The Sanity Project · June 23, 2026 · Bo Kauffmann

There’s a scene that keeps playing in my head from the week of June 15, 2026. Donald Trump arrived at the G7 summit in Évian, France — reportedly travelling directly from a UFC birthday celebration at the White House. Mark Carney, by that point, had already been in Europe for three days.

While the Canada-US trade war was being narrated in conservative media as Canada retreating, isolating, and panicking, Carney was in working sessions. Finalizing mineral deals. Signing defence contracts. Coordinating with the country that would assume the EU Council Presidency in nine days. And adding 162 new sanctions to Russia’s war machine.

In five days, Canada signed 13 partnerships across eight countries, unlocked more than $5 billion in capital investment, and became the first non-European country in history to access the EU’s €150 billion defence procurement mechanism.

None of this is speculation. All of it is publicly verifiable. And almost none of it received the coverage it deserved in North American media.

So let’s fix that.

If you’re tired of the spin and want the actual story — subscribe. We do the research so you don’t have to.

Subscribe now

What America Actually Gets From Canada (The Numbers Nobody Quotes)

Key Insight

Canada is not a junior partner begging for American favour. It is America’s single largest energy supplier — and those numbers don’t reroute overnight, or at all.

Let’s start with the claim that sparked this whole conversation. On June 10, 2026, Donald Trump said out loud that America does not need Canada for anything. In the same breath, he suggested he wasn’t looking to renew CUSMA.

Here is what the Canada Energy Regulator’s 2025 data actually shows:

63.4% of all crude oil imported into the US came from Canada in 2025

~100% of all natural gas imported by the US came from Canada

81.3% of all electricity imported by the US came from Canada

$157.5B total value of Canadian energy flowing into the US economy in 2025

Canada’s crude oil exports to the United States run at 3.9 million barrels per day — 90.1% of Canada’s total crude output, flowing south through a continent-spanning pipeline network that cannot be redirected overnight. Or next year. Or possibly ever, given the realities of the infrastructure.

And that’s before we get to the rare earth minerals, potash, uranium, and the critical mineral supply chains that underpin American electric vehicles, defence systems, and communication infrastructure.

America does not need Canada for anything. Except, you know. Heat. Light. Fuel. And the raw materials that define American power in the 21st century. But sure. Nothing important.

The Canada-US Trade War Has a Historical Precedent — And It Didn’t End Well for America

Key Insight

The last American president who confidently believed in his trade leverage over Canada signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. He lost the next election in a landslide. Canada pivoted anyway.

History doesn’t repeat. But it rhymes with uncomfortable precision.

On June 17, 1930, Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law — one of the most catastrophically misjudged pieces of economic legislation ever written. Before the ink was dry, 1,028 American economists had signed an open letter begging him not to do it. He signed it anyway.

Canada retaliated. Europe retaliated. Global trade collapsed by 66% over the following three years. The United States entered the deepest trough of the Great Depression. Hoover lost the 1932 election to Franklin Roosevelt by carrying six states.

But here’s the part of this story that matters for 2026: what happened in Ottawa, not Washington.

Canadian Prime Minister R.B. Bennett didn’t wait for American rationality to return. He hosted the 1932 British Empire Economic Conference and drove through a policy of “imperial preference” — preferential tariff rates among Commonwealth nations that effectively rerouted Canadian trade toward Britain, Australia, South Africa, and the wider empire. Canada didn’t collapse under Hoover’s tariffs. It pivoted.

Mark Carney has read this history. He’s cited it. And he has spent fifteen months executing a 21st-century version of exactly what Bennett did — except with one critical difference.

Canada in 2026 holds something Canada in 1930 couldn’t have imagined: a vault of critical minerals that every major industrial democracy on earth needs to build its future, and that no other stable, democratic, rule-of-law nation can supply at scale.

The Sanity Project covers the stories that get buried beneath the noise. Join thousands of readers who want the real analysis.

Subscribe now

Fifteen Months of Canada Trade Diversification: How Carney Built the Architecture

Key Insight

The G7 summit in Évian was not an improvisation. It was the public closing of a file that had been accumulating signatures, agreements, and relationship capital since Carney took office — across nine trips to Europe in fifteen months.

