 150W
REGULAR PRICE: $34.99
RATING: 4.6/5 from 34 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

You get five speeds plus Turbo, a blending wand, a whisk, a frother, and a 700 mL blending jar.

The Price Check

The comparable Black+Decker 200W immersion blender was $39.99, with a 3.4/5 rating from 29 reviews.

YOU SAVE: $5

WHY WE LIKE IT: Lower price, better rating and more accessories. Sometimes buying Canadian really is the easy decision.

🇨🇦 Grills & Sandwich Presses: Heritage The Rock

Countertop grills can be surprisingly expensive, making this Canadian option particularly interesting. Heritage The Rock gives us a large, versatile panini grill that opens completely flat and doubles as a griddle.

OUR PICK: Heritage The Rock 1500W Large Non-Stick Panini Grill
REGULAR PRICE: $99.99
RATING: 4.9/5 from 8 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

It offers 101 square inches of cooking space, adjustable temperature and a 180-degree opening.

The Price Check

The comparable Breville Panini Grill was $169.99.

YOU SAVE: $70

WHY WE LIKE IT: That’s a substantial saving for the Canadian option. The caution is the tiny eight-review sample size, whereas Breville has a much longer track record.

🇨🇦 Pizza Ovens: MASTER Chef

This might be the biggest surprise in the guide. Backyard pizza ovens have become seriously popular, but you don’t necessarily have to spend nearly $400 to start chasing that crispy, blistered crust.

OUR PICK: MASTER Chef Tabletop Propane Gas Pizza Oven, 12-inch
REGULAR PRICE: $229.99
RATING: 4.2/5 from 42 reviews
WHERE TO BUY: Canadian Tire

It reaches 900°F, produces 13,500 BTUs, and includes a cordierite pizza stone, a temperature gauge, and a protective cover.

The Price Check

The Scottish Ooni Karu 12 was $399.99.

YOU SAVE: $170

WHY WE LIKE IT: The Ooni has multi-fuel versatility and a much stronger review history. But for straightforward propane pizza-making, the Canadian-controlled MASTER Chef leaves $170 in your pocket.

🇨🇦 And Then There Are the Odds and Ends...

Not every kitchen appliance needs a full investigation. Once we got past the kettles, coffee makers, blenders and air fryers, we started running into smaller categories where a detailed price comparison simply wasn’t going to add much value.

But we did find Canadian options, and leaving them out seemed equally silly.

So for this final section, we’re changing the rules slightly. No head-to-head price battles and no attempt to crown a winner in every category. Instead, consider this a Canadian kitchen-appliance discovery shelf, a collection of smaller, more specialised appliances from Canadian-owned or Canadian-controlled brands worth knowing about.

They include induction cooktops, waffle makers, fondue sets, electric skillets and mini food choppers.

Because that’s really the larger point of this entire project.

You don’t have to replace everything. You just have to discover how many Canadian choices there were all along.

🇨🇦 MASTER Chef Portable Induction Cooktop

For condos, cottages, RVs, or simply adding another cooking surface when the stove is full, MASTER Chef’s Portable Induction Cooktop is a useful Canadian-controlled option.

It delivers 1,800 watts, eight temperature settings, a timer and automatic pot detection. It’s compact enough to tuck away when you’re finished.

WHY WE LIKE IT: It’s the kind of appliance you may not need every day, but when you need an extra burner, you’ll be very glad it’s there.

🇨🇦 Salton Waffle Maker

Apparently, buying Canadian can come covered in maple syrup.

Salton’s Waffle Maker produces two waffles in under four minutes, has a non-stick cooking surface and stores upright, making it particularly handy in kitchens where cupboard space is precious.

WHY WE LIKE IT: Canadian-owned, compact and wonderfully uncomplicated. It makes waffles. Sometimes that’s enough.

🇨🇦 Heritage The Rock Electronic Fondue Set

Fondue may occasionally fall out of fashion, but melted cheese and chocolate have demonstrated remarkable staying power.

Heritage The Rock Electronic Fondue Set has a generous 3-litre capacity, adjustable electronic temperature control and eight colour-coded forks. Better yet, it has an impressive 4.7/5 rating based on 392 reviews.

WHY WE LIKE IT: This isn’t just Canadian. It’s a Canadian option with a substantial body of positive customer reviews.

🇨🇦 Salton Double Induction Cooktop

Need more than one extra burner? Salton’s Double Induction Cooktop provides two cooking zones with a total of 1,800 watts of power.

It includes touch controls, an LED display, automatic shut-off, and overheat protection. It’s another practical option for smaller kitchens, cottages and RVs

WHY WE LIKE IT: A Canadian-owned alternative that provides considerably more flexibility than a single portable burner without requiring a permanent installation.

🇨🇦 MASTER Chef Electric Skillet

The electric skillet has been quietly doing its job in Canadian kitchens for generations, and MASTER Chef keeps the concept refreshingly simple.

Its model provides a 12-inch non-stick cooking surface, adjustable temperature control and a tempered-glass lid. It’s designed for straightforward one-pan cooking and easy cleanup.

WHY WE LIKE IT: Not every appliance needs Wi-Fi and an app. Sometimes you just want a big hot pan you can plug into the wall.

🇨🇦 Salton Mini Food Chopper

Finally, here’s a Canadian-owned alternative for those times when hauling out a full-size food processor seems like more work than the food itself.

The Salton Mini Food Chopper is designed to chop, dice and purée in seconds, using stainless-steel blades in a small, easy-to-store package.

WHY WE LIKE IT: It’s compact, inexpensive in spirit, and designed for the little everyday jobs where a full-size food processor would be overkill.

And that brings us neatly to the larger lesson from this entire shopping trip:

The point isn’t to replace everything. It’s to discover how many Canadian choices were there all along.

Want the Visual Version?

If you’d rather browse these recommendations visually, we’ve put the entire project into a free Buy Canadian Kitchen Guide, with the products, prices, comparisons and shopping information laid out page by page. No email gate, no signup required. Just open it, save it and use it the next time you’re shopping.

One Small Choice at a Time

None of this requires throwing out appliances that still work or turning every trip to the store into a test of patriotism. That’s not the point.

But eventually the kettle dies. The toaster gives up. The blender starts making a noise suggesting its remaining life expectancy should be measured in minutes.

When that happens, we’re going shopping anyway.

And now we know something we may not have known before: there are Canadian choices sitting on those shelves.

Sometimes they’re cheaper. Sometimes they’re more expensive. Sometimes they’re better reviewed, and sometimes the Canadian option simply isn’t good enough, in which case we’ll happily look elsewhere.

But at least we’re looking.

Canadian first. Non-U.S. second. Quality always matters.

And perhaps that’s how supporting Canadian businesses becomes sustainable. Not through one enormous gesture, but through millions of ordinary purchasing decisions made in kitchens, grocery aisles and stores across the country.

Same store. Different box.

If this kind of practical, Canada-first research is useful to you, consider becoming a free subscriber to The Sanity Project. You’ll get our future guides and articles as we continue to look for simple ways Canadians can support Canadian businesses, strengthen our economy, and make more informed choices about where our money goes.

Canada's Critical Minerals Boom Goes Beyond Mining

Canada has never had much trouble finding valuable things buried in the ground. We have spent more than a century discovering gold, copper, nickel, uranium, potash, iron ore and just about every other useful element the periodic table has to offer.

Our problem has often been what happens afterwards. Canada has frequently been very good at extracting resources and quite willing to let somebody else perform the expensive magic that turns them into higher-value materials and manufactured products.

We dig. We ship. Somebody else processes, refines and manufactures. Then, occasionally, they sell it back to us.

It’s been a pretty good business. But somebody else has often had the better one.

That’s what caught my attention while going through the 167 projects presented to investors at the Canada Investment Summit. Of those projects, 63 fall into the prospectus’s Minerals and Metals category, making it by far the largest sector represented.

But after examining those 63 individually, the interesting story isn’t simply how many mines Canada wants to build. It’s how many projects are attempting to capture more of what happens after the mining is finished.

The prospectus itself describes an ambition to develop end-to-end value chains extending from exploration and mining through processing, manufacturing, recycling and advanced applications. Canada’s Critical Minerals Strategy uses remarkably similar language, calling for Canadian capacity from extraction through processing, advanced manufacturing and recycling.

And scattered throughout The 63 are concrete examples suggesting that it isn’t merely brochure language. Canada appears to be trying to build more of the industries that turn Canadian resources into considerably more valuable Canadian products.

That could ultimately matter much more than another mining boom.

63 Projects, But They Aren’t All Mines

First, an important distinction. The prospectus calls this the Minerals and Metals sector, not the critical-minerals sector, and not all 63 projects qualify as critical-mineral developments.

There are conventional gold and precious-metal projects, as well as salt and other mineral developments. But there is also an extraordinary concentration of materials required for batteries, electrical grids, nuclear power, defence, electronics and advanced manufacturing.

Our analysis found 17 projects involving gold, 10 involving copper, 9 involving lithium, 7 involving rare earths, 6 involving silver, 5 involving nickel and graphite, and 4 involving uranium. Those numbers overlap because many projects contain more than one commodity.

Canada’s official critical minerals list contains 31 minerals, while the federal strategy originally identified six with particularly strong potential for integrated domestic value chains: lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements.

And that is where The 63 become particularly interesting, because counting what’s underground tells us only half the story.

Canada’s $35.6-Billion Value-Added Gap

If you want to understand why processing and manufacturing matter, Natural Resources Canada’s latest mineral-trade figures provide an almost perfect illustration.

In 2025, Canada exported $162 billion in minerals and metals, representing 22% of Canadian merchandise exports. But what happens as those materials move through the value chain is considerably more revealing.

At Stage 1, which includes ores, concentrates and other primary products, Canada recorded a $31.5-billion trade surplus. At Stage 2, smelting and refining, the surplus was even larger at $42.2 billion.

Then the direction changes. At Stage 3, semi-fabricated products such as wire, sheets and tubes, Canada recorded a $6.6-billion deficit. At Stage 4, fabricated products and finished goods, the deficit reached $35.6 billion.

Natural Resources Canada says this pattern reflects Canada’s geological resources and strong mining and processing capabilities compared with its more limited manufacturing capacity. It also reports that Canadian critical-mineral exports remain concentrated primarily in the first two stages of the value chain.

In other words, Canada is exceptionally good at selling the ingredients. We’re somewhat less accomplished at selling the cake.

That doesn’t mean every Canadian mineral should be transformed into a finished product before crossing the border. Economics doesn’t work that way, and attempting to force the entire supply chain inside Canada would be neither realistic nor particularly sensible.

But a $35.6-billion downstream mineral-products trade deficit is a pretty good reason to ask whether Canada could capture more of that value here.

Some of the 63 are trying to do exactly that.

The Real Opportunity Starts After the Mine

Mining itself already creates enormous economic value. Statistics Canada estimated that critical-mineral production contributed $30.2 billion to nominal GDP in 2023 and supported 54,775 jobs in extraction and production.

The question isn’t whether Canada should mine. It’s whether the economic opportunity should end at the mine gate.

Think of the potential chain this way: Mine → Process → Refine → Advanced Material → Component → Finished Product. Every economically viable step Canada can add creates another opportunity for Canadian investment, workers, technology, intellectual property and exports.

And several projects in The 63 demonstrate exactly what that could look like.

Lithium: From Northern Rock to Battery Chemicals

Ontario’s PAK Lithium Project isn’t proposed simply as another spodumene mine. The prospectus describes it as a vertically integrated lithium development that combines a mine, a mill, and a downstream conversion facility.

The Yellowknife Lithium Project is even more interesting from a geographic perspective. Lithium from the Northwest Territories would feed a proposed 30,000-tonne-per-year lithium carbonate conversion facility in Alberta, linking northern extraction with downstream processing on the Prairies.

That’s not merely another mine. It’s the beginning of an interprovincial Canadian industrial supply chain.

And demand for the material is hardly disappearing. The International Energy Agency reported in its 2026 critical-minerals outlook that lithium demand had been increasing by roughly 25% annually over the previous two years, while its project outlook still pointed to a potential lithium supply deficit by 2035.

The larger Canadian opportunity, therefore, isn’t simply possessing lithium. It’s doing more with it before it leaves.

Graphite: From the Ground to Battery Material

Graphite provides an even clearer example because several of the 63 occupy different positions along the same industrial chain.

The Bissett Creek Graphite Mine and Battery Anode Materials project links natural graphite from Ontario to proposed battery-anode material production in Baie-Comeau, Québec. The prospectus explicitly describes the combination as an integrated graphite value chain.

Then there’s Québec’s Bécancour Battery Material Plant, which takes locally produced graphite and converts it into battery-grade active anode material for lithium-ion batteries. Ontario’s Via TWO project proposes another approach: phased synthetic graphite production in St. Thomas aimed at the North American battery supply chain.

Put those projects into the global context and their significance becomes clearer. The IEA reports that refining of several critical minerals remains geographically concentrated, meaning a new mine alone doesn’t necessarily diversify the downstream supply chain.

A Canadian graphite deposit is useful. Canadian graphite feeding Canadian processing and battery-material production represents something considerably more significant.

We’re no longer simply participating in a commodity market. We’re occupying more of the value chain.

From Rare Earths to Magnets

Rare earths may provide the best example in the entire prospectus.

The Strange Lake Rare Earth Project, spanning Québec and Labrador, is proposed as an integrated mine-to-separated-oxide development. Alberta’s proposed Critical Minerals Recovery & Rare Earth Refining Complex would occupy another part of the chain, recovering and refining rare earths, gallium, scandium and other strategic minerals.

But Saskatchewan may have the most interesting proposal of all.

The SRC Minerals to Magnet Production project would build on the Saskatchewan Research Council’s existing Rare Earth Processing Facility in Saskatoon to establish Canadian production of neodymium-iron-boron permanent magnets.

Now we’ve moved well beyond digging rocks. Permanent magnets are actual manufactured components used in electric motors, wind turbines, electronics, robotics, industrial equipment and defence technologies.

That distinction matters because the vulnerability in rare earths isn’t simply where the ore is mined. Separation, refining and magnet manufacturing are equally important links in the chain, and global capacity in those areas remains highly concentrated.

So consider the progression represented by just these projects: Canadian rare-earth deposits → Canadian separation and refining → Canadian magnet manufacturing.

Not every link is complete, and none of these proposals guarantees that Canada will eventually possess an entirely domestic rare-earth supply chain. But the direction is unmistakably different from digging up ore and loading it onto a ship.

That’s the difference between owning a mineral deposit and owning part of an industrial supply chain.

Turning More Canadian Resources Into Canadian Products

The same pattern appears elsewhere in The 63.

The proposed Scully Manganese Sulphate Plant in Newfoundland and Labrador would take manganese generated as a by-product of iron ore production and convert it into high-purity manganese sulphate for the EV and battery industries.

I particularly like this example because it demonstrates value-added economics in miniature. Something that begins as a secondary output of one Canadian industrial process becomes the feedstock for another, producing a higher-value material for an entirely different industry.

Manitoba’s Minago Critical Minerals Project provides another variation. The prospectus describes an Indigenous-owned development combining a nickel-PGM deposit with plans for domestic magnesium metal production.

And then there’s uranium.

Canada already has a formidable position in uranium mining, with The 63 containing major developments such as Rook I and PLS in Saskatchewan. But the proposed Canadian Uranium Conversion Facility caught my attention precisely because it isn’t a mine.

The proposal would establish Canada’s first new uranium refining and conversion facility in more than 40 years. Mining uranium is one stage of the nuclear-fuel chain; refining and conversion move the material further toward something the nuclear industry can actually use.

These middle stages aren’t as visually impressive as a giant open pit or as glamorous as a shiny new factory. But they’re often where much of the strategic dependency hides.

Why Processing Has Become an Economic-Security Issue

For decades, global supply chains were designed largely around efficiency. If another country could process a material more cheaply, processing tended to migrate there. If manufacturing components elsewhere reduced costs, companies moved that manufacturing there too.

That system helped produce inexpensive goods. It also produced some extraordinary concentrations of industrial capability.