This is the part that the “all talk, no action” crowd needs to sit with for a moment.

Carney appeared at Davos in January 2025, framing Canada’s offer to the world’s financial elite. He attended the EU Political Community Summit in May 2026, establishing Canada as a formal participant in a European security architecture it had never previously entered. He arrived in Dublin on June 13, 2026, not as a tourist in his ancestral homeland, but as the head of government of a country that Ireland now ranks as its 14th-largest investment partner.

The numbers behind that relationship are worth pausing on. Canadian companies employ 26,000 people in Ireland. Irish companies employ over 30,000 people in Canada. These are not honorary relationships. They are structural economic ties that took decades to build — and Carney was in Dublin nine days before Ireland assumed the rotating Presidency of the EU Council on July 1, 2026.

The joint statement from Dublin Castle contained a detail that virtually no North American outlet covered: both leaders explicitly committed to using Ireland’s Council Presidency to deepen the Canada-EU partnership. Carney was coordinating the agenda of European institutional power — while conservative commentators were still asking whether his trip was “worth it.”

Apparently, the answer was yes.

The Canada EU Trade Deal That Changed the Rules: The SAFE Mechanism

Key Insight

On February 14, 2026, Canada became the first non-European country in history to access the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defence procurement framework. At Évian, that agreement produced its first concrete contract — made-in-Canada military radios for the Polish Cyber Command.

Let me tell you about the story nobody is covering.

The EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) is a €150 billion defence procurement mechanism built on a specific assumption: that defence supply chains must remain within trusted allies. It was designed as a European instrument — exclusive, restricted, closed. The EU Council concluded its SAFE agreement with Canada on February 14, 2026. The European Parliament ratified it in May.

Canada is the only non-European country ever granted this access. Not the UK. Not Australia. Not Japan. Canada.

At Évian, that agreement produced its first real output. Montréal-based Marconi Technologies will manufacture made-in-Canada ORION tactical radios for the Polish Cyber Command, with deliveries running through 2030 and nearly 100 Canadian suppliers across skilled trades and advanced engineering involved in production. Canada also opened formal negotiations to purchase Italy’s M-346 advanced jet trainer aircraft from Leonardo — deepening the industrial defence relationship with a major NATO ally while upgrading Royal Canadian Air Force training capacity.

This is not trade diversification. This is defence integration. The kind that normally takes decades of patient alliance-building under normal diplomatic circumstances.

Carney did it in fifteen months.

Canada Critical Minerals: The $5 Billion Vault the World Is Now Unlocking

Key Insight

The 13 deals signed at Évian weren’t memoranda of understanding or framework agreements. They were capital commitments — named companies, named projects, named Canadian communities, specific delivery timelines, and more than $5 billion in unlocked investment.

Here’s where the “it’s all symbolic” argument collapses completely.

Through the Critical Minerals Resilience and Production Alliance — a buyers’ club Carney himself launched during Canada’s 2025 G7 Presidency — Canada welcomed 13 new partnerships and initiatives with more than eight countries at Évian.

Not framework agreements. Not MoUs. Actual capital commitments:

Germany’s RCT Solutions is partnering with Manitoba’s Sio Silica to build a 99.9%-pure silica extraction and fully integrated solar manufacturing hub in Manitoba. Japan’s Hanwa Co. Ltd. is partnering with Ontario’s KAP Minerals to develop phosphate and rare earths. Italy’s Eni — one of Europe’s largest energy companies — is investing in Nouveau Monde Graphite’s Matawinie Mine in Québec. France’s Schneider Electric is partnering with Torngat Metals to advance rare earths mining in Québec. Japan’s Sumitomo Corporation is partnering with Ucore Rare Metals to supply rare earth elements for magnet manufacturers across Japan and North America. Portugal’s Lithium Energy is licensing Canadian lithium-refining technology for operations in Portugal.

France, Germany, Italy, and South Korea additionally committed to strategic stockpiling of Canadian critical minerals — a long-term security buffer that signals dependency, not deal-making theatre.

The CUSMA Trade Agreement Threat That Backfired

Key Insight

When Trump threatened not to renew the CUSMA trade agreement, Carney’s response was three words long: “It’s no secret.” Then he went back to work. That is what calm leverage looks like.

The conservative narrative about this week follows a script so predictable you could set your clock by it. Carney is abandoning America. Canada is isolated. The trade pivot is a stunt.

Let’s run each claim against the facts.

“Carney is abandoning America.” Canada’s trade with the United States remains the largest bilateral trade relationship in Canadian history. 85% of Canadian trade remains tariff-free under CUSMA. Carney is not abandoning the U.S. He is refusing to be held hostage by a single market when that market’s leadership has explicitly threatened to terminate the agreement governing it.

“Canada needs America more than America needs Canada.” See the energy numbers above. Every crude oil, natural gas, electricity, and NGL import dependency figure points in the same direction. The leverage is not symmetric.

“The deals are symbolic.” Thirteen named partnerships. Eight named countries. Five billion in committed capital. Named Canadian companies. Named Canadian communities. Specific delivery timelines. If that’s symbolism, someone needs to redefine the word.

“Carney is weak on Trump.” When asked about the CUSMA termination threat, Carney’s entire response was: “It’s no secret that Trump dislikes CUSMA.” He did not escalate. He did not retreat. He stated a fact and returned to work. This is the discipline of a central banker who has managed systemic crises — not the rage of a politician performing for a base.

The Sanity Project exists to cut through the noise. If this kind of analysis matters to you, there’s more where it came from.

Share

The Closing Argument

When Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, 1,028 economists told him he was wrong. He signed it anyway. The world paid for that arrogance for a decade.

When Trump told the world in June 2026 that America doesn’t need Canada for anything, Carney was already in Dublin, coordinating a continental trade architecture with the country that would assume the EU Council Presidency in nine days. When Trump arrived in Évian, reportedly from a UFC party, Carney was in working sessions.

Thirteen deals. Eight countries. Five billion dollars. First-ever non-European SAFE defence procurement. Full trade diversification with real capital commitments. One hundred and sixty-two new Russian sanctions. All in five days.

R.B. Bennett faced an American president who believed his own propaganda about trade leverage. He turned to partners who needed what Canada had. He was right. The people who called it a retreat were wrong.

Mark Carney is not retreating. He is executing.

The question is not whether the strategy is working. The question is whether Canadians are paying enough attention to notice.

— The Sanity Project | June 23, 2026 | Bo Kauffmann

Sources: PM.gc.ca — G7 Partnerships · Canada-Ireland Joint Statement · EU SAFE Agreement · Canada Energy Regulator 2025 · Global News — CUSMA · Britannica — Smoot-Hawley

The Canada-US trade war reached a flashpoint in June 2026 when President Donald Trump publicly declared that America “doesn’t need Canada” and threatened to tear up CUSMA — the trade agreement underpinning the entire North American economic architecture. While media attention fixated on the political theatre, Canada was executing one of the most consequential strategic pivots in its modern history. This post unpacks the hard data behind Canada’s leverage, the structural mechanics of its global realignment at the G7 summit, and why critics calling this a retreat have fundamentally misread the power dynamics at play.

What the Canada-US Trade War Is Actually About

The Canada-US trade war is fundamentally a conflict between political rhetoric and economic reality — one in which Canada holds far more structural leverage than public narratives suggest.

On June 10, 2026, President Trump made a very public, very aggressive declaration: America doesn’t need Canada. He followed that with an explicit threat to terminate CUSMA — the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement that serves as the economic bedrock of North America. Terminating CUSMA is not a minor policy adjustment. It is, as observers noted, taking a sledgehammer to the foundations of a $2 trillion annual trade relationship.

But here is the question the political noise machine rarely asks: who actually holds the leverage in this relationship? Global News reported that Prime Minister Mark Carney openly acknowledged Trump’s hostility toward the deal, while The Globe and Mail documented the intense pressure being applied to Canadian trade policy. The answer, when you look at the actual physical infrastructure of North America, is considerably more nuanced than the porch-shouting suggests.