The IEA’s 2026 outlook found that concentration in refining increased in 2025, with the leading refining country accounting for roughly 72% of the supply on average for key energy minerals, excluding rare earths. China dominates refining for many major minerals, while Indonesia has become dominant in nickel.

That doesn’t mean Canada should attempt to become completely self-sufficient. We’re a trading nation, and access to international markets is one reason these Canadian projects can make economic sense in the first place.

But possessing a mineral deposit doesn’t provide much strategic resilience if virtually every sophisticated step required to turn that mineral into something useful has to happen elsewhere.

A Canadian graphite deposit improves resource security. Canadian graphite feeding Canadian processing and Canadian anode-material manufacturing provides considerably more control over the chain.

Likewise with rare earths. Mining them is one step. Separating them is another. Refining them is another. Turning them into magnets takes Canada another step again.

Canada Is Deliberately Trying to Build the Whole Chain

This direction isn’t accidental. Canada’s Critical Minerals Strategy explicitly calls for building capacity through exploration, extraction, intermediate processing, advanced manufacturing and recycling, and the federal government now describes its approach as moving value “from mine all the way to market.”

The strategy also identifies exactly the problem we’re seeing in the trade statistics: rather than exporting resources for processing abroad and then importing finished goods or manufacturing inputs, Canada can develop industrial ecosystems in which more stages are integrated domestically and with trusted trading partners.

There is substantial public money behind that effort. The original Critical Minerals Strategy was backed by up to $3.8 billion in federal funding, while the government’s 2024 progress report described nearly $4 billion committed across federal budgets from 2021 through 2024.

The important question isn’t simply how much government spends. It’s whether public investment helps establish commercially viable industries capable of competing without permanent support.

Because no country becomes an advanced industrial economy by subsidising things nobody wants to buy.

There is also a danger in looking at a prospectus full of proposed projects and mentally converting them into operating mines and factories. They aren’t. Some are advanced developments, while others remain early concepts, and inclusion in the summit prospectus does not constitute a government endorsement or guarantee that a project will be built.

Many still require financing, regulatory approvals, infrastructure, Indigenous consultation or partnerships, customers and long-term purchase agreements. Canada also faces a genuine competitiveness problem: processing and refining capacity elsewhere has often been built around enormous scale, established expertise, specialised equipment and lower costs.

Simply stamping a maple leaf on a refinery doesn’t make it competitive.

Canada will have to exploit areas where it possesses real advantages: abundant mineral resources, relatively clean electricity in many provinces, skilled workers, political stability, proximity to American manufacturing and access to major allied markets.

We don’t need to process everything here. But there is an enormous economic difference between accepting that reality and automatically exporting resources at an early stage of the value chain.

From Dig and Ship to Dig, Build and Sell

Canada’s geological advantage isn’t new. The Canadian Shield didn’t suddenly appear last Tuesday.

What may be changing is what Canada intends to do with the resources underneath it.

Among these 63 projects, we found lithium that could be mined and converted here, graphite that could be processed into battery material here, and manganese that could be processed into battery chemicals here. We found proposals to separate and refine rare earths, to manufacture permanent magnets in Saskatchewan, and to restore Canadian uranium-conversion capacity.

We also found projects connecting the Northwest Territories to Alberta, Ontario to Québec and mineral production to manufacturing industries thousands of kilometres away.

That begins to look less like a collection of mines and more like the early architecture of an industrial economy.

A country receives one kind of economic benefit from selling a tonne of mineral concentrate. It creates another opportunity when that concentrate feeds a Canadian processor, the processed material supplies another Canadian manufacturer, and that manufacturer sells a higher-value product in Canada and around the world.

For decades, Canada has been exceptionally fortunate in what nature put beneath our feet. Perhaps the next great Canadian resource story won’t simply be about discovering more of it, but becoming considerably smarter about what we do with it afterwards.

Canada doesn’t need to stop digging. We need to stop thinking that digging is where the economic opportunity ends.

Related Articles

https://www.thesanity.org/p/who-actually-owns-canadas-greenhouse

https://www.thesanity.org/p/canadas-secret-superpower-we-have

B.C.'s First Indigenous-Owned Port Ships Critical Minerals to Asia

Stewart, British Columbia, sits about 310 kilometres northwest of Terrace at the top of the Portland Canal, and on September 9 it officially became home to B.C.’s first majority Indigenous-owned port. The Nisga’a Lisims Government, the Tahltan Nation Development Corporation, and Arrow Transportation Systems opened the Portland Canal Marine Terminal through their joint venture, Portland Canal Holdings Limited Partnership, each holding an equal stake. No blockade forced this deal, and no injunction stopped it. Two First Nations simply bought in as owners.

The terminal is fully permitted, deep-sea, and ice-free year-round, making it Canada’s northernmost ice-free port and the closest Pacific outlet for the Golden Triangle. Spread across roughly six acres, it already moves about 300,000 tonnes of copper and gold concentrate a year, most of it from Newmont’s Red Chris and Brucejack mines in Tahltan and Nisga’a territory. A direct highway link puts Stewart within reach of the entire Golden Triangle and connects north into Yukon, meaning a shorter, cheaper route to Asian buyers than shipping south.

The money behind the deal tells its own story. The partnership acquired the former Stewart Bulk Terminal in fall 2025 with a $5 million grant from the province through its Northwest Strategy. Ottawa followed with $672,134 through PacifiCan to fund engineering for the terminal’s expansion, while Arrow Transportation brought the private logistics capital and operating experience. Three partners, three kinds of capital, one asset.

Northwest B.C. accounts for more than half of the province’s mineral exploration activity and two of its ten operating metal mines. Exploration spending in the region topped $221 million in 2025, while Red Chris generated close to $1 billion in production value and Brucejack about $1.1 billion. The Portland Canal Group, port and trucking combined, already employs roughly 100 people full time, with thousands more mining jobs riding on it, the province says.

Ownership changes who captures that value. Tahltan Central Government President Kerry Carlick calls the terminal an economic engine for the region, linking Tahltan Territory and Northwest B.C. directly to global markets. Nisga’a Lisims Government President Eva Clayton frames it as economic self-determination, not a seat at someone else’s table. Revenue from shipping copper and gold to Asia now flows back through Indigenous-owned structures rather than leaking out to a third-party operator.

The Sanity Project broke down exactly that risk in the Gordie Howe Bridge, where Canada paid the full $6.4 billion and still needed American sign-off before it could open.

The next phase at Stewart is already funded. Wharf expansion, an inland terminal, long-term storage, and inbound cargo capacity for mines and infrastructure projects are all moving through engineering and construction, building toward a full mine-to-market logistics network stretching from Northwest B.C. into Yukon.

Premier David Eby summed it up: governments, First Nations, and private industry rowing together means good jobs, fast, and real ground under Canada’s trade diversification push. This is what that looks like away from the podium. Not a slogan out of Ottawa, but a Canadian-owned port moving Canadian minerals to Asian buyers on Canadian terms. Partnership built this gateway faster than protest ever blocked one, and Northwest B.C. is about to find out what it’s worth.

Canada-EU Future: Canada Already Governs Like Europe — Not Like Trump’s America

Ottawa thinks like Brussels, not Washington. Here are the receipts.

Key Takeaways

• Canada runs a Westminster Parliament under a constitutional monarchy; the US runs a presidential system built for the branches to fight each other.

• Charter Section 1 allows “reasonable limits” on rights; the American rights tradition leans closer to absolute.

• Elections Canada draws federal ridings through independent, non-partisan commissions. In 2025, six US states redrew their maps mid-decade for partisan advantage.

• Mark Carney has governed with a minority in the House of Commons since April 2025 without a single shutdown. Washington’s 2025 shutdown ran 43 days, the longest in US history.

Forty-three days.

That’s how long Washington shut its own government down last fall, the longest funding lapse in American history, beating the 2018-2019 record by more than a week. Nearly a million federal workers went unpaid. Food assistance for tens of millions of Americans got tangled up in the standoff. The fight wasn’t really about the money. It was about whether two parties that no longer trust each other could agree on anything at all.

Meanwhile, up here, Mark Carney had been running a government with 169 of the 343 seats in the House of Commons, three short of a majority, since April 2025. No shutdown. No furloughed civil servants. No 43-day standoff over a budget. That went on until several Conservative MPs realised their leader was an ineffective tool and crossed the floor to join the Liberal Party, swelling their numbers to the current 173 seats, enough for a majority.

That’s not a difference in personality. It’s a difference in architecture, and it’s the first reason Canada looks less like the United States than it looks like the parliamentary democracies of Europe.

Ottawa Thinks Like Brussels, Not Washington

Canada operates under a Westminster Parliament within a constitutional monarchy, where the executive answers to the legislature every single day. The US runs on a presidential system built to make the branches fight each other.

Canada is a Westminster parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy, the same basic architecture as the UK, and closer in spirit to the parliamentary systems across Western Europe than anything in Washington. The prime minister isn’t a separately elected executive facing off against Congress.

The prime minister is a member of Parliament who holds office only as long as the House of Commons has confidence in them. Lose a confidence vote, lose government. There’s no scenario where the executive and the legislature glare at each other for six weeks while paycheques don’t go out, because the system doesn’t let that kind of stalemate just sit there. It gets resolved fast, one way or another: a deal, or an election.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms works the same pragmatic way. Section 1 guarantees rights and freedoms “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That’s the whole Canadian approach in one sentence: rights matter, but so does the fact that people have to live together. Germany, France, and the Nordic countries build their constitutions on the same premise. The American First Amendment tradition, by contrast, treats rights as nearly absolute, which sounds noble until it collides with a country that can’t agree on almost anything else.

Washington hit a wall and simply stopped functioning.

No Gerrymandering, No Voter Purges, No Games

Elections Canada draws federal riding boundaries through independent commissions with no political staff on the payroll. In 2025, six US states redrew their maps mid-decade for the express purpose of winning more seats.

Elections Canada is a non-partisan federal agency. It doesn’t answer to whichever party currently holds power. It runs the vote count, and Canadians still mark paper ballots that get counted by hand in front of scrutineers from every party in the room. Riding boundaries get redrawn every ten years by independent commissions, and no elected official gets to touch the pen.

Now look south. In 2025, Texas Republicans, at Donald Trump’s explicit request, redrew the state’s congressional map mid-decade, outside the normal once-a-decade census cycle, specifically to manufacture five additional Republican seats ahead of the 2026 midterms. A federal court blocked it in November, ruling the map was likely racially gerrymandered; Texas is appealing to the Supreme Court. California, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, and North Carolina all redrew their own maps that same year, mostly in direct retaliation. Six different states decided within the same twelve months that districts should be a weapon rather than a formality.

Canada isn’t a perfect democracy. Nobody’s claiming that. But nobody in Ottawa gets to redraw a riding because the polling looks bad.

What Canadians Can Actually Do About It

Defending boring institutions is the whole job. Elections Canada, the CBC, and the local paper down the street don’t run themselves.

None of this holds up on its own. Elections Canada needs to remain independent and properly funded, not be treated as a political football whenever a sitting government wants to tinker with how elections are run. The CBC, whatever complaints Canadians have about it — and there are plenty — is part of the same infrastructure: a public broadcaster that isn’t owned by whoever bought it, in a media environment where local newsrooms keep closing, and trust in American cable news keeps sliding.

Pierre Poilievre has promised to defund it outright; that fight isn’t hypothetical, it was a live issue in the last election, and it will be one again.

And local journalism, the unglamorous stuff, city council meetings and school board votes and the reporters who actually show up, is what keeps any of this honest at the level Canadians actually live at.

Nobody in Ottawa gets to redraw a riding because the polling looks bad.

That’s not partisan. It’s maintenance.

This is Part 1 of a 3-part Canada-EU Future series from The Sanity Project. Part 2 covers health, safety, and the social contract. Part 3 covers the CETA trade case for looking east across the Atlantic instead of south.

Corrections & Updates Protocol

The Sanity Project corrects errors transparently. Any factual correction to this piece will appear here as an inline “Update (Month Year):” note rather than a silent edit.

Publications Consulted

The Washington Post, NPR, Al Jazeera, USAFacts, Bloomberg Law, CBC News, CTV News, Global News, Common Cause, Government Executive.

Carney Tells EU Parliament Canada Won't Bow to Trump's Tariff Threats

Mark Carney stood before the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Thursday and spent twenty minutes talking about oak trees, and somehow never once had to say Donald Trump’s name for everyone in the room to know exactly who he was talking about.

The occasion was substantial in itself. A day earlier, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told her own parliament that Canada should become the EU’s first Associate Member, a status that doesn’t currently exist anywhere in European treaty law and would have to be invented from scratch. Carney called it an “Alliance for the Future” and laid out a list of concrete areas of cooperation that ranged from critical minerals processing to sovereign AI compute to a shared financial services market. That alone would have made news.

What made it sharper is what Carney didn’t say. He talked about tariffs “being used as a means of pressure.” He talked about financial mechanisms “used for coercive purposes” and supply chains becoming “vulnerabilities to exploit.” He described technology platforms that want to dictate their own rules and companies that prove national the moment things get difficult.

Not one word named the United States. He didn’t need to. Two days earlier, Trump had already called the EU’s Canada offer a possible “hostile act” and threatened Europe with heavy tariffs if he decided the relationship was unfriendly toward Washington.

That’s the real story buried in a speech built around a century-old oak tree from Vimy Ridge. Canada sends roughly seven in ten of its exported dollars south of the border. The country’s own prime minister just spent a formal address to a foreign legislature describing exactly the kind of economic coercion Ottawa has spent the past year absorbing, in a room full of people who understood the reference without a footnote.

Carney was more direct when reporters pressed him on Trump’s comments afterwards. Canadians are united, he said, that nobody is going to tell them what language they speak, and no one is going to dictate their culture or who they strike agreements with. That’s not diplomatic hedging. That’s a prime minister telling the White House, in a foreign capital, that the era of asking permission is over.

None of this means Ottawa is walking away from Washington. Carney was explicit that he isn’t building a third power bloc to rival anyone, only pursuing what he called resilience, the kind that keeps any single partner from controlling Canadian markets or dictating Canadian choices. But resilience only means something if you’re building an alternative, and Thursday’s speech was Canada publicly building one, in front of the ally that keeps threatening to punish it for trying.

Watch for the Montreal summit at the end of October, when Canada and EU leaders sit down to define what Associate Member status actually means. That’s when this stops being a speech and starts being a treaty.

Canada Grows the Food. Now Let’s Finish the Job.

A few days ago, Canadian entrepreneur and investor Arlene Dickinson published an article called “Canada’s Handshake Means Something”, one of the clearest explanations I’ve read of a problem hiding in plain sight in Canadian agriculture.

Her argument begins with two numbers. Canada ranks fifth in the world in agricultural commodity exports, she writes, but only 11th in processed food exports.

The precise rankings vary somewhat depending on how agricultural and processed-food exports are defined, but Dickinson’s larger point is difficult to dispute. Canada is extraordinarily good at growing food, but considerably less successful at capturing all the economic value that comes after the harvest.

We grow the wheat, and someone else can turn it into pasta. We grow the peas, and someone else can extract the protein, manufacture the food and put a brand on the package. We raise the livestock and, in some cases, literally ship the animal across the border for processing.

Dickinson calls this the difference between being an agricultural superpower and becoming an agrifood superpower. Her article got me wondering about the obvious next question:

If we know what the problem is, what would it actually take to fix it?

So I went looking.

What I found was surprisingly encouraging. Many of the solutions Dickinson is calling for are no longer theoretical. Canada has begun putting serious money behind them.

Canada Already Has the Hard Part

Let’s begin by dispensing with one misconception. Canada does not need to become an agricultural powerhouse. We already are one.

We have the land, water, farmers, technology, expertise and international reputation. Canadian agriculture produces enormous quantities of wheat, canola, pulses, beef, pork, potatoes and other products for both Canadians and the world.

Nor does Canada lack a food-processing industry. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, food and beverage processing is already Canada’s largest manufacturing industry, with $173.4 billion in manufacturing sales in 2024. It employs about 318,400 Canadians, while processed food and beverage exports reached a record $59.8 billion.