Canada’s Energy Leverage: The Numbers Washington Won’t Say Out Loud

Canada supplies 63.4% of all American crude oil imports — 3.9 million barrels per day — along with nearly 100% of US natural gas imports, making American energy infrastructure structurally dependent on Canadian supply.

The Canada Energy Regulator’s 2025 data delivers a stark reality check on the “America doesn’t need Canada” narrative. In 2025, Canada supplied 63.4% of all American crude oil imports — 3,900,000 barrels every single day flowing south across the border.

63.4%

Of all American crude oil imports, came from Canada in 2025 — 3.9 million barrels per day

Crucially, this is not a casual market transaction that can be rerouted with a phone call. The physical refineries in the American Midwest are structurally retooled to process heavy Canadian crude. You cannot simply flip a switch and substitute light sweet crude from Texas or Saudi Arabia. The infrastructure is physically entangled at the engineering level.

The dependency does not stop at crude oil. Canada supplies close to 100% of all US natural gas imports — the primary fuel keeping the lights on in regions like New England during winter. Add to that 97.9% of all natural gas liquids (the raw materials for manufacturing plastics and heating homes), and 81.3% of all US electricity imports. The cumulative total: $157.5 billion worth of Canadian energy flowing south in a single year. The leverage in this relationship flows in the exact opposite direction of what the political outrage machine claims.

The Smoot-Hawley Precedent: Canada Has Successfully Pivoted Before

In 1930, Canada successfully rerouted its economy away from the US when Washington passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — a historical precedent that directly informs Canada’s 2026 strategic response.

This is not the first time Canada has faced an existential economic threat from its southern neighbour. In 1930, the United States passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, erecting a massive protectionist wall around the American economy. The legislation was devastating for global trade and particularly punishing to Canada, which relied heavily on selling raw materials southward.

Prime Minister R.B. Bennett faced a brutal binary: beg Washington for relief, or build a new door. He chose the latter. Bennett hosted the 1932 British Empire Economic Conference in Ottawa and successfully pushed through a policy called imperial preference — a structured trade architecture where countries within the British Empire lowered tariffs for each other while maintaining high barriers against outsiders, most notably the United States. The policy physically rerouted Canadian supply chains across the Atlantic. The Canadian Encyclopedia documents how the Canadian economy adapted and survived the isolation.

The institutional memory of that pivot is precisely what Carney’s strategy in 2026 is drawing upon. The empire is gone, but the logic is identical: when your largest market threatens to close its doors, you don’t beg — you build new ones.

Canada Critical Minerals: The Geological Vault That Changes Everything

Canada critical minerals — lithium, graphite, rare earth elements, and high-purity silica — represent the single most important geological asset in the democratic world’s race to break China’s monopoly on advanced manufacturing supply chains.

The 2026 version of imperial preference is not built on colonial trade networks. It is built on geology. Every major industrial democracy is currently racing to transition its economy toward electric vehicles, advanced communication networks, and next-generation defence systems. The problem: none of these are possible without rare earth elements, lithium, graphite, and high-purity silica.

Historically, China has dominated not just the mining of these materials but the complex processing technology required to make them industrially usable. The Western world is in a state of strategic panic, attempting to build an alternative supply chain. And Canada sits at the center of the solution: one of the only stable, democratic nations on earth with these minerals in the ground at scale, combined with the legal and environmental frameworks that risk-averse European and Indo-Pacific partners require before deploying billions in capital.

A German automaker that sources lithium from a region with poor labor practices faces destruction by European regulators. Canada offers ESG compliance alongside the geology — a combination no other nation can currently match at scale.

The G7 Deals: 13 Partnerships and $5 Billion in Catalytic Capital

At the June 2026 G7 summit in Evian, France, Canada launched 13 distinct international partnerships under the Critical Minerals Resilience and Production Alliance, unlocking $5 billion in committed capital across eight countries.

Armed with that geological leverage, Carney arrived at the G7 summit in Evian, France, with a concrete agenda. The official government release confirms the results: 13 distinct international partnerships under the Critical Minerals Resilience and Production Alliance, representing $5 billion in committed capital across eight countries.

These are not vague memoranda of understanding. The deals name specific companies, specific communities, and specific timelines:

Germany: Breaking the Chinese Solar Manufacturing Monopoly

Germany’s RCT Solutions partnered with Canadian company CO Silica in Manitoba to build a fully integrated solar manufacturing hub. The key detail is value-added processing: the sand is mined, refined into high-purity silica, and manufactured into finished solar panels entirely within Canada. This physically breaks China’s monopoly on the middle steps of the supply chain — the intellectual property and high-paying manufacturing jobs stay domestic.

Japan, Italy, and France: Locking Down the EV Battery Supply Chain

Japan’s Hanwha Co Ltd partnered with Ontario’s KPO IP Minerals to develop phosphate and rare earth. Italy’s Eni — one of the largest multinational energy companies on earth — invested directly in Nouveau Monde Graphite’s Matahini mine in Quebec. Graphite is the critical bottleneck for the anode side of electric vehicle batteries. Eni’s direct investment at the mine level signals how desperate European automakers are to secure raw materials before they even come out of the ground. France’s Schneider Electric partnered with Torngat Metals in Quebec to advance rare earth mining.

$5B

in committed capital across 8 countries — plus sovereign stockpiling commitments from France, Germany, Italy, and South Korea

Beyond the capital itself, France, Germany, Italy, and South Korea formally committed to stockpile Canadian critical minerals — signing long-term off-take agreements that essentially guarantee they will purchase whatever Canada produces for the next two decades. This is what banks need to see before lending the next $50 billion to build more mines. It is not just a trade deal. It is a long-term strategic dependency.

Canada’s Entry Into Europe’s SAFE Defence Framework: The Story Most Media Missed

Canada became the first non-European nation ever admitted into the EU’s SAFE (Security Action for Europe) defence procurement framework — a €150 billion fund previously reserved exclusively for European nations.

While North American media obsessively covered the CUSMA drama, it largely missed what may be the most consequential structural shift of the entire G7 week. The EU’s SAFE mechanism — Security Action for Europe — is a €150 billion European defence procurement framework built on the strict assumption that Europe must rely exclusively on European sources for its defence production. It is a highly exclusive, protectionist security architecture.

In June 2026, Canada became the first non-European nation to be admitted into it. Legal analysis from Gowling WLG describes the profound structural implications of this admission for the Canadian defence industry and trade law.

The mechanism behind this admission is straightforward: Europe cannot build its next-generation defence systems without Canada’s critical minerals. So it had to invite Canada into its security apparatus. This is not theoretical access. At the Evian summit, Canada announced the first concrete procurement secured through SAFE: Montreal-based Marconi Technologies contracted to build Orion tactical radios for the Polish Cyber Command, utilizing a supply chain of nearly 100 Canadian suppliers. Canadian Defence Review confirmed the full scope of defence agreements secured.

The integration runs in both directions. Canada simultaneously entered formal negotiations to purchase M-346 advanced jet trainers from Leonardo — one of Italy’s largest aerospace companies. Canadian defence manufacturing is being integrated into the European security infrastructure, while European aerospace hardware is flowing into Canadian military capabilities. As one analysis framed it: this isn’t trade. This is alliance architecture.

Canada-US Trade War: Structural Hedge or Political Theatre?

The evidence points unambiguously to a real structural shift: specific contracts are signed, capital is committed, sovereign stockpiling agreements are active, and defence integration is live — not announced, live.

Critics have been vocal. Comment sections lit up with arguments that Carney’s “elbows up” approach is performative nationalism — that he’s talking tough for domestic voters while quietly terrified of losing American market access. It is a fair challenge to raise. Political summits are historically famous for vague handshakes that produce no shovels in the ground a decade later.

But this pivot does not rest on handshakes. The deals name specific companies. The capital is committed. The defence integration is live. And history vindicates the approach: when R.B. Bennett executed a structurally similar pivot in the 1930s in response to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, the Canadian economy adapted and survived.