The problem is what happens between our enormous agricultural industry and that enormous processing industry.

Canada’s own National Food Security Strategy now acknowledges that Canada does not process nearly as much of the food grown or harvested here as it could. Instead, some of it leaves the country for processing, taking potential jobs, investment and economic activity with it.

We’ve already looked at this strange Canadian food paradox: we can be major food producers while still importing enormous quantities of products we could grow, process, or store here.

And that’s where things get interesting.

Grow It Here. Ship It Away. Buy It Back.

Consider tomatoes. Canada exported more than $724 million worth of fresh tomatoes in 2025, while importing more than $511 million worth of processed tomato products.

Or consider livestock. In 2025, Canada exported 24% of our live hogs and 20% of our live cattle to the United States. Meanwhile, imported beef accounted for about 26% of Canadian consumption, and imported pork accounted for about 30%.

We are obviously not importing the same tomato we exported with a fake moustache and a new passport. International food supply chains are considerably more complicated than that.

But the underlying economic problem is real.

When Canada exports the raw agricultural product, we may surrender some of the processing, manufacturing, packaging, transportation, branding and ultimately profit that can be captured farther up the value chain.

So how do we change that?

Solution One: Stop Exporting So Much of the Value

The answer is not to stop exporting Canadian agricultural commodities. That would be economic lunacy. Our farmers are among the world’s great agricultural producers, and global commodity markets will remain enormously important to Canadian agriculture.

The opportunity is to process a larger share of what we produce before it leaves Canada.

Take peas. Canada is a global leader in dried pea exports, but RBC research found that approximately 88% of Canadian pea production over the past five years was exported as a raw commodity.

A pea, however, doesn’t have to remain a pea. It can become flour, starch, protein concentrate, protein isolate, an ingredient in manufactured foods and eventually part of a branded consumer product. Every additional step represents another opportunity for Canadian investment, Canadian jobs and Canadian economic activity.

We already have proof that this model can work.

Statistics Canada reports that Canada processed a record 11.6 million tonnes of canola domestically in 2025, producing 4.9 million tonnes of canola oil and 6.8 million tonnes of meal. Just over half of Canadian canola is now processed domestically.

That’s moving up the value chain.

Now imagine applying that thinking more aggressively across Canadian agriculture.

Solution Two: Build the Plants

Of course, saying “process more food in Canada” is considerably easier than actually doing it. Food-processing plants aren’t built with a hammer, a Costco membership and an enthusiastic Facebook group. They require enormous amounts of capital.

That’s why one of the most interesting developments happened just as Dickinson was making her argument.

On September 14, Farm Credit Canada launched a $1-billion Agri-food Project Finance initiative to finance major Canadian food-processing and manufacturing projects.

This isn’t money looking for another PowerPoint presentation. FCC says the financing is aimed at construction-ready infrastructure projects that can expand Canadian food processing and manufacturing capacity.

That matters because FCC identifies precisely the problem Dickinson does: some transformative food-processing projects are simply too large, complex or capital-intensive for conventional financing.

Canada also needs to examine the regulatory barriers involved in building and expanding these facilities. That doesn’t mean abandoning environmental protections, worker safety or food standards. Those aren’t bureaucratic annoyances. They’re part of why Canadian food has such a strong international reputation.

But safe and thorough does not have to mean unnecessarily slow and complicated.

The National Food Security Strategy specifically identifies regulatory approaches that increase costs and limit growth, while proposing ways to reduce unnecessary barriers without sacrificing health and safety standards.

That’s exactly the balance we should be pursuing.

Solution Three: Help Canadian Companies Become Big Canadian Companies

There’s another bottleneck hiding between the family business and the multinational corporation. Canada has plenty of small food processors. What we don’t have enough of are companies in the middle that successfully scale into large international competitors.

The numbers are striking.

About 26% of Canadian food and beverage processing establishments are micro-businesses, employing between one and four people. Another 66% are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Only 7% are medium-sized, while just 1% are large.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada specifically identifies access to capital as one reason companies struggle to make that leap.

RBC has reached a similar conclusion. Its research found that agrifood companies captured only about 4% of Canadian growth capital investment over the past five years, despite Canada's clear competitive advantages in agriculture and food.

And this is where Arlene Dickinson re-enters the story.

She hasn’t simply identified the problem.

She’s putting money behind fixing it.

Arlene Dickinson Is Betting on Her Own Argument

Dickinson’s new Velocity Agri-Capital Partners has received a $150-million anchor investment from Farm Credit Canada. Velocity is now in discussions with Canadian and international investors about additional commitments of up to $350 million, potentially bringing the fund to $500 million.

According to the Government of Canada’s announcement, Velocity will back promising Canadian agrifood and ag-tech companies while helping expand processing capacity, accelerate commercialisation, diversify supply chains and create export pathways into Southeast Asia.

That’s important because it’s easy to write that Canada needs more investment. It’s considerably more persuasive when the person making the argument turns around and helps create the investment vehicle.

Velocity is also only part of a much larger movement of capital. FCC says it has convened more than 20 investment organisations collectively prepared to deploy up to $5 billion into Canadian agriculture and food innovation by 2030.

For perhaps the first time in a while, Canada doesn’t appear to be merely admiring the problem from a safe distance.

Money is beginning to move.

Solution Four: Keep America. Add the World.

Dickinson also makes an important distinction about trade. Canada should not abandon the United States. That would be foolish. America is our largest customer and will almost certainly remain an enormously important market for Canadian agriculture and food.

The problem isn’t trading with America. The problem is depending too heavily on America.

FCC has identified approximately $12 billion in Canadian food and beverage exports that could potentially be diversified into non-U.S. markets. Its research found that more than three-quarters of Canadian food and beverage exports were going to the United States.

There’s nothing anti-American about wanting more customers.

If one customer buys three-quarters of what your business sells, you don’t have diversification. You have a relationship status.

Recent events have demonstrated the danger of building an export economy around a market where trade conditions can suddenly change. The answer isn’t to sell America less simply for the sake of it. The answer is to sell more to everyone else.

And Southeast Asia represents an extraordinary opportunity.

Solution Five: Use the Trade Deals We Already Have

The six major ASEAN markets imported approximately $160.2 billion worth of agrifood and seafood products in 2024, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s ASEAN trade analysis.

Canada supplied only about $3.3 billion.

That’s roughly 2% of the market.

Canada has also already negotiated significant market access through agreements including the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP. It provides preferential access for Canadian agricultural and processed food products to major markets, including Japan, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

In other words, Canada has spent years negotiating doors into some of the world’s most important markets.

Now Canadian businesses need more products to carry through them.

That’s another reason domestic processing matters. A shipload of Canadian wheat is valuable, but Canadian flour, pasta, cereal, baked-food ingredients and branded consumer products represent additional opportunities to capture value before that ship ever leaves Vancouver.

Dickinson has spent considerable time developing relationships in Southeast Asia, and Velocity will have teams in both Canada and Singapore.

That’s the kind of thinking Canada needs more of.

Don’t just negotiate the trade corridor. Fill it.

Solution Six: Build the Infrastructure Behind the Food

This also connects directly with something we’ve been examining extensively here at The Sanity Project: Canada’s extraordinary pipeline of 167 major investment projects.

Ports, railways, cold storage, reliable electricity, trade corridors and manufacturing infrastructure all matter to agriculture. A Canadian agrifood superpower doesn’t end at the farm gate. It requires an entire system capable of moving ingredients into processing facilities and finished products from those facilities to Toronto, Tokyo or Singapore efficiently and competitively.

We reached much the same conclusion when we examined the Dutch food system: its real advantage isn’t simply greenhouses. It’s the integration of growers, processors, research, energy, storage and logistics into one functioning system.

That’s why Canada’s broader infrastructure push and its agricultural ambitions shouldn’t be viewed as separate economic stories.

They’re pieces of the same strategy.

A billion-dollar food-processing plant isn’t particularly useful if its products can’t reach a port efficiently. And a modernised port isn’t nearly as valuable if we’re not producing more high-value Canadian goods to ship through it.

Connect the pieces, and the economic picture starts to look considerably different.

Solution Seven: Turn “Canadian” Into a Global Food Brand

There’s one final advantage Canada may be undervaluing: our reputation.

Dickinson puts it beautifully when she argues that Canada’s handshake means something. In a world increasingly defined by geopolitical uncertainty, unpredictable trade relationships and concerns about food security, Canada offers something valuable beyond wheat, beef or canola.

Reliability. Safety. Quality. Traceability. Political stability.

Arlene’s Substack

Canadas handshake means something.

Our handshake means something…

Read more

13 days ago · 373 likes · 44 comments · Arlene Dickinson

Other countries have transformed national reputation into commercial advantage. Germany became synonymous with engineering. Switzerland with precision. Italy with food and design.

Canada should deliberately work toward making Canadian food an international quality signal.

Not simply ingredients that disappear into someone else’s product, but products carrying Canadian names, Canadian brands and Canadian ingredients.

That's the same distinction we've been exploring in our Made in Canada series: where something is manufactured and who owns the brand are different questions, but both determine how much economic value ultimately remains in Canada.

Made in Canada. Sold to the world.

The Economic Prize Is Enormous

This isn’t merely an exercise in national pride.

Farm Credit Canada recently modelled what could happen if real GDP in Canadian food and beverage manufacturing grew by 3% annually over the next decade.

The potential result is up to $40 billion in additional economic activity, 217,000 new jobs, $16 billion in additional wages and benefits, and $1.3 billion in tax revenue.

Those are modelling estimates, not promises. No one has found 217,000 jobs stuffed behind a grain elevator waiting to be released.

But the estimates demonstrate the scale of the opportunity.

Canada doesn’t need to discover some exotic new industry, invent agriculture or figure out whether Canadians can grow food. Our farmers settled those questions generations ago.

The opportunity lies in the fields all around us.

From Agricultural Superpower to Agrifood Superpower

Which brings us back to Ms Arlene Dickinson.

Her article inspired this one because she framed the problem in a remarkably simple way: Canada has become exceptionally good at growing the ingredients, but we haven’t always finished the job.

The encouraging discovery from looking deeper into her argument is that Canada may finally be starting to do exactly that.

A billion dollars in specialised project financing is being aimed at major processing and manufacturing facilities. Hundreds of millions in growth capital are being assembled for Canadian agrifood companies. Billions more in public and private investment are potentially being mobilised.

Canada already has trade agreements providing access to enormous international markets. Infrastructure investment is moving, and Canadian agriculture remains among the strongest in the world.

None of this guarantees success. Plants still have to be built, companies still have to scale, and investors still have to take risks. Governments still have to eliminate unnecessary barriers, while Canadian businesses still have to get on planes, enter unfamiliar markets and compete.

But the destination is becoming remarkably clear:

Grow it here. Process more of it here. Manufacture it here. Brand it Canadian. Then sell it to the world.

Arlene Dickinson started this conversation by pointing out the uncomfortable distance between Canada’s strength in agricultural commodities and our weaker position farther up the food value chain.

More importantly, she’s now putting capital behind closing that gap.

Perhaps it’s time the rest of Canada did the same.

Because Canada doesn’t need to become an agricultural superpower.

We already are one. Now let’s finish the job.

Trump Keeps Joking Canada Should Be The 51st State. Europe Just Offered A Seat It Doesn’t Have.

Ursula von der Leyen stood up in Strasbourg this morning and offered Canada something the European Union has never given anyone. She invited Ottawa to become the EU’s first-ever associate member, a status that does not yet exist for any country. Mark Carney sat in the chamber and got a standing ovation when he rose to embrace her.

The timing was not an accident. Just months after Donald Trump revived his talk of making Canada the 51st state, Europe put its arm around the country in front of the whole continent. Brussels wanted the optics, and it got them.

Nobody explained what associate membership actually means. Von der Leyen offered no legal framework, no timeline, no vote count. She talked instead about moving past CETA, Canada and Europe’s existing trade deal, into what she called an alliance for the future covering manufacturing, defence industrial bases, a joint Arctic defence, AI and quantum computing. Trade under that existing deal has grown seventy five percent in under a decade, proof the relationship already works without a new label attached to it.

Carney has been careful with his own words. Days before the speech, he called this a “unique alliance,” not membership, since Canada is not a European country and full accession was never on the table. Canada already joined the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defence procurement program earlier this year, the first non-European country to do so. Associate membership would go further than that, but nobody in Strasbourg said how much further.

Europe is not the only relationship Canada has been quietly building this year. In August, while Trump’s tariff threats ate the headlines, Ottawa was closing in on a trade deal with India, which tells the same story.

That list is long for a status nobody has ever used. Carney was the first foreign head of government ever invited to sit in on a State of the Union address, and he gets his own turn at the podium Thursday. Roughly seventy percent of Canadian exports still go south, to a country whose president keeps floating annexation as a joke that is not entirely a joke.

Buried in the speech was a smaller, sharper moment. Von der Leyen told the story of a Danish pilot who spent years flying logging routes out of Terrace, British Columbia, before returning to Europe to fight wildfires, where he died. His family sat in the chamber while she spoke. A small BC town got named on the floor of the European Parliament, and that detail says more about how Europe sees this relationship than any trade figure does.

Von der Leyen gave Carney applause and a headline. She did not give him a treaty. Whether associate membership becomes real gets decided at next month’s Montreal summit, not on the floor in Strasbourg today. Canada should take the seat and read the fine print before it sits down.

20 of Canada’s Biggest Major Projects for 2026

For years, one of the easiest criticisms of Canada was that we had forgotten how to build big things. We could study them, consult about them, commission a report about the consultation, and then commission another report explaining why the first report required further study.

Something, however, appears to be changing. At the Canada Investment Summit in Toronto, the federal government is putting a remarkable collection of Canadian investment opportunities in front of some of the world’s largest pools of capital.

The summit is part of a broader strategy to catalyse $1 trillion in total Canadian investment over the next five years. That does not mean Ottawa plans to spend $1 trillion, but rather that it wants public investment and policy to help unlock much larger amounts of private capital. (Canada Investment Summit)

We previously went through the entire 66-page investment prospectus and built a searchable database of its 167 projects. They range from mines and ports to LNG terminals, satellite constellations, AI data centres, high-speed trains and enormous renewable-energy developments.

This time we’re doing something slightly different. We’re looking at 20 of the largest projects in the entire prospectus, and “large” may be something of an understatement.

The biggest carries a stated capital scale of US$57 billion. The second is US$44 billion, the third is US$36 billion, and even project number 20 comes in at roughly US$ 4 billion-plus.

These aren’t twenty government-funded projects, nor are they twenty approved construction sites waiting for excavators. Some are advanced, some are seeking investors, some are moving through environmental reviews, and others remain extremely ambitious ideas.

Taken together, however, they provide a fascinating glimpse of the country Canada could become. And after spending considerable time buried in the details, I came away thinking that the country is considerably more ambitious than most Canadians probably realise.

How We Chose the 20 Biggest Projects

Before we start throwing around billions like we’re ordering appetisers, one important qualification is necessary. The prospectus mixes U.S. dollars, Canadian dollars and figures where the currency isn’t specified, so ranking them with mathematical precision would be misleading.

We’ve therefore preserved the capital figures as presented rather than quietly converting everything. We’re also using the largest stated project or phase scale where a development is presented in stages.

This is best understood as 20 of the largest projects presented at the Canada Investment Summit, not a forensic accounting exercise determining whether project number 13 is precisely $27.42 more expensive than project number 14.

Where newer government, regulatory or proponent information is available, I’ve also used it to determine where these projects stand today. With that housekeeping out of the way, let’s go shopping for megaprojects.

The 20 Biggest Projects in Canada’s Investment Pipeline

1. Port of Churchill Plus — Manitoba

Stated scale: US$57 billion

The biggest proposal in The 167 is really an entire northern economic corridor: an expanded Port of Churchill, modernised rail, an all-season road, marine icebreaking and potentially an energy corridor.

The existing port and railway are owned by the Indigenous-led Arctic Gateway Group, representing 41 First Nations and northern community shareholders. Ottawa says expansion could diversify Prairie trade toward Europe while strengthening Canada’s Arctic presence and sovereignty. Apparently, Churchill has decided that being famous for polar bears was not ambitious enough.