The final, most provocative implication of all these moving parts: as Canada rapidly integrates its critical minerals and advanced defense technology into Europe and the Indo-Pacific — building deep structural ties with Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and South Korea through long-term stockpiling agreements — the United States may one day wake up and realize that by threatening its closest ally, it accidentally exiled its own strategic resource base. If the US relies on those minerals to build its future electric grids and fighter jets, and Canada has committed them to others through binding agreements, that changes the global chessboard in ways Washington may not have fully anticipated.

America may have just handed its greatest strategic advantage to the rest of the world. That is a question that will define the mechanics of international relations for the next decade.

This analysis draws on official government releases, CER energy data, international news reporting from PBS and Global News, legal analysis from Gowling WLG, and Canadian Defence Review. For the full research and comprehensive white paper behind this analysis, visit The Canadian Encyclopedia’s coverage of the Smoot-Hawley historical context and the primary government sources linked throughout.

NovaRed Mining Just Hired the Woman Who Called Canada the “51st State”

NovaRed Mining wants you to think of it as a Canadian success story: a Vancouver-based exploration company quietly building out copper and gold assets on Canadian land. This week, it sent a different message. NovaRed appointed Kristi Noem — the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, fired by Donald Trump this past March — to its Advisory Board.

This is the same Kristi Noem who has repeatedly called Canada “the 51st state.”

Read that again. A Canadian company just appointed someone to a strategic seat who doesn’t think Canada should exist as a country.

Who is Kristi Noem, really?

Before her dismissal, Noem’s roughly 14 months as Secretary weren’t quiet ones. She publicly defended two deadly shootings of U.S. citizens by immigration agents in her department. She was accused of needlessly slowing federal disaster response while people waited for help. She spent taxpayer money on a television ad campaign built around her own face. She was criticized for using agency funds to buy two luxury jets.

And then there’s the dog.

In her own memoir — not an accusation, her own words — Noem describes taking the family’s young dog, Cricket, to a gravel pit and shooting it herself, because she’d decided it wasn’t a good hunting dog.

This is the résumé NovaRed handed in to get a seat at the table.

This isn’t a one-off

Noem isn’t even the first American political or military figure NovaRed has recruited this year. She’s the third, joining a retired U.S. Army colonel and a retired U.S. Navy commander already advising the company. A “Canadian” company is being quietly remade into an extension of American political interests, one hire at a time.

Within days of the announcement, British Columbians reacted exactly the way you’d expect: fast, loud, and furious. Comment sections and social media are filled with people asking the obvious question: why does a company digging up Canadian land need an American political operator with this record telling it what to do?

Subscribe now

Why this actually matters

This isn’t about one offensive hire. Critical minerals — the copper, the rare earths, the resources NovaRed exists to extract — sit at the center of the Canada-U.S. relationship right now, which is exactly why we cover this beat at The Sanity Project. Whoever shapes a resource company’s strategy shapes who actually benefits from Canadian land. Three American hires in a row isn’t an accident. It’s a direction, and directions can still be reversed if enough people make it costly to keep going.

What you can actually do

NovaRed’s inbox is already reportedly bouncing and blocking emails. So skip it. This is a mailbox fight, not an inbox one.

Below is a letter you can mail straight to Brian Goss, NovaRed’s CEO, at the company’s Vancouver office. It’s modular; pick from a few opening, middle, and closing options. This is what lands on his desk: it is genuinely yours, not a form letter he can toss without reading.

This costs you a stamp and ten minutes. It’s legal, it’s loud, and companies pay attention to a stack of real letters in a way they’ve trained themselves to ignore in an inbox.

We’re not stopping at the letter. A second piece is coming, with a way to put your name behind this publicly. For now: write it, mail it, and tell one more person to do the same.

Letter to NovaRed Mining — Mail Version (Modular)

Mail to: Brian Goss, President & CEO NovaRed Mining Inc. 503 - 905 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V6C 1L6 Canada

How to use this: Pick ONE opening, ONE middle, and ONE closing, and combine them into a single letter. Mixing and matching means NovaRed receives 27 different letter variations.

[Your Name] [Your Street Address] [Your City, Province, Postal Code]

[Date]

Brian Goss, President & CEO NovaRed Mining Inc. 503 - 905 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V6C 1L6

Dear Mr. Goss,

[Choose ONE opening:]

Opening 1 — Civic/identity My name is [Your Name], and I’m writing as a Canadian concerned about NovaRed’s decision to appoint Kristi Noem, former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, to your Advisory Board.

Opening 2 — Pattern-first I’m writing about a pattern I’ve noticed at NovaRed. In recent months, your company has added a retired U.S. Army colonel, a retired U.S. Navy commander, and now Kristi Noem to its advisory team. As a Canadian, I want to know why a company developing Canadian mineral assets is increasingly being shaped by American political and military figures.

Opening 3 — Sovereignty-first, I am one of many Canadians genuinely disturbed to learn that NovaRed Mining has appointed Kristi Noem (a politician who has openly mocked Canadian sovereignty) to help guide the strategic direction of a company built on Canadian land and Canadian minerals.

[Choose ONE middle:]

Middle 1 — Fully documented record. Ms. Noem’s record deserves real scrutiny:

• Dismissed from her cabinet position in March of this year, after roughly 14 months as Secretary, following sustained controversy over her department’s conduct

• Sought to justify two deadly shootings of U.S. citizens by immigration agents, and faced accusations of needlessly slowing federal disaster responses

• Oversaw a costly, self-promotional television ad campaign funded by taxpayers

• Separately criticized for using agency funds to purchase two luxury jets

• By her own account in her memoir, she killed the family dog by shooting it

• Has repeatedly referred to Canada as the “51st state”, a comment many of us read as a direct dismissal of our sovereignty

This is the record NovaRed chose to bring onto its Advisory Board.

Middle 2 — Governance-focused Beyond Ms. Noem’s personal record, this appointment raises real governance concerns:

• NovaRed’s board currently has only one independent director

• No new board appointments have been made in several years

• Rather than strengthening independent oversight, the company added a high-profile political figure with no mining background and a controversial public record

That is not the kind of decision-making Canadians should be expected to trust with the development of our resources.

Middle 3 — Short pattern + record. This is not an isolated decision:

• Ms. Noem is the third high-profile American added to NovaRed’s advisory team in recent months

• She was removed from her cabinet position earlier this year following serious controversy

• She has a public history of dismissing Canadian sovereignty, including referring to Canada as the “51st state”

A Canadian company developing Canadian resources should not be building its strategy around figures like this.

[Choose ONE closing:]

Closing 1 — Firm demand I am asking NovaRed to reverse this appointment and recommit to an advisory board built on relevant industry expertise and accountable governance — not American political connections. I will be watching for your response.

Closing 2 — Consequence-oriented: Until this appointment is reversed, I will not support NovaRed and will encourage other Canadians to do the same. I expect a response explaining how the company intends to address this.

Closing 3 — Accountability/transparency, I would like to know what governance process led to this decision, and what NovaRed plans to do about it. I look forward to your written response, and I will be sharing it with other Canadians following this story.

Sincerely,

[Your Name] [Your City, Province]

Share

Letter-writing campaigns are a lot more effective than e-mails, which are easily blocked, listed as ‘spam,’ or just trashed.

As an added step, we’ve started a petition on Change.org that's easy to sign online. Our current goal is 1,500 signatures. But even at lower levels, some meaningful things will happen:

• Cross 100 signatures, and Change.org automatically notifies Brian Goss, NovaRed’s CEO, that real people are asking for this.

• Comments build up as signatures do. That’s a public record, in people’s own words, that we can hand straight to a reporter.

• If NovaRed responds publicly on the petition page, which they have the option to do once notified, every signer gets that response sent to their inbox.

There’s a specific kind of statistic that does something strange to your stomach. Not the big abstract ones we’ve all gone numb to. The specific ones. The ones with a timestamp.

Here’s one.

At 9:23 in the morning on January 2nd, 2025, Canada’s hundred highest-paid CEOs had already earned what the average Canadian worker would make for the entire year. Not by Christmas. Not by that first long weekend in May. By 9:23 a.m., on the second working day of the year, before most of us had finished a first coffee, the job was done.

The rest of us had 363 days left.