Major Projects Office: Port of Churchill Plus

2. Wind West — Nova Scotia

Stated scale: US$44 billion

Wind West is less a wind farm than an attempt to turn Atlantic Canada into an enormous clean-power platform. The federal Major Projects Office says the concept could tap more than 60 GW of Nova Scotia offshore wind potential, supported by new transmission connecting Atlantic and eastern markets.

The nearer-term ambition is to unlock 5,000 MW. Atlantic Canada has spent generations exporting fish, timber and people, so exporting vast quantities of electricity would be a rather welcome addition to the list.

Major Projects Office: Wind West

3. Novatron Energy — Québec

Stated scale: US$36 billion

Novatron is one of the more ambitious clean-energy proposals in the prospectus, envisioning a huge new energy platform connecting generation and markets in Québec and Atlantic Canada. At US$36 billion, this is firmly in nation-building territory rather than “let’s put a few solar panels on the warehouse.”

It is also among the projects where ambition currently outpaces publicly visible development details. That’s not necessarily bad because every megaproject begins as an idea. The trick, historically, has been getting Canada to the shovel part.

4. West Coast Oil Pipeline — Alberta and British Columbia

Stated scale: approximately $35 billion, currency unspecified

This one has moved well beyond a hypothetical line on a map. Alberta proposes a roughly 1,250-kilometre pipeline to transport one million barrels per day from the Edmonton region to a deepwater terminal in southern British Columbia.

Ottawa referred it to the Major Projects Office in July and is considering designation under the Building Canada Act. Whatever one’s feelings about oil, getting Canadian resources to customers other than the United States is becoming less an ideological question and more an economic-security strategy.

Major Projects Office: West Coast Oil Pipeline

5. Ksi Lisims LNG Terminal & PRGT Pipeline — British Columbia

Stated scale: approximately US$28.5 billion

Ksi Lisims combines a floating LNG export facility on B.C.’s north coast with the roughly 750-kilometre Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline. More interestingly, the project is being developed in partnership with the Nisg̱a’a Nation, Rockies LNG and Western LNG.

The project has received major federal and provincial environmental approvals and has secured European supply agreements. This isn’t simply Canada digging something up and shipping it south; it combines Indigenous ownership, Canadian energy and overseas customers. More of that combination, please.

Major Projects Office: Ksi Lisims LNG

6. Kino Aski LNG — Québec

Stated scale: US$23 billion

Kino Aski proposes something Canada has discussed for years: moving western Canadian natural gas east and exporting LNG to Europe. The First Nations-led project envisions roughly 1,000 kilometres of new pipeline infrastructure, substantial LNG production and major port development at Baie-Comeau.

It remains in the early stages, with technical studies and consultations underway and no formal regulatory filing yet. Still, a majority-Indigenous-owned Canadian energy corridor supplying Europe is not exactly a small idea.

Kino Aski LNG

7. TransPod Alberta Corridor — Alberta

Stated scale: $22 billion, currency unspecified

TransPod wants to connect Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton using ultra-high-speed transportation technology designed to carry passengers and freight. A feasibility study supported by Alberta Transportation has already examined the corridor’s economic potential.

This remains one of the more futuristic projects in The 167, and futuristic transportation projects have a habit of looking wonderful in renderings and considerably more complicated once somebody asks where everything goes. Still, Calgary-to-Edmonton transportation deserves bigger thinking than simply adding another highway lane.

TransPod Alberta Corridor

8. Redcliff AI Data Centre Campus — Alberta

Stated scale: $14.5 billion, currency unspecified

Near Medicine Hat, the proposed Redcliff campus represents another emerging Canadian resource industry: computing power. The prospectus places its scale at $14.5 billion, part of a remarkable rush of proposed AI infrastructure into Alberta.

The attraction isn’t mysterious. AI requires enormous quantities of electricity, land and cooling, and Alberta would very much like to provide them. Apparently, natural gas isn’t the only thing the province intends to export in industrial quantities.

Alberta AI Data Centre Strategy

9. Prairie Link High-Speed Rail — Alberta

Stated scale: $10.9 billion, currency unspecified

Prairie Link proposes a high-speed passenger rail line connecting Calgary, Red Deer, and Edmonton, backed by a development team that includes AECOM and EllisDon. Alberta’s rapidly growing urban corridor makes the basic idea increasingly compelling, although planning a railway and actually building one remain very different accomplishments.

Canada has discussed high-speed rail for so long that it occasionally feels like part of our national heritage. At some point, one assumes, we’re legally required to stop studying fast trains and actually ride one.

Prairie Link

10. The EVREC Green Energy Hub — Newfoundland and Labrador

Stated scale: US$10.6 billion

EVREC proposes 3.5 GW of onshore wind, as many as 530 turbines, a 150-MW solar farm and a 2.6-GW hydrogen/ammonia facility around Botwood. This isn’t simply renewable electricity; it’s an attempt to transform Newfoundland’s extraordinary wind resource into exportable industrial products.

The project is undergoing environmental assessment, and the province determined in July that its environmental impact statement required additional work. That’s useful context: enormous potential, serious scrutiny and a long road still ahead. Big projects are supposed to be difficult.

Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Assessment

11. Woodfibre LNG Expansion — British Columbia

Stated scale: US$9.9 billion

Woodfibre’s proposed expansion builds on an LNG project already under development near Squamish, giving it something many entries on this list don’t yet have: substantial real-world infrastructure to expand.

The broader strategy is straightforward. Produce Canadian natural gas, liquefy it on the Pacific coast, and sell it to Asian markets rather than remaining overwhelmingly dependent on a single continental customer. Trade diversification, occasionally, requires actual pipes.

Woodfibre LNG

12. AHI AI Hub of Innovation — Alberta

Stated scale: more than $9 billion at full buildout, currency unspecified

AHI proposes an AI infrastructure campus ultimately reaching one gigawatt, with the prospectus describing $2.7 billion to $3.2 billion required for 300 MW by 2030 and more than $9 billion for the complete platform.

That is an extraordinary amount of computing power and an equally extraordinary electricity requirement. Alberta sees an opportunity to turn abundant energy into digital infrastructure, so the oil patch may someday have neighbours filled with GPUs instead of pumpjacks.

13. Commercial Low-Carbon Synthetic Gasoline Facilities — Alberta

Stated scale: US$6 billion to US$7 billion

This proposal would develop two commercial facilities producing lower-carbon synthetic gasoline. The intriguing part is the industrial logic: rather than simply exporting energy resources, Alberta could use its energy, engineering expertise and carbon-management capabilities to manufacture higher-value fuels at home.

That’s precisely the transition Canada needs more often: from raw resources to processing to finished products to export. We don’t necessarily need to stop being a resource economy; we need to become much better at keeping more of the value created from those resources.

14. Mactaquac Life Achievement Project — New Brunswick

Stated scale: US$5.1 billion to US$6.6 billion

Not every nation-building project needs to be shiny and new. New Brunswick’s Mactaquac project aims to extend the life of one of the province’s most important hydroelectric generating stations, with construction potentially beginning in 2027, subject to approvals.

Keeping dependable Canadian hydroelectricity operating for decades longer isn’t particularly glamorous, and there will probably be no dramatic ribbon-cutting involving robots. But reliable electricity is the infrastructure upon which virtually everything else on this list depends.

NB Power: Mactaquac

15. Genesee Energy Campus — Alberta

Stated scale: US$2 billion to US$6 billion

The Genesee concept illustrates how quickly the definition of an “energy project” is changing. Alberta’s established power infrastructure is increasingly being viewed as a foundation for new-generation digital infrastructure and energy-intensive industry.

That’s a recurring theme throughout The 167. Canada doesn’t necessarily need to abandon the industries and infrastructure it already has; sometimes the smarter move is to use those assets as the foundation for whatever comes next.

16. Telesat Lightspeed LEO Constellation — Canada-wide

Stated scale: US$5.2 billion

For the reader who asked whether telecom appears anywhere in The 167: here it is. Ottawa-based Telesat is building a Canadian low-Earth-orbit satellite communications network, and the city recently awarded it an initial C$2.3-billion military communications contract to support secure Arctic communications.

Lightspeed therefore touches commercial broadband, advanced manufacturing, national security and Arctic sovereignty. Canadian telecom competition apparently exists after all. You just have to look several hundred kilometres above Bell, Rogers and Telus.

Government of Canada: Telesat Lightspeed

17. North Atlantic Green Energy Hub — Newfoundland and Labrador

Stated scale: US$5.1 billion

Newfoundland and Labrador appears repeatedly in The 167 for good reason. It has enormous wind resources, deepwater ports and unusually favourable geography for serving European markets.

The North Atlantic Green Energy Hub proposes using those advantages to create another large-scale clean-energy and export platform. Atlantic Canada is beginning to look less like Canada’s economic edge and considerably more like Canada’s front door to Europe.

18. PowerCo Canada — Ontario

Stated scale: up to US$5 billion

Volkswagen subsidiary PowerCo is building Canada’s first large-scale battery-cell manufacturing plant in St. Thomas, Ontario, creating a crucial domestic link between Canadian critical minerals and vehicle manufacturing.

That’s exactly the value chain Canada has too often surrendered: extract the mineral here, ship it elsewhere, then buy back the expensive finished product. Digging things out of the ground is useful. Knowing what to do with them afterwards is even better.

Government of Canada: PowerCo Canada

19. Nova Scotia Renewable Energy Park — Nova Scotia

Stated scale: US$4.5 billion

Nova Sustainable Fuels proposes a renewable-energy park at Goldboro that produces sustainable aviation fuel and renewable methanol, powered in part by dedicated wind and solar generation. The project has already cleared its first provincial environmental assessment, with conditions, allowing further planning and development.

It’s another example of Atlantic Canada’s emerging industrial opportunity: don’t merely generate renewable electricity; use that electricity to manufacture something valuable enough to export. Wind is lovely. Wind transformed into aviation fuel and export revenue is considerably more interesting.

Nova Sustainable Fuels

20. Prince Rupert E-Fuels Project — British Columbia

Stated scale: approximately $4 billion-plus for Phase 2, currency unspecified

Prince Rupert already possesses one of Canada’s great geographic advantages: a Pacific port sitting unusually close to Asian markets. The proposed e-fuels development would add another layer by producing lower-carbon fuels for global customers.

The prospectus describes roughly $1.3 billion for Phase 1 and more than $4 billion for Phase 2. Canada’s ports don’t simply have to ship what we’ve always produced; they can become industrial platforms for products that barely existed a generation ago.

City of Prince Rupert: Innovative Energy Hub

What These 20 Projects Tell Us About Canada

Stand back from the individual projects, and a pattern starts to appear. This isn’t twenty versions of the same mine or pipeline; we have Arctic infrastructure, offshore wind, LNG, high-speed transportation, artificial intelligence, satellite communications, batteries, hydrogen, synthetic fuels, hydroelectricity and advanced manufacturing.

There is also a striking geographic story. Atlantic Canada punches far above its weight, while Alberta is simultaneously proposing enormous conventional energy projects, AI campuses, high-speed transportation, and lower-carbon fuels.

British Columbia’s Pacific geography makes it central to Canada’s trade-diversification ambitions, while Ontario remains crucial to advanced manufacturing. Manitoba suddenly finds itself sitting on what could become one of Canada’s most strategically important Arctic trade routes.

Then there is Indigenous economic participation. Port of Churchill Plus is built around the Indigenous-led Arctic Gateway; Ksi Lisims includes the Nisg̱a’a Nation as a partner; Kino Aski is majority-owned by First Nations; and the proposed West Coast Oil Pipeline contemplates Indigenous equity participation.

That’s a very different model from the Canada of fifty years ago. It also raises something we’ve discussed before at The Sanity Project: who owns Canada’s emerging economy matters almost as much as what we build.

For more on that question: Who Actually Owns Canada’s Greenhouse?

This Is Also About Getting Away From One Customer

Another theme runs through much of this list: trade diversification. LNG to Europe and Asia, Prairie commodities through Churchill, oil to Pacific customers, clean fuels through Prince Rupert, Atlantic electricity and hydrogen, and Canadian satellites serving domestic and international customers.

None of that means abandoning the United States, which will remain an enormously important Canadian customer and trading partner. But there is a rather obvious difference between having your biggest customer and having practically your only customer.

We’ve been exploring that vulnerability throughout our coverage of the Canada-U.S. trade war, because recent events have made the cost of overdependence considerably harder to ignore.

Canada has preferential access to 1.5 billion consumers through 16 free-trade agreements covering 51 countries. Building ports, pipelines, transmission, manufacturing, and digital infrastructure is how those trade agreements become more than framed documents hanging somewhere in Ottawa. (Canada Investment Summit)

The Important Catch: Proposed Does Not Mean Built

Now comes the bucket of cold Canadian lake water. The 167-project prospectus contains everything from operating assets seeking expansion to developments still seeking investors, undergoing environmental assessment, or working through early engineering.

A $40-billion idea and a $40-billion construction site are not the same thing. It would therefore be misleading to add all these numbers together and announce that Canada is about to experience the greatest construction boom since somebody first looked at the Canadian Shield and decided it needed a railway.

What the prospectus actually shows is what could be built. That’s part of the purpose of the Investment Summit: bringing Canadian proponents together with enormous pools of global capital and trying to turn more of these possibilities into real projects.

Ottawa’s objective is to catalyse $1 trillion in total investment over five years, not to write a trillion-dollar government cheque. The Major Projects Office is another part of that strategy, helping significant projects navigate governments, regulatory processes, Indigenous consultation and financing. (Major Projects Office)

Some projects will fail, some will shrink, and others will change ownership or design. Some will probably cost considerably more than anybody currently thinks, because megaprojects occasionally seem to regard budgets as more of a conversation starter than a binding commitment.

Others may eventually become parts of Canadian infrastructure that our grandchildren simply assume have always been there. Nobody looking at a railway, hydroelectric dam or seaway today spends much time thinking about how improbable those projects once appeared.

Canada’s Real Challenge Is Execution

That may be the most important lesson from The 167: Canada does not appear to have an ideas problem. We have energy, minerals, ports, engineering expertise, clean electricity, capital markets, universities, an educated workforce, three oceans and extensive access to global markets.

We’ve written before about those less obvious advantages in Canada’s Secret Superpower: We Have.... The more difficult question is whether we can organise all those advantages well enough to actually build things.

Can we approve major projects within reasonable timeframes while still conducting thorough environmental reviews? Can Indigenous communities become genuine owners and economic partners rather than groups consulted after everyone else has already made the important decisions?

Can we build enough electricity generation and transmission to support AI, mining, manufacturing, EVs and population growth simultaneously? Can we train enough skilled workers and maintain policies long enough for investors contemplating projects with 20-, 30- and 50-year horizons?

Perhaps most importantly, can Canadians rediscover a willingness to say yes occasionally? Not yes to everything, not without environmental safeguards, and certainly not to terrible economics simply because somebody attached the words “nation building” to a PowerPoint presentation.

But yes to projects that make sense. Yes to infrastructure that increases our independence, creates Canadian wealth, opens new markets and leaves something useful behind for the next generation.

The Canada These Projects Imagine

That’s ultimately why I find this prospectus so fascinating. The 167 projects aren’t a government construction schedule, promises or guarantees, but possibilities can still tell us a great deal about where a country thinks its opportunities lie.

Canada, as imagined here, exports energy to Europe and Asia rather than relying overwhelmingly on a single customer. It moves Prairie products through Hudson Bay, manufactures batteries in Ontario, builds satellites, develops critical minerals and processes more of them here.

It produces cleaner fuels on both coasts, builds massive computing infrastructure in Alberta and develops renewable-energy industries across Atlantic Canada. In other words, it is simultaneously a resource, manufacturing, energy, and technology economy.

That’s considerably more interesting than the tired argument that Canada must somehow choose between being a resource country or a clean-energy country, between oil and technology, or between economic growth and environmental responsibility. A country this large should be capable of doing several things at once.

Whether this ambition survives contact with regulatory hearings, financing markets, commodity prices, elections and Canadian winters remains to be seen. After spending days going through all 167 projects, however, I’ve come away considerably more optimistic than when I started.

There is no shortage of ideas, resources or opportunity, and apparently there isn’t a shortage of ambition either. The real test is whether Canada still remembers how to build big things.

UPDATE: And Then There’s Churchill Falls

Since publishing this article, another enormous Canadian project has caught our attention, partly because of what isn’t remarkable about it: it isn’t one of the 167 projects in the Investment Summit prospectus.

The new Churchill Falls/Gull Island hydroelectric development involving Newfoundland and Labrador and Québec is nevertheless one of the largest projects Canada is contemplating.

The broader agreement includes upgrades and expansion at Churchill Falls, a new 2,700 MW Gull Island generating station, more than 660 kilometres of transmission infrastructure, Labrador West transmission and proposed new wind generation. The federal government has described the package as the largest clean-energy investment in North American history.

Newfoundland and Labrador has described the package as involving more than $50 billion in capital spending.

And here’s what makes it particularly interesting in the context of this article: none of that was required to make our Top 20 list.

Churchill Falls/Gull Island isn’t one of the 167 projects in the Investment Summit prospectus. It’s essentially a bonus megaproject sitting outside the list.

That is a useful reminder of what The 167 actually represents. It isn’t a complete inventory of everything being proposed, financed or built across Canada. It is a collection of projects presented to investors at one particular investment summit.

Apparently 167 wasn’t enough.

There are even more big Canadian projects happening outside the list.

Canada is expending a lot of energy right now to tell the world that we are open for business. At the Canada Investment Summit in Toronto, global investors, Canadian CEOs and public-sector representatives are gathering to discuss new investment in Canada. The federal government has set an ambitious goal of catalysing $1 trillion in total investment over the next five years, and the summit itself is being hosted by the Prime Minister in partnership with CPP Investments and PSP Investments.

In our previous investigation, The 167, we went through the entire 66-page investment prospectus and built a searchable database of all 167 projects. The list includes mines, ports, pipelines, wind farms, power projects, AI data centres, manufacturing facilities and transportation infrastructure. Some are relatively modest. Others carry proposed investment figures in the tens of billions of dollars.

Inevitably, that raises a question, particularly when much of the money being courted could come from outside Canada: Are we selling Canada to foreign investors?

It’s a reasonable question. It’s also based, at least partly, on a misunderstanding of what foreign investment in Canada actually means. Canada isn’t putting 167 mines, ports and power plants on Facebook Marketplace and waiting for Luxembourg to click Buy Now. We are looking for capital, and those are two very different things.

What Does Foreign Investment in Canada Actually Mean?

When most people hear the words foreign investment, they understandably picture a foreign corporation buying a Canadian company. That certainly can happen, and we’ll get to that. But an outright acquisition is only one form of foreign investment.

International capital can arrive as loans, bonds, minority equity investments, joint ventures, infrastructure financing, pension-fund investments or strategic partnerships. Some arrangements involve partial ownership. Others involve no ownership whatsoever. Treating all of these as equivalent to selling a Canadian company is like saying your bank owns your house just because it gave you a mortgage.

Consider a hypothetical Canadian company that discovers an enormous nickel deposit in northern Ontario. That’s potentially terrific news, but there is a small complication: turning that deposit into a working mine, processing facility, roads, transmission infrastructure, and all the other things necessary to actually produce nickel might cost $3 billion.

The company checks its chequing account and discovers it is, regrettably, short by about $2.98 billion.

So it raises capital. An Australian pension fund might lend the company $500 million. A European infrastructure fund could invest $750 million in exchange for a minority equity position. A Canadian bank might finance another portion. A Japanese automobile manufacturer could invest in exchange for a long-term agreement giving it access to some of the nickel produced by the project.

At the end of all that, Ontario has not become a Japanese prefecture. The nickel deposit remains in Canada. The mine operates under Canadian and Ontario law. Canadian workers employed there pay Canadian taxes. The company pays applicable corporate taxes and provincial mining royalties. The roads, transmission lines and processing facilities built for the project remain here.

Ideally, Canada goes one step further. Rather than simply digging nickel out of the ground and shipping it elsewhere, some of that capital is used to process, refine, and eventually manufacture higher-value products here in Canada.

Of course, the foreign investors aren’t doing any of this because they recently discovered an uncontrollable affection for Sudbury. They expect to make money. That’s how investment works. Canada gains access to the capital it needs to build productive assets, while investors receive the opportunity to earn a return by putting their capital to work here.

Foreign Investment Is Not the Same as Foreign Ownership

This distinction is essential to understanding the debate.

If a German pension fund buys $200 million in bonds issued to finance a Canadian infrastructure project, it has invested in Canada. It hasn’t purchased the infrastructure, much less the country. If a Japanese manufacturer buys 10 per cent of a Canadian mining company, that’s an equity investment. If it buys 100 per cent of that company, that’s an acquisition.

Those are fundamentally different transactions, and actual foreign ownership deserves more scrutiny because ownership can determine who ultimately controls a company and makes its strategic decisions.

We’ve already encountered this distinction at The Sanity Project. In our investigation, Who Actually Owns Canada’s Greenhouse Boom, we looked at a long-established Ontario family greenhouse business that had become part of Atlanta-based Cox Enterprises’ agricultural operation.

That was genuine foreign ownership. We didn’t conclude that foreign ownership automatically made the operation bad for Canada. The greenhouses were still in Ontario, Canadians were still employed, and Canadian food was still being produced. But ownership matters because it can change where strategic decisions are made and where profits ultimately flow.

That’s why a serious discussion about foreign investment needs more nuance than either side of the political shouting match usually allows. Foreign capital can be enormously beneficial, even though not every foreign acquisition is necessarily in Canada’s interest.

Can Foreign Investors Actually Buy Canadian Companies?

Yes. Foreign corporations can and do acquire Canadian companies, and pretending otherwise would be just as misleading as claiming that every foreign investment represents the sale of a Canadian asset.

Canada has an entire legal framework designed to deal with precisely this issue: the Investment Canada Act.

The federal government describes foreign investment as important to Canada’s economic success because it can contribute to economic growth, employment, new technology and access to global supply chains. At the same time, the Investment Canada Act gives Ottawa significant powers to scrutinise foreign investments when economic or national-security concerns arise.

In other words, Canada’s policy isn’t supposed to be either foreign money is bad or money, come on in and make yourself at home. The objective is to attract beneficial investment while retaining the ability to protect Canadian interests.

What Is the Investment Canada Act?

The Investment Canada Act, commonly called the ICA, is essentially Canada’s gatekeeping system for significant foreign investment. It does not prohibit foreigners from investing in Canadian businesses. Instead, it establishes mechanisms through which investments can be reviewed and, when necessary, subjected to conditions or rejected.

One of those mechanisms is the net benefit review. Significant foreign acquisitions of control above the applicable threshold can be examined to determine whether they are likely to provide a net benefit to Canada. The government can consider factors including Canadian employment, resource processing, Canadian participation in the business, productivity, technology and innovation, competition and Canada’s ability to compete internationally.

That’s a wonderfully Canadian concept. You may buy the company, but before you do, we’d like to have a quick chat about what you plan to do with it.

There is an important qualification. Not every foreign acquisition receives a net-benefit review. The Act uses different thresholds depending on the investor and transaction. For example, the 2026 threshold for certain private-sector WTO investors is $1.452 billion in enterprise value, while the corresponding threshold for certain state-owned WTO investors is $578 million in asset value.

That’s something we encountered in our greenhouse investigation: foreign ownership can occur without necessarily triggering a full net-benefit review.

Canada’s system, therefore, isn’t an impenetrable fortress protecting every Canadian company from foreign ownership. Nor was it designed to be.

National security, however, is another matter.

Foreign Investment and Canadian National Security

Canada’s national-security review powers under the Investment Canada Act are considerably broader than the net-benefit provisions.

The federal government states that any foreign investment can be subject to national-security review regardless of its value, and that investments not subject to mandatory filing requirements, including minority investments, can still be assessed for potential national-security harm.

The government can examine the nature of the Canadian asset, the terms of the transaction, the identity of the investor and the possibility of third-party or foreign-state influence. Depending on what that process finds, an investment can face conditions, be prevented from proceeding or ultimately be subject to divestiture.

These powers aren’t merely theoretical. In the 2024–25 Investment Canada Act annual report, Ottawa reported 30 investments that underwent extended national-security reviews. One resulted in an order to wind up the Canadian business, six were permitted to proceed based on enforceable undertakings, nine were withdrawn by the investors, and 14 concluded without further action.

So buying 10 per cent rather than 51 per cent isn’t necessarily a clever invisibility cloak. Ottawa can still look.

What About Canada’s Critical Minerals?

This brings us directly back to The 167.

Of the 167 opportunities included in the Canada Investment Summit prospectus, 63 are Minerals and Metals projects, making that the single largest category. Many involve resources that are increasingly important not merely as commodities but as strategic assets.

Lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt, graphite and rare earth elements are inputs for batteries, electricity grids, advanced manufacturing, aerospace, communications and defence. As we’ve discussed previously in our coverage of Canada’s critical-mineral advantage, these resources give Canada economic leverage at precisely the moment when governments around the world are trying to secure reliable supply chains.

Ottawa has consequently adopted tougher rules for certain foreign investments in this sector. Under Canada’s official policy regarding foreign state-owned investment in critical minerals, scrutiny can extend across the value chain, from exploration and development to production, processing, and refining. The policy explicitly states that it applies regardless of value and whether the investment is controlling or non-controlling.

The federal government went further in 2024. In its Ministerial Statement on Net Benefit Reviews of Canadian Critical Minerals Companies, Ottawa announced that acquisitions of important Canadian-headquartered mining companies engaged in significant critical-mineral operations would be found to provide a net benefit to Canada only in “the most exceptional of circumstances.”

That’s not exactly a CLEARANCE SALE: EVERYTHING MUST GO policy.

It reflects an important reality. Some Canadian assets have strategic importance far beyond the dollar value someone might be willing to pay for them.

Who Actually Benefits From Foreign Investment?

When foreign investment works well, the benefits extend well beyond the investor and the company receiving the investment.

The investor receives a financial return, while the Canadian company gains access to capital it might otherwise struggle to raise. Workers gain employment. Local businesses become suppliers. Governments collect corporate and personal income taxes and, where applicable, resource royalties. Communities can gain roads, power infrastructure and other improvements. Indigenous communities can participate through employment, procurement, partnerships, benefit agreements and, increasingly, equity ownership.

Most importantly, Canada gets productive assets built inside Canada.

That last point shouldn’t be underestimated. A $5-billion mine that never gets financed produces no minerals, employs no miners and pays no mining royalties. A proposed port sitting in a PowerPoint presentation doesn’t load many ships. Canada possesses enormous natural resources, technological expertise and human capital. What we haven’t always possessed is enough patient capital, infrastructure and speed to transform those advantages into productive assets.

Foreign investment can help close that gap.

That doesn’t mean every foreign investment is automatically good. Some acquisitions can transfer control of strategically important businesses outside Canada. Some investments can create unhealthy dependencies. Foreign state-owned enterprises can pursue geopolitical objectives rather than purely commercial ones. Poorly structured deals can result in Canada exporting raw materials while higher-value processing, intellectual property and manufacturing migrate elsewhere.

Those are legitimate concerns. The answer is scrutiny, conditions and intelligent regulation, not economic isolation.

Could Foreign Investment Actually Strengthen Canadian Sovereignty?

This is where the argument becomes particularly interesting.

Canada has spent decades with an extraordinary concentration of its international economic relationship in one country: the United States. Geography made much of that inevitable, and the relationship has delivered enormous benefits to both countries.

Recent events have also demonstrated the risk of excessive dependence on a single market.

Canada is now deliberately attempting to strengthen its economic relationships with Europe, Asia and other regions. We’ve been documenting that shift for months, including in Canada-US Trade War 2026: While Trump Watched UFC, Carney Was Winning, where we examined Canada’s expanding trade and investment relationships beyond the United States.

Now apply the same principle to investment.

Imagine a major Canadian project financed by a combination of Canadian banks and pension funds, a German infrastructure investor, a Japanese manufacturer and an Australian pension fund. Once operating, the project’s products are sold not only in the United States but also to customers in Canada, Europe and Asia.

Which Canada is more economically sovereign: the one overwhelmingly dependent on a single foreign market and source of capital, or the one connected to multiple economies, multiple investors and multiple customers?

I know my answer.

Dependence does not become sovereignty simply because we’ve grown accustomed to the dependence.

Diversification can itself be an exercise in sovereignty. The objective shouldn’t be to eliminate international economic relationships. For a trading nation such as Canada, that would be economically self-destructive. The objective should be to avoid becoming dangerously dependent on any one of them.

Canada Isn’t for Sale. But Canada Should Be Open for Investment.

That brings us back to the 167 projects being presented to investors.

The Canada Investment Summit isn’t an auction. The government’s own description says the summit brings together global investors, Canadian CEOs and public-sector representatives with the goal of accelerating new investment into Canada. It is explicitly being presented as a platform for showcasing Canada as an investment destination and connecting Canadian opportunities with global capital.

There are two equally simplistic ways of responding to this.

One is to declare that foreign investment is always wonderful, take whatever money is offered and ask no awkward questions. The other is to insist that accepting foreign capital means Canada is selling itself and should therefore pull up the economic drawbridge.

Neither position survives serious examination.

Canada should aggressively pursue foreign investment while being equally aggressive about protecting strategic Canadian interests. We should insist that major projects generate economic benefits for Canada. We should push for more Canadian processing and manufacturing rather than remaining primarily an exporter of raw materials. We should protect strategically important resources and infrastructure, scrutinise foreign state-owned enterprises and use the Investment Canada Act when ownership or national security genuinely matters.

At the same time, we should welcome investors willing to put billions of dollars into building productive assets in Canada. And we should deliberately diversify both the countries investing here and the countries buying Canada's products.

Economic sovereignty doesn’t mean building a wall around Canada and trying to finance everything ourselves. It means deciding the terms on which the world does business with us.

If international investors want to help finance mines, ports, power systems, factories, technology, and transportation infrastructure in Canada, employ Canadians, operate under Canadian law, and contribute to the Canadian economy, we should absolutely be having that conversation.

We should have it carefully and strategically, and perhaps without assuming that every European pension fund arriving with a chequebook has come to steal Saskatchewan.

Canada isn’t for sale.

But Canada’s future is absolutely worth investing in. 🇨🇦

We reviewed all 167 projects pitched to global investors. Now you can search for every one of them yourself.

Canada has spent a lot of time lately talking about building.

Building faster. Building bigger. Building trade routes that don’t always end at the U.S. border. Building energy infrastructure, mines, ports, manufacturing plants, data centres and transportation networks.

This week, some substance was put behind that rhetoric.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Canada Investment Summit, taking place in Toronto September 14–15, brings together Canadian business leaders and some of the world’s largest institutional investors. The federal government’s stated ambition is enormous: to catalyse $1 trillion in total investment in Canada over the next five years.

But tucked behind the speeches and headlines is something even more interesting.

A 66-page investment prospectus containing 167 Canadian projects.

So we did what any perfectly normal person does when confronted with a 66-page investment prospectus.

We turned the whole thing into a spreadsheet.

Then we cleaned it up, checked questionable entries, verified locations where possible, examined currencies and capital costs, standardised the development stages and ultimately built something far more useful for ordinary Canadians:

A searchable database of all 167 projects.

And once you put all 167 in one place, some fascinating patterns emerge.

First, What Exactly Are These 167 Canadian Investment Projects?

This distinction matters.

These are not 167 projects being funded by the federal government. Nor are they 167 construction crews waiting for someone to yell, “Start your bulldozers!”

The prospectus describes them as selected investment opportunities at various stages of development. The information was largely submitted by the project proponents themselves, and inclusion in the document does not constitute a government endorsement. The projects can also change.

Think of this instead as a window into the Canada we are trying to build.

The summit is bringing global capital together with Canadian companies and projects in hopes of getting more of them financed and moving. The official summit describes the objective as mobilising long-term capital into productive assets that strengthen Canadian growth, competitiveness and economic resilience.

That’s particularly important now.

For decades, Canada’s economic geography provided us with one enormous advantage: the world’s largest economy was conveniently parked right next door.

Recent events have also reminded us of the danger of allowing convenience to become dependence.

Canadian sovereignty isn’t merely about flags and borders. Economic sovereignty matters too.

The more customers, investors, markets, and trading partners Canada has around the world, the more control Canadians have over their own future.

What Does a $1-Trillion Investment Strategy Actually Look Like?

Here’s the first surprise.

Mining. Lots and lots of mining.

Of the 167 projects, 63 are classified as Minerals and Metals.

That’s 37.7% of the entire prospectus, making mining and minerals easily the largest category. Clean Energy comes next with 31 projects, followed by Advanced Manufacturing with 19 projects and Marine and Port Infrastructure with 16 projects. Independent reporting on the summit confirms the same 63-project mining concentration.

But there’s an even bigger story hiding in those numbers.

Combine Minerals and Metals, Clean Energy, Conventional Energy, and Power and Utilities, and you get:

116 of the 167 projects.

That’s 69.5%.

In other words, almost seven out of every ten projects in this investment playbook involve Canada’s resources or energy economy in one form or another.

And this isn’t the old binary argument of oil versus renewables.

We’re talking about copper, uranium, lithium, nickel, rare earths, LNG, nuclear power, hydroelectricity, wind, hydrogen, electricity transmission, carbon management and critical minerals.

Canada possesses an extraordinary collection of things the world increasingly needs.

The prospectus’s mining section makes that case explicitly: Canada produces more than 60 minerals and metals, including critical minerals required for advanced manufacturing, defence, clean technology and energy security.

The opportunity is to stop merely possessing them and start building with them.

Just How Big Are These Projects?

Some are enormous.

Among the largest proposed developments in the prospectus are:

Those figures require context. These are proposed development or program values, not money already committed or construction spending already underway.

But they demonstrate the scale of what’s being contemplated.

Of the 152 projects for which we could establish a usable capital-investment scale, 63 are billion-dollar-plus proposals in their stated currencies.

Ten are $10-billion-plus.

Suddenly, “major project” doesn’t sound quite so much like government brochure language.

Which Provinces Have the Most Projects?

This was another interesting result.

Alberta leads with 29 project footprints.

British Columbia follows with 24.

Then comes a tie that caught my attention:

Québec: 20.
Nova Scotia: 20.

Ontario follows with 18.

There is an important qualification here. Some projects cross provincial boundaries, so we count them in each jurisdiction they touch. These figures, therefore, measure project footprints and won’t add neatly to 167.

But Nova Scotia deserves another look.

A province of roughly one million people appears in as many project footprints as Québec and more than Ontario.

Why? That’s an article all by itself, and we’ll be coming back to it.

From Offshore Wind to Copper Mines

The sheer variety of the list may be more interesting than the rankings.

Nova Scotia’s Wind West envisions an enormous offshore wind and transmission development with a stated scale of US$44 billion.

Newfoundland and Labrador’s EVREC Green Energy Hub carries a stated capital cost of US$10.6 billion.

Then there are mineral projects such as the Casino copper-gold project in Yukon, listed at US$2.89 billion, and B.C.’s Yellowhead Copper Project, at approximately C$2 billion.

And the prospectus goes well beyond resources.

There are AI data centres, quantum technology, satellite infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, port expansions, nuclear projects and even a proposed ultra-high-speed passenger and freight corridor between Calgary and Edmonton. Current reporting on the summit has highlighted the same extraordinary range, from quantum computing and data centres to mines and transportation projects.

This isn’t one vision of Canada’s economy.

There are several possible futures competing to be built.

How Many of the 167 Projects Are Actually Ready to Build?

Here’s where we apply the brakes slightly.

After standardising the development descriptions in the prospectus, we classified:

18 as Permitted/Shovel-Ready.

Another 7 are Under Construction, while 5 involve Operating/Expansion projects.

Add the 44 projects we’ve classified as Advanced Development, and 74 of the 167 have reached Advanced Development or beyond.

That’s substantial.

But it also means nobody should look at this database and declare that Canada suddenly has 167 shovel-ready megaprojects.

It doesn’t.

What Canada has is something potentially more important: a very large pipeline of investment opportunities at different stages of maturity.

Some will succeed.

Some will change dramatically.

Some will probably never be built.

And some may eventually reshape the communities, provinces and industries around them.

Our job over the coming months will be figuring out which is which.

Search All 167 Canadian Investment Projects Yourself

Here’s the part I’m most excited about.

Rather than asking you to take our word for what’s in this prospectus, we’re giving you the data.

We’ve converted the 167 projects into a searchable interactive table.

Search Alberta. Search Nova Scotia. Search nuclear, lithium, AI, LNG, rail, copper, wind, port or whatever interests you.

You’ll be able to see the project, location, sector, stated capital investment, development stage and a plain-language explanation of what it actually is.

One caution when exploring the numbers: capital figures are preserved largely as stated in the prospectus. The document contains U.S.-dollar, Canadian-dollar and unspecified-dollar figures, so we have deliberately not mashed them together into one giant, impressive-looking number and pretended arithmetic solved the problem.

Sometimes boring accuracy really does ruin all the fun.

This Is Just the Beginning of The 167

This database isn’t the conclusion of our investigation.

It’s the starting line.

Over the coming weeks, we’re going deeper.

Why are 63 projects devoted to minerals and metals?

Why does Nova Scotia appear in 20 project footprints?

What do Alberta’s 29 projects tell us about an economy that may become far more diversified than its political reputation suggests?

Which of the billion-dollar megaprojects are credible? Which are actually close to construction? Where is Canada’s clean-energy investment going? What role will Indigenous ownership and partnerships play?

And perhaps the most important question of all:

A year from now, how many of these 167 projects will actually have moved forward?

Canada is living through a moment when the comfortable assumptions of the past are being challenged. That can be frightening.

It can also be an opportunity.

We have the resources. We have the energy. We have the workforce, technology, institutions and access to global markets. The summit’s official pitch notes that Canada has preferential access to 1.5 billion consumers across 51 countries through 16 free-trade agreements.

The question isn’t whether Canada has something the world wants.

It clearly does.

The question is whether we have the confidence, ambition and national determination to build it, process it, manufacture it, export it and use it to make Canada more prosperous and more economically independent.

That’s the story we’re going to follow.

Subscribe for free to The Sanity Project so you don’t miss the next instalment of The 167.

Because there are 166 more stories hiding in this database.

And we’re just getting started.

9 Reasons Canada Will Prevail in the Trade War With the US

One country has a plan. The other has a Truth Social account, and the Supreme Court keeps overruling it.

Key Takeaways

• This trade war is hurting real people right now, especially workers in steel, auto, and lumber, and this piece does not pretend otherwise.

• Canada’s share of exports to the US has fallen from 75.9 per cent to roughly 68 per cent in under two years.

• Nine structural reasons, from Carney’s record to Canada’s rules-based standing, explain why Canada is built to outlast this fight rather than fold.

• None of it depends on Canadians staying angry forever. It depends on capacity, and Canada has more of that than Washington seems to be counting on.

“You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked.” Mark Carney said that on a Saturday in August, hours after Washington began enforcing fresh 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods, tariffs that took effect on August 19 with no CUSMA exemption at all, a first. Carney answered by matching new US tariffs on $ 20 billion of Canadian goods, dollar for dollar, effective September 8. Talks between the two countries collapsed that same week, with no date set to resume them. By September 29, Washington had gone further still, banning Canadian dairy, motorcycles, and alcohol outright.

This is not a hypothetical dispute or a negotiating posture. It is an active, escalating fight, and in this Canada trade war with us, it is genuinely costing people their livelihoods. So before laying out why Canada holds the stronger hand, it is worth being honest about what that phrase does not mean.

What This Is Actually Costing Canadians Right Now

Key Insight: Steel, auto, and lumber workers are carrying the weight of this fight, while diversification has not yet reached their industries.

Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne has been blunt about it. The tariffs, he said, “will have real consequences for Canadian workers, businesses, and communities across our nation.” He is right. Steel and aluminium tariffs now sit at 50 per cent on both sides of the border. Auto parts cross that border several times before a finished vehicle rolls off the line, and every crossing gets taxed. The layoffs and slowdowns in these sectors are not rhetorical. They are already happening.

The diversification numbers Ottawa likes to cite are real, but they hide an important detail. Most of the growth in non-US exports has come from a surge in gold prices and a handful of new markets, such as the United Kingdom, rather than from steel, autos, or lumber finding new buyers. Those specific industries are still absorbing the tariffs directly, with nowhere else to sell.

We have covered the broader arc of this fight before, including our overview of the Canada-US trade war, but the industries on the front line right now deserve an honest accounting first. So why, despite all that, does Canada still come out ahead? Nine reasons.

Reason 1: The Defender’s Advantage

Key Insight: People and countries fight harder to keep what is theirs than an aggressor fights to take it.

This is not just patriotism. It is basic behavioural economics. Losing something you already have hurts more than gaining an equivalent amount, and that asymmetry shows up in how long each side can stomach a drawn-out fight. Canada is defending sovereignty. The US is trying to extract concessions. Defenders tend to outlast attackers, though resolve is a resource that gets spent, not a bottomless well, which is exactly why the next reason matters.

Reason 2: A Country That Rallies, Even If It Tires

Key Insight: Canadian unity spikes with each new provocation, fades, then spikes again, and that pattern has held for 19 months.

The Buy Canadian movement is real. Eighty-two per cent of Canadians say they will continue to prioritise Canadian products even after this ends, according to Ipsos polling. But the same tracking shows active avoidance of American goods peaked near sixty-five per cent in early 2025 and drifted under half by that December, before this summer’s escalation reignited it. Alberta is holding a referendum on October 19 that includes a question about pursuing independence, with polling putting “remain” ahead by roughly two-to-one. None of that describes a country on the edge of collapse. It describes one capable of rallying hard when provoked, which is exactly what has been happening since August.

Reason 3: Steady Leadership vs. a Moving Target

Key Insight: One side is being run by a former central bank governor. The other keeps having his own emergency powers overturned.

Carney ran the Bank of Canada through 2008 and the Bank of England through Brexit before this job. That is not a talking point. That resume reads the same way to markets and dispute panels: steady hands. Compare that to the other side of the table. The Supreme Court has already struck down a chunk of Trump’s emergency tariff authority. His own Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, said in August that Carney “needs to stop campaigning and start governing,” an odd line to aim at another country’s leader while your own administration keeps losing in court.

Reason 4: Resource Leverage Washington Can’t Quickly Replace

Key Insight: The US buys close to all of its imported natural gas and 81 per cent of its imported electricity from one neighbour with no backup supplier.

Canada’s own energy regulator puts the numbers plainly. In 2025, Canada supplied 81.3 per cent of the electricity the US imported, close to 100 per cent of its natural gas imports, 97.9 per cent of its imported natural gas liquids, and 63.4 per cent of its imported crude oil. Add potash, uranium, and the critical minerals feeding EV battery and defence supply chains, and there is no fast substitute sitting on a shelf.

Ottawa has not used any of it yet, instead targeting steel, dairy, and electronics with retaliation rather than energy. That restraint is its own kind of leverage. The threat is more useful unspent than spent, as we laid out in our piece on Canada’s hidden resource power.

Reason 5: Integrated Supply Chains Cut Both Ways

Key Insight: A tariff on Canadian auto parts is also a tax on the American factory bolting them into a finished vehicle.

North American manufacturing does not respect the border. A single part can cross it several times before a car is finished, and every crossing now carries a tariff. Every one of those tariffs lands on a US assembly line just as hard as it lands on a Canadian supplier. Washington is not only squeezing Canada here. That squeezes its own industrial base too, an odd way to try to win a fight.

Reason 6: A Diversifying, if Uneven, Trade Network

Key Insight: The US share of Canadian exports has fallen from 75.9 per cent to roughly 68 per cent in under two years.

Statistics Canada puts the full 2025 figure at 71.7 per cent, and RBC’s more recent quarterly data show it slipping further to around 68 per cent by year-end. That is genuine progress against a decades-old dependency. But be honest about where the growth is coming from. Most of it comes from a surge in gold exports and a handful of new markets, such as the UK, rather than from the steel, auto, and lumber sectors, which are still directly affected by the tariffs. Diversification here is a real trend, though still unfinished.

Reason 7: Still Playing By the Rules

Key Insight: Washington declined to renew its own trade agreement in July, then, for the first time, stripped its exemption from Canada’s tariffs in August.

CUSMA has always carried a built-in exemption for compliant goods, and every US tariff action honoured it until this summer. That changed on August 19, when a new 50 per cent tariff was applied to Canadian goods, with no CUSMA carve-out. Washington had already declined to confirm the agreement’s renewal weeks earlier. Carney called it a “unilateral breach,” and he is not wrong. Canada is still operating under the rules it signed. The US is rewriting them as it goes, and that distinction costs an aggressor allies over time, even while the formal dispute panels sit idle.

Reason 8: A Financial System Built to Absorb a Hit

Key Insight: Both the Bank of Canada and the IMF describe the financial system as resilient, and both acknowledge that vulnerabilities are rising too.

The Bank of Canada’s 2026 Financial Stability Report says the country’s banks have strengthened their capacity to absorb shocks, while flagging that vulnerabilities have grown in parts of the system. The IMF’s most recent review reached a similar conclusion: resilient, with downside risk tied to trade uncertainty. Canada also holds the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This does not make the fight painless. It means the country can absorb a long one without its financial system cracking under the strain.

Reason 9: The Politics of Pain Favours the Defender, Eventually

Key Insight: Retaliatory tariffs show up at the American checkout counter faster than the industries demanding them show up at the ballot box.

A relatively small number of US industries pushed for these tariffs. A much larger number of American consumers, farmers, and manufacturers are absorbing the cost in higher grocery prices and pricier steel for anyone building anything. That is a familiar setup for political blowback: concentrated benefits eventually facing diffuse but growing opposition.

It has not produced a US reversal after nineteen months, and it will not happen overnight. But the pressure compounds the longer this runs, and it compounds inside the United States, not just inside Canada, a pattern we traced in more detail in our look at how these tariffs are backfiring on the US.

Endurance, Not Triumph

None of this promises Canada a clean, decisive victory. Wars of attrition do not work that way. What these nine reasons add up to is more modest and more durable. Canada can still be standing, still rallying when it needs to, still solvent, and still trading with the rest of the world by the time this one ends. Carney said Canada is at war. He did not say Canada would win a quick one. He is betting on outlasting it instead, and on the numbers above, that bet holds up.

Corrections and Updates Protocol: This article will be updated if new data or developments materially change the analysis above. Corrections are noted inline as “Update (Month Year):” rather than edited silently.

Publications Consulted: Statistics Canada, Canada Energy Regulator, Bank of Canada, International Monetary Fund, RBC Economics, NPR, Al Jazeera, CNN, The Globe and Mail, Ipsos, Elections Alberta, Just Style, JD Supra legal analysis.

“Made in Canada” Products You Didn’t Know Were Canadian

We went looking for the companies hiding behind familiar logos. What we found included an inconvenient lesson about who actually owns what.

Key Takeaways

• Owning a company and manufacturing in Canada are two separate facts, and a Canadian brand list that checks only one is only half honest.

• Giant water heaters are still built in Montreal, but the company has been owned by the American firm A. O. Smith since 2021.

• Napoleon, Chapman’s, Bee Maid and Stanfield’s remain privately held by Canadian families or Canadian producer cooperatives, some for over a century.

• Buying Canadian doesn’t require an all-or-nothing pledge. Shifting even one purchase in ten toward a verified Canadian company adds up nationally.

• A free guide to 40 verified Canadian brands, sorted by category, is linked at the end of this piece.

Try this. Walk through your house right now and name ten Canadian companies whose products you own. Not ten companies that merely sell things in Canada, not ten brands with a maple leaf slapped on the package after the fact. Ten companies that are genuinely Canadian, owned here, built here, or both.

Go ahead. I’ll wait. If you made it past six without stalling out, you did better than I did, and I write about this stuff for a living.

That’s the real problem sitting underneath every “buy Canadian” conversation happening across the country right now. Almost everyone agrees it’s a good idea in principle. Almost nobody can name which products made in Canada actually qualify once you look past the packaging. So over the past few weeks, we checked, company by company, and what turned up is less a shopping list than a lesson in how slippery the word “Canadian” gets once you start checking the paperwork.

“Owned in Canada” and “Made in Canada” Are Two Different Promises

A company can be fully Canadian owned and still manufacture overseas. It can also be foreign owned and still run a Canadian factory. A real buy Canadian list checks both questions, not just one.

This trips up almost every “buy Canadian” list, including, if we’re honest, early drafts of this one. Take Giant, the water heater company, out of Montreal. For decades, it was the textbook Canadian success story: a family business founded in 1945 by brothers Lucien and Jean Lesage, two factories, more than 300 employees, tanks in basements across the country.

Then, in October 2021, Giant was sold to A. O. Smith, an American water heater giant listed on the New York Stock Exchange, for roughly 192 million U.S. dollars.

Here’s the part that matters for a Canadian shopping list. Giant still manufactures every one of those tanks in Montreal, at the same two facilities, with the same workforce. What changed in 2021 wasn’t the factory floor. It was who collected the profits at the end of the quarter.

If your definition of Canadian is built here, Giant still qualifies. If your definition is owned here, it doesn’t anymore. Neither answer is wrong; they’re simply different questions, and a lot of buy-Canadian enthusiasm assumes they’re the same question.

“Neither answer is wrong. They’re just different questions, and buying Canadian enthusiasm usually assumes they’re the same one.”

If this kind of “check the paperwork” reporting is useful to you, it’s free to keep getting it.

Six Canadian-Owned Companies Hiding in Plain Sight

Some of the most familiar names on Canadian shelves, and in Canadian driveways, are still privately held by the families or cooperatives that built them, in a few cases for well over a century.

Napoleon. The grill in the hardware store barbecue aisle is Wolf Steel Ltd., a family business that the Schroeter family has run out of Barrie, Ontario, since 1976. Still privately held, still manufacturing domestically, and by most counts North America’s largest privately owned maker of grills and fireplaces. Fifty years, one family, one Ontario postal code.

Chapman’s. The tub of ice cream in your freezer likely comes from a creamery David and Penny Chapman bought in Markdale, Ontario in 1973, with four employees and two trucks. Their son Ashley now runs it. Chapman’s just broke ground on a 200-million-dollar Markdale expansion backed partly by Invest Ontario, and sources its milk exclusively from Canadian dairy farmers.

Bee Maid. A close-to-home one for Manitobans. Bee Maid isn’t a corporation with shareholders; it’s a cooperative jointly owned by roughly 300 Western Canadian beekeepers, processed and bottled at plants in Winnipeg and Spruce Grove. Buy the bear-shaped bottle, and the profit goes back to the beekeepers who filled it.

Cheekbone Beauty. Jenn Harper founded Cheekbone Beauty in St. Catharines, Ontario, in 2016, one of the first Indigenous-owned cosmetics companies in the country. She turned down an investment offer on Dragons’ Den to keep it on her own terms, and it has since landed shelf space at Sephora Canada and JCPenney in the U.S., still privately held.

Stanfield’s. The underwear company that outfitted Klondike gold rush prospectors in 1897 is now run by a fifth generation of the Stanfield family in Truro, Nova Scotia. Most of what carries the label is still knit, cut and sewn there, though the company is upfront that some stock for U.S. retailers gets imported. Ownership versus manufacturing again, stated plainly rather than buried in fine print.

Buy Canadian Doesn’t Require an All-or-Nothing Pledge

Shifting even a small share of routine purchases toward verified Canadian companies compounds across millions of households without requiring anyone to boycott anything.

None of this is an argument for throwing every American product in your house into a dumpster. American companies make plenty of things well, sometimes better and cheaper, and there often isn’t a reasonable domestic option anyway. Buy it.

What it argues for is checking before you assume. If two comparable products sit on the same shelf and one is actually Canadian-owned or Canadian-made, and the price and quality hold up, give it the first look. Maybe it starts with the honey, or the next tub of ice cream, or the next box of underwear. Shift one purchase in ten over the next month. It won’t transform the economy on its own, but multiplied across a few million households, it adds up to real money staying home.

So, Back to the Challenge

Name ten Canadian companies whose products you own. It’s a harder question than it should be, and that’s not really your fault. Ownership structures don’t come printed on packaging. Now you have six more names than you started with, and one footnote about a company that now looks Canadian.

We put together the rest, forty companies across food, household products, home goods and clothing, in a free guide you can save to your phone. The alternative to buying foreign by default was there all along. Most of us just weren’t looking for it.

The Full Made in Canada Products List Lives in One Free Guide

Six companies fit comfortably in an article. Forty fit better in something you can save.

Six names make for a decent read. They don’t make for something you can pull up on your phone in the cereal aisle six weeks from now, once this piece has scrolled off your feed.

So we ran the same two questions, who owns it and where it is really made, against the other thirty-four, and put all forty into one free guide sorted into four categories: food and grocery, household and cleaning, home and living, and clothing and personal care. No corporate report, no fifty-page PDF nobody opens twice.

Save it to your phone. Keep it in the car. Hand it to the relative who keeps asking where to even start.

Corrections and Updates Protocol

The Sanity Project corrects errors transparently rather than editing quietly. If any fact in this piece needs updating, it will be added here as “Update (Month Year):” rather than rewritten into the original text.

Publications Consulted

Wikipedia; A. O. Smith Corporation investor relations; Chapman’s Ice Cream corporate site; Expansion Solutions Magazine; ATB Financial; Made in CA; Alberta Agriculture and Irrigation export catalogue; Economic Development Winnipeg; Stanfield’s Ltd.; Dictionary of Canadian Biography; Napoleon / Wolf Steel Ltd. corporate materials.

Alberta Independence: What Would Actually Have to Happen

Alberta has been threatening to leave Canada in one form or another since before most of the province’s current cabinet ministers were born. What’s different this time isn’t the threat. It’s about how close the government came to being told “no” by a judge and what it did next.

On October 19, 2026, Albertans will vote on ten referendum questions. One of them asks whether the province should start the legal process toward a future binding vote on separating from Canada. That sentence alone tells you more than most headlines will: this isn’t a yes-or-no vote on Alberta independence. It’s a vote about whether to start voting on independence, later, under rules a court has already started fighting over.

This isn’t here to tell you how to feel about it. It’s here to show what the paperwork says, who’s suing whom, and what leaving Canada would require once the speeches are over.

Could Alberta leave? The legal process, explained

Alberta is a province under the Constitution of Canada. There’s no clause that lets a province declare independence and walk out the door. The relevant law comes from a case about a different province: Quebec.

In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the Secession Reference, after the federal government asked whether Quebec could legally leave on its own. The Court’s answer: no province can secede unilaterally under either Canadian or international law. But the Court also said something separatists like to quote back at Ottawa: if a province held a referendum with a clear question and won a clear majority, the rest of Canada would have a constitutional obligation to negotiate the terms of separation in good faith.

That obligation to negotiate is not a right to leave. It means Ottawa can’t simply ignore a clear result, and Alberta can’t simply declare independence and expect the rest of the country to shrug. Parliament turned the principle into the Clarity Act in 2000, which gives the House of Commons the power to judge, after the fact, whether a referendum question was clear enough and whether the result was a clear majority, before any duty to negotiate kicks in.

If you’re reading this well after 2026, a Bloc Québécois MP introduced a private member’s bill in June 2026 to repeal the Clarity Act. As of this writing, it’s had its first reading and hasn’t been scheduled for debate, the fate of most private members’ bills. The Clarity Act remains in force.

How the independence question got on the ballot

The version of this story that circulates most often goes something like: a group collected enough signatures, the government checked the math, and a question landed on the ballot. That isn’t what happened, and the real version says more about Alberta politics than the tidy one does.

A group called Stay Free Alberta, fronted by Mitch Sylvestre, applied under Alberta’s Citizen Initiative Act in December 2025 to force a referendum on independence. Elections Alberta approved the application, and signature collection began in January 2026. Several First Nations, led by the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, went to court almost immediately, arguing the province couldn’t proceed toward a question that could sever treaty rights without first consulting the nations whose Treaty 8 territory a new international border would cut through. In May 2026, a judge agreed, ruling the petition process unconstitutional for failing to consult adequately.

Premier Danielle Smith didn’t accept that as the end of it. In a televised address on May 21, 2026, she announced that her government would add its own version of the question directly to the October ballot by government order, rather than through the petition process the court had just struck down. Two of her own cabinet ministers, Matt Jones and Nate Horner, resigned rather than go along with a decision they’d publicly opposed.

The wrinkle almost nobody outside Alberta heard about: a second petition was running at the same time, in the opposite direction. Thomas Lukaszuk, a former deputy premier, spent months collecting signatures for a “Forever Canadian” petition asking whether Alberta should formally commit to remaining in Canada. He gathered more than 400,000 names, more than the separatist petition managed. His question didn’t end up on the ballot either. After Smith’s announcement, Lukaszuk told reporters he didn’t blame Albertans for being confused about what their premier’s plan was.

The honest short version: the question on the October ballot wasn’t produced by either petition. It was written by the government, after a court struck down the process meant to produce it, over the objections of the people who ran the opposing campaign, and it cost the premier two cabinet ministers on the way out the door.

Why is this happening? The grievances, taken seriously

Western alienation isn’t a new phrase in Alberta politics, and pipeline access isn’t a manufactured grievance. Alberta’s oil and gas industry supplies a large share of provincial revenue, and federal decisions on pipeline approvals, emissions caps and climate policy land directly on an economy the rest of the country doesn’t answer for on election night.

Royalty revenue is genuinely volatile, too. Alberta’s budget can swing from surplus to shortfall based on a commodity price the province doesn’t control, and pipeline capacity determines how much of that resource reaches paying customers instead of being sold at a discount because it’s stuck. A landlocked province with a resource economy has a legitimate complaint about having to depend on infrastructure decisions made elsewhere.

None of that settles whether independence is the right response. But it explains why the argument keeps finding an audience, especially among Albertans who feel that every federal climate announcement is a decision about their livelihood made by people who don’t live with the consequences.

Is the equalisation argument accurate?

The version of the equalisation argument you’ll hear most often is that Alberta “pays for” equalisation and have-not provinces “take” it. That isn’t how the program works. Equalisation comes from general federal revenue, the same pool that funds national defence and Old Age Security, not a dedicated transfer flowing directly from Alberta’s treasury to Quebec’s or Manitoba’s. Finance Canada and the Library of Parliament both describe it that way.

Albertans often pay more federal tax because incomes are higher, not because the province funds equalization directly.

What’s true is that Albertans, at various points, have paid more federal income tax per capita than residents of other provinces, because Canada’s income tax is progressive and Alberta has often had higher average incomes. That’s a real fact about who funds federal programs generally. It’s a different claim than “Alberta funds equalisation,” and collapsing the two makes the argument sound stronger than the paperwork supports.

The fiscal case: Alberta’s Heritage Fund against Norway’s and Alaska’s

Alberta created the Heritage Savings Trust Fund in 1976 under Peter Lougheed, meant to save oil wealth for the future. Norway created its own sovereign fund fourteen years later, partly modelled on Alberta’s example. Today, Norway’s fund holds well over a trillion dollars. Alberta’s holds a low double-digit billions.

A 2013 Fraser Institute study by Jason Clemens and Robert P. Murphy tried to explain the gap. Between 1982 and 2011, Alberta deposited about $9.1 billion into the Heritage Fund. Had the province followed Alaska’s constitutional rule of depositing 25 per cent of non-renewable resource revenue, contributions over that period would have reached $42.4 billion. Had Alberta matched Norway’s 100 per cent deposit rule, contributions would have reached $169.5 billion, according to the Institute’s own published figures.

Since 1980, Alberta has collected close to $190 billion in non-renewable resource revenue. The Heritage Fund’s value sat at roughly $17.3 billion in 2014. The gap isn’t a mystery. Alberta stopped adding resource revenue to the fund after 1987 and withdrew from it repeatedly during downturns, treating it more like a rainy-day account than a long-term endowment.

Whether that history helps or hurts the case for independence depends on what you think it proves. Separatists point to it as evidence of decades of mismanagement that an independent Alberta could finally fix. Sceptics point out that every dollar of that underfunding was a decision made entirely by the Alberta government, with zero federal involvement, which suggests the discipline problem won’t disappear the day the province becomes its own country.

Who are the separatists, and what do they want?

The independence movement isn’t one group with one plan. Stay Free Alberta and the Alberta Prosperity Project want a clean break: a new country with its own taxation, resource policy, foreign affairs and defence. Other advocates favour something looser, sometimes called a sovereignty association, in which Alberta would maintain close economic ties with Canada while controlling more of its own affairs. Others are using the separatist threat mainly as leverage inside provincial politics, a way of pushing Ottawa to negotiate on pipelines and equalisation without wanting to leave at all.

That range matters because “Alberta independence” means different things depending on who’s saying it, and a referendum question about “commencing the legal process” doesn’t force anyone to pick a lane yet.

Treaty rights and the First Nations challenging this in court

This isn’t a footnote. Four separate legal challenges from First Nations have been filed against the province's handling of the referendum process, arguing that a new international border cutting through Treaty 8 territory can’t be created without the consent of the nations that hold rights under that treaty.

The Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation’s case, led by Chief Sheldon Sunshine, argues that Alberta can’t begin a process that could sever treaty rights without first securing First Nations consent, and that Bill 14, the legislation that lowered the threshold for citizen-initiated referendums, breaches the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult. The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has made a related but distinct argument: an international border drawn through Treaty 8 territory would restrict the hunting, fishing, and trapping rights that its members currently exercise across what is now a provincial, not international, line. The Blackfoot Confederacy has raised similar concerns from southern Alberta.

The province’s position in court is that collecting signatures and holding a referendum do not, in themselves, violate treaty rights, because the Citizen Initiative Act only allows Albertans to put ideas before the government, not to enact them directly. That argument has won at least one round; a judge allowed Elections Alberta to keep verifying signatures on the separatist petition even while an appeal was pending.

Whatever happens to any individual case, the underlying question won’t be resolved on October 19. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 protects existing treaty rights, and nobody, including the Government of Alberta, has explained how an independent Alberta would extinguish or renegotiate treaty obligations that predate the province itself by more than a century.

What would separation mean for the economy?

An independent Alberta would need to settle currency, trade, and market-access questions before day one, not after. Options range from keeping the Canadian dollar informal to negotiating a currency union to issuing its own currency, each with different costs and varying degrees of control over interest rates and inflation. Market access matters just as much: Alberta’s oil and gas currently reach buyers partly through interprovincial pipelines and trade agreements Canada has already negotiated, arrangements a new country would either have to inherit through negotiation or replace from scratch.

Capital doesn’t wait for constitutional theory to resolve itself. Businesses and households would be weighing continuity, regulatory stability and market access well before any actual separation date, and a credible independence plan needs to say what happens to investment in the meantime, not just what the country looks like once negotiations wrap up.

What about pensions, health care and policing?

Residents would still need hospitals, schools, courts, and pensions to function throughout any negotiation period, however long it runs. The Canada Pension Plan is the clearest example: Alberta’s government has previously floated the idea of withdrawing to create a separate Alberta Pension Plan, a debate that predates the independence question and would need to be resolved either way. Health funding, financial regulation and transportation networks are similarly tied into national systems that don’t stop working just because a referendum passed.

The unresolved questions checklist

Regardless of how October 19 goes, here’s what stays unresolved and will stay unresolved for a long time:

• Would Alberta keep the Canadian dollar, negotiate a currency union, or issue its own currency?

• How would the national debt be allocated between Alberta and the rest of Canada?

• What happens to the Canada Pension Plan and existing pension obligations?

• What borders, customs and trade rules would apply, and would Alberta keep access to markets through Canada’s existing trade agreements?

• How would treaty rights and Indigenous consent be addressed?

• Who would control federal assets, military infrastructure and the RCMP’s provincial role?

• Would other countries recognise an independent Alberta?

A separation blueprint that skips these questions is a slogan, not a plan.

How to read competing fiscal claims

Every group with a stake in this debate will eventually produce a number: a projected GDP, a projected tax base, a projected cost of separation. The honest way to read any of them is to check the assumptions before the conclusion. A rosy projection usually assumes continued access to Canadian markets and an uninterrupted currency arrangement. A grim one usually assumes new customs friction and capital flight. Both can be internally consistent and still describe very different futures.

Ask whether a projection discloses its treatment of debt, currency, pensions and trade, and whether it tests what happens if one assumption changes. A number that swings wildly with a small shift in oil prices or market access belongs in the headline, not buried three pages into an appendix.

Frequently asked questions

Will Alberta separate from Canada after the October 19 referendum?
No. A Yes vote on Question 10 would direct the Alberta government to begin the legal process toward a future binding referendum. It wouldn’t, by itself, separate Alberta from Canada.

Is the October 19 vote legally binding?
No. It’s a non-binding directional question. A later binding referendum would still need to occur before negotiations could begin, and negotiations would still need to culminate in a constitutional amendment.

Does Alberta need Indigenous consent to separate?
The legal answer isn’t settled, but four First Nations are actively arguing in court that treaty rights protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 can’t be altered by a provincial referendum without their consent.

Would an independent Alberta keep the Canadian dollar?
Unresolved. It’s one of the questions any credible independence plan has to answer, and none currently does.

What happens to Alberta’s debt and pensions if it separates?
Also unresolved, and subject to negotiation rather than a unilateral Alberta decision, under the framework the Supreme Court set out in the Secession Reference.

Did Alberta separate from Canada?
Not as of this writing. Check the “Where things stand” box near the top of this piece for the current status; we update it as the process moves.

Publications Consulted

Supreme Court of Canada. Parliament of Canada. Finance Canada. Library of Parliament. Elections Alberta. CBC News. Global News. The Writ (Éric Grenier). Fraser Institute. Wikipedia.

Corrections and Updates Protocol

This is a living reference piece. Factual updates, including the outcome of the October 19 vote and any developments in the First Nations court cases, will be appended as “Update (Month Year):” notes rather than silently edited into the original text.

Diana Fox Carney: The Other Economist at Rideau Cottage

You didn’t vote for Diana Fox Carney. Nobody did. And yet here she is: economist, climate policy veteran, and, as of last year, the second-most-scrutinised person living inside Rideau Cottage. Call it Canada's quiet two-for-one deal."

Most of what’s been written about her since Mark Carney became prime minister follows a familiar template. Oxford. Hockey. Four daughters. A charming quote from election night. It’s the same profile, written five different ways, and it treats Diana Fox Carney the way political spouses usually get treated: as a supporting character in someone else’s story.

It’s the wrong read, and not just because it’s a little insulting. Diana Fox Carney was arguing publicly about inequality and climate policy more than a decade before her husband ran for anything. The British press was writing about her independent views back when Mark Carney’s biggest job title was Governor of the Bank of Canada. She isn’t new to this. She’d been doing it long before it mattered politically.

It starts long before Ottawa, on an ice rink. Carney was a goaltender on the University of Oxford hockey team. Fox Carney played forward. By the club’s own account, she was known for skating rings around her opponents, which, if you know anything about goaltenders, means she spent a fair amount of that era making her future husband look bad. They married in 1994. Three decades, four daughters and two central bank governorships later, they’re doing all of that again, just with higher stakes.

Who Diana Fox Carney Was Before Mark Carney Was PM

Diana Fox Carney was a published, publicly outspoken economist working on inequality and climate policy for over a decade before her husband entered politics, not after.

Start with the credentials themselves, since they tend to get buried under the hockey anecdote. Fox Carney studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford’s St John’s College, followed by a master’s in agricultural economics and a second master’s in international relations from the University of Pennsylvania. From there, her career ran through development economics: a posting with the UK government in Zanzibar, years as vice president at the Ottawa think tank Canada 2020, a stint directing strategy at Britain’s Institute for Public Policy Research, and a senior advisory role at Eurasia Group focused on climate and energy. She’s chaired a climate investment fund, advised another, and co-authored two books on agricultural service provision. Not exactly beach reading, and never meant to be.

None of that happened because her husband became prime minister. Most of it happened while he was still running central banks. When Carney took the top job at the Bank of England in 2013, the British press discovered his wife had opinions and treated the discovery like a scandal. Coverage of that period, recapped years later by the Globe and Mail, described UK tabloids painting her as a “strident environmental activist” and mocking her with the British shorthand for a capable, no-nonsense woman from money who doesn’t mind getting her hands dirty. What that coverage tended to skip over: she’d been building that record for years, not performing it for the cameras.

By 2013, she was testifying to a Canadian parliamentary finance committee about the global gap between rich and poor and appearing on CBC’s Power & Politics to discuss carbon pricing. This isn’t a spouse discovering causes on the campaign trail. It’s a career economist doing the job she’d always done, one that happened to run in parallel with her husband’s.

The Question Worth Asking About Unelected Influence

An economist married to an economist prime minister is a fair thing to be uneasy about, and Fox Carney has addressed the concern herself, on the record, more than once.

Here’s the part where a fair reader gets sceptical, and they should. An accomplished policy economist, married for three decades to the head of government, working in the exact same subject areas he now legislates on: that’s not a wild thing to raise an eyebrow at. Unelected influence over public policy is a real category of concern, and pretending otherwise because the story is warm would be bad journalism.

Fox Carney faced this question directly, years before it had any prime ministerial stakes attached. When British reporters started treating her opinions as newsworthy in 2013, she went on CBC and said plainly that while she and Mark are married, “we are not entirely one,” and that people generally accept that a couple can hold separate professional identities. That’s an ordinary enough thing to say now. In 2013, with a central bank governorship on the line and British tabloids circling, it was a deliberate line drawn in public, years before anyone needed her to draw it.

The other piece of evidence is less about what she’s said and more about timing. If the worry is that her views quietly steer his decisions, you’d expect his policy to track hers closely. It doesn’t, and that gap says more than any quote she could give.

Where Her Ideas and His Record Meet, and Where They Don’t

Fox Carney has argued for over a decade for stronger climate and inequality policies. Her husband’s government has repealed the consumer carbon tax, confirmed it won’t curb oil growth to hit climate targets, and is being sued by youth climate groups over the rollback.

This is where a puff piece would stop at the parts that flatter everyone. We’re not going to do that.

Fox Carney’s public record, going back to her time at Canada 2020 and continuing through her work with Eurasia Group’s climate practice, centres on two ideas: that inequality is a policy failure worth fixing, and that climate action has to survive contact with real economics rather than collapse the moment it gets expensive. Those are her published views, under her own name, for over a decade.

Carney’s government, so far, hasn’t followed that script closely. The consumer carbon tax that his predecessor built the climate plan around is gone, fully repealed. In a policy video released in June 2026, Carney called the plan he inherited “too expensive” and “divisive,” and his government has confirmed it won’t curb oil growth to meet Canada’s climate targets.

Youth and advocacy groups have sued the government over what they call climate rollbacks, and former environment minister Steven Guilbeault resigned as an MP, citing what he described as Canada backsliding on climate. On affordability, where Fox Carney has spent three decades arguing inequality demands real investment, the Fraser Institute points out that grocery and housing costs remain stubbornly high despite government claims of progress.

If Diana Fox Carney were quietly running climate and inequality policy from the family kitchen, this is not what it would look like.

That doesn’t mean the two of them have nothing in common anymore. Carney’s language about electricity, what he’s called doubling the grid as the least politically painful way to cut emissions without hitting household budgets, echoes the pragmatic, cost-aware climate framing Fox Carney was pushing back in 2013, when she told Global News that income inequality had become the defining issue policy needed to actually solve, not just talk about. The overlap isn’t in the outcomes. It’s in the instinct: good policy has to survive an affordability test, or it doesn’t survive at all.

The Two-For-One Deal Nobody Voted For

You didn’t vote for Diana Fox Carney. What you got, whether her husband’s government reflects her views or not, is thirty years of one household arguing in good faith about the same hard questions Canada is still asking.

Canadians elected a former central banker. What came bundled in was stranger than the campaign photos let on: a policy economist who’d been publicly wrong-footing British tabloids, testifying to parliamentary committees, and running climate investment funds since before most of the current cabinet held their first political job. Nobody put her name on a ballot. She showed up anyway, credentials intact.

This isn’t nepotism, and the record doesn’t support backdoor influence either. It’s closer to what happens when two people who’ve spent thirty years married to the same hard economic questions occasionally end up in the same room where the answers get decided. Sometimes their instincts line up. Lately, often, they don’t. Either way, Canada got a working policy mind in the house, and didn’t have to elect her to get it.

Call it the bonus round. Nobody asked for it. It came with the marriage.

Corrections and Updates Protocol: The Sanity Project is committed to accuracy and named sourcing. If you spot an error or have a documented correction, please get in touch. Any updates to this piece will be logged inline using the format “Update (Month Year):” rather than silent edits.

Update (September 2026): An earlier version of this piece referred to the prime minister's residence as 24 Sussex Drive. 24 Sussex has been vacant since 2015 and is currently the subject of a public restoration campaign. Mark Carney and Diana Fox Carney live at Rideau Cottage, on the grounds of Rideau Hall. The piece has been corrected throughout.

Publications Consulted: Global News, Ottawa Lookout, CBC News, The Globe and Mail, Bloomberg, Fraser Institute, Canada’s National Observer, Wikipedia.

The Plain-Language Guide to Canadian Government That Should Have Existed Years Ago

You’ve probably sat through a dinner conversation where someone confidently explained why the Prime Minister “lost the election” or why a province can “just ignore federal law,” and you nodded along because correcting them felt like more effort than it was worth. You’re not alone. Canadian politics is genuinely confusing, and the news cycle doesn’t help. It’s designed to generate heat, not light.

This piece is the opposite of that. No spin, no outrage bait. Just the actual mechanics of how the Canadian government works, explained the way a patient friend would explain it over coffee.

The news cycle is designed to outrage you. This is designed to inform you.

If you’ve ever wondered why we vote for a local MP but end up with a Prime Minister nobody directly chose, or why your province controls your hospital but Ottawa controls your passport, keep reading. The answers are less complicated than the pundits make them sound.

The Foundation: What Kind of Country Is Canada, Exactly?

Canada is a federal constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. That sentence sounds like it was designed to make people stop reading, so let’s break it apart.

A constitutional monarchy means Canada has a monarch as head of state. Since September 2022, that’s King Charles III. In practice, the King doesn’t run anything. His role in Canadian governance is almost entirely ceremonial, carried out in Canada by the Governor General (currently appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister). The Governor General swears in governments, reads the Speech from the Throne, and signs bills into law. Think of the role as a constitutional referee who only blows the whistle in a genuine crisis.

Parliamentary democracy means Canadians elect representatives to a legislature, and the government is drawn from that legislature. You don’t vote for a Prime Minister the way Americans vote for a President. You vote for your local Member of Parliament, and the PM is whoever can command the confidence of the House.

Federal means powers are split between the national government in Ottawa and ten provincial governments (plus three territorial governments with somewhat different arrangements). More on that split in a moment.

How the House of Commons Actually Works

Canada is divided into 343 electoral districts called ridings. Each riding elects one Member of Parliament in a general election. The system used is first-past-the-post: whoever gets the most votes in a riding wins the seat, even if that’s only 34% of the vote, with the remaining votes split among three other candidates. It’s a system with real critics, and debates about electoral reform have surfaced and stalled repeatedly over the decades.

Those 343 MPs sit in the House of Commons in Ottawa. The House is where federal laws are debated, passed, and rejected. It’s the center of gravity in Canadian federal politics.

How Does Someone Become Prime Minister?

Here’s the part that trips people up most often. The Prime Minister is not directly elected by Canadians as a whole. The leader of the party that wins enough seats to command the confidence of the House becomes Prime Minister.

In practical terms, if one party wins 172 or more seats (a majority of 343), its leader becomes PM and can govern with considerable authority. If no party wins a majority, the party with the most seats typically gets the first opportunity to form government and must win the House's confidence to remain in office.

The Governor General plays a role here. Technically, the GG invites someone to form a government. In practice, this is almost always automatic. The constitutional referee rarely needs to blow the whistle.

Majority vs. Minority: Why It Matters

A majority government holds more than half the seats. It can pass legislation without negotiating with other parties. It’s stable, sometimes frustratingly so if you’re in opposition.

A minority government holds the most seats but not a majority. It needs support from at least some opposition MPs to pass legislation and, critically, to survive confidence votes. Minority governments are more volatile. They tend to produce more negotiation, more compromise, and more elections.

Canada has had quite a few minority governments in recent decades. They’re not a sign of dysfunction; they’re a feature of the system when voters don’t hand one party a clear mandate.

The Senate: The Appointed Chamber

Canada has a Senate with 105 seats. Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister, and they serve until age 75. Nobody elects them.

The Senate’s job is to provide “sober second thought” on legislation. It reviews bills passed by the House, can propose amendments, and technically can block legislation entirely, though it rarely does and faces significant political pressure when it tries. Senate reform has been a recurring topic of political debate in Canada for decades, with little structural change to show for it.

The Senate is not a rubber stamp, but it’s also not where Canadian politics is decided. Think of it as a quality-control layer with a complicated history.

How a Bill Becomes Law

A bill can be introduced in either the House of Commons or the Senate, though most significant government legislation starts in the House. It goes through three readings in the House (introduction, debate and amendment, final vote), then the same process in the Senate. If both chambers pass it, the Governor General grants Royal Assent, and it becomes law.

The whole process can take days for non-controversial legislation or years for contentious bills. Bills that don’t pass an election before are called dead on the order paper and must be reintroduced in the next Parliament. This matters for understanding why some policy changes move so slowly.

How Can a Prime Minister Be Removed?

Two ways, neither of which involves a recall vote.

The first is a confidence vote. If the House passes a motion of non-confidence, or defeats a budget or the Speech from the Throne, the government has lost the confidence of Parliament. The PM must either resign (thereby triggering the formation of a new government) or ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election.

The second is the party itself. A PM who loses the support of their own caucus or party membership can be replaced as party leader, which effectively removes them as PM. This is what happened to Justin Trudeau in early 2025, when caucus pressure and polling realities made his position untenable. His successor, Mark Carney, became PM without a general election because the position flows from party leadership and parliamentary confidence, not from a direct public vote.

Federal vs. Provincial: Who Controls What?

This is where a lot of everyday confusion lives. The Canadian Constitution (primarily the Constitution Act, 1867) divides powers between Ottawa and the provinces.

Provinces control: health care, education, natural resources within their borders, property and civil rights, and municipal institutions.

Ottawa controls: national defense, criminal law, trade and commerce between provinces and internationally, immigration (shared with provinces), banking, and telecommunications.

This is why your province decides how your hospital is run, but the federal government negotiates trade deals. It’s also why interprovincial trade is more complicated than it sounds. A brewery in Manitoba faces different rules for selling beer into Saskatchewan than for selling into the United States. That particular absurdity is getting more attention lately, and it’s worth a dedicated look. That piece is coming.

When jurisdictions overlap or conflict, the courts sort it out. The Supreme Court of Canada has the final word.

Leave a comment

What This Means for Reading the News

Once you understand these mechanics, much of the political coverage makes more sense, and much of it looks flimsier than it did before. When a pundit says the PM “has a mandate” after a minority win, you know to ask: a mandate to do what, with whose support? When a province threatens to “ignore” federal legislation, you know the Constitution has something to say about that. When someone says Canada needs to “elect” its senators, you understand that’s a constitutional amendment requiring substantial provincial agreement.

Canadian politics explained simply isn’t about dumbing it down. It’s about removing the fog that makes people feel like this stuff is beyond them. It isn’t.