This is the headline figure everyone shares, and it’s the one that gets the screenshots. It’s also, weirdly, the least interesting thing about CEO pay in Canada. Because the usual move from here is outrage, and outrage is cheap. It feels like doing something while you do nothing. So let’s skip it.

Let’s look instead at how the number actually gets made. Because the mechanism is far stranger than the figure. And the single most popular defence of the whole arrangement, the one you’ll find sitting at the top of every comment thread, turns out to quietly make the case for the prosecution.

Subscribe now

The Number Is Real. That’s the Uncomfortable Part.

Whenever a statistic lands this hard, the reasonable reflex is to assume somebody cooked the books. Cherry-picked a year. Counted things twice. It’s a healthy instinct, and I wish it applied here.

The figure comes from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and its annual Living the High Life report, now in its nineteenth year. Nineteen years is a long time to be quietly tracking the same thing, and it’s exactly the kind of unglamorous, longitudinal work that doesn’t trend but does hold up.

The numbers for 2024:

• Average pay for Canada’s top 100 CEOs: $16.2 million. A new record, beating the old one of $14.9 million from 2022.

• Average Canadian worker: $65,548.

• The ratio between them is 248 to 1. The highest ever recorded in this country.

• Shopify’s Tobias Lütke alone: $205.47 million. The largest single pay package in Canadian corporate history.

• And the price of admission, the bare minimum to crack the top 100: $7.2 million. That, too, is a record.

Run it down to the hour, and it somehow gets worse. At $16.2 million a year, the average top CEO earned roughly $7,812 an hour. That’s about $130 a minute. Someone on Ontario's minimum wage would need to work something like 236 years, full-time, no vacations, to match what one of these executives made in 2024 alone.

Two hundred and thirty-six years. You’d have had to start during George III's reign and still be clocking in.

So no, the number isn’t a glitch. It’s the cleanest part of the story.

Starting an online business?

Canadian businesses deserve Canadian hosting. If you’re building a website or blog, this is where I’d start: Web Hosting Canada

Why “It’s Just Stock Options” Makes It Worse

Now for the defence. You’ve seen it. The moment that 248-to-1 number circulates, a tidy rebuttal appears, usually upvoted to the top: this is skewed by Shopify. Strip Lütke out, and the average is only about $1.25 million.

And it’s true. It really is the most accurate pushback going.

It’s also completely beside the point, and it accidentally hands the other side a better weapon.

Start with the “only.” A $1.25 million salary is still nineteen times what the average Canadian earns. In the 1980s, the comparable ratio was around 3:1. So the calm, reasonable defence, relax, it’s just a million and a quarter, is really an admission that even the floor of executive pay has climbed more than sixfold in forty years. That’s not a rebuttal. That’s a confession wearing a tie.

But the deeper problem is that salary was never the story. In 2024, 84.3% of total CEO compensation came from bonuses, the performance-based pay tied directly to corporate profits. The base salary is the part you can point at to seem modest. The bonus is where the actual money lives.

Which raises the obvious question. Tied to what profits, exactly? Because that’s where this stops being a story about a few unusually lucky executives and becomes a story about everyone else.

Subscribe now

Greedflation, and How the Loop Actually Closes

Nobody screenshots this part.

Before the pandemic, Canadian corporations pulled in roughly $400 billion a year in pre-tax profits. By 2021, as prices started their now-familiar climb, that figure jumped to $668 billion. In 2024, it sat at $630 billion. Call it a permanent step up of more than 57% above where it used to live.

Some of that is the ordinary churn of a big economy. But a meaningful chunk, per the CCPA and Statistics Canada, both, is something blunter: margin expansion. Companies are raising prices faster than their costs rise. Not just passing along the supply-chain pain, but using the chaos as cover to widen the gap permanently. Economists have a label for it that sounds like a slur and functions like a diagnosis: greedflation.

Now watch the loop close, because it’s almost elegant in how little villainy it requires.

Higher margins produce higher profits. Higher profits trigger bigger bonuses. Bigger bonuses, remember, are 84.3% of executive pay. Bigger bonuses produce record compensation. No smoke-filled room needed. Nobody has to cackle. You just need a pay structure, designed by boards largely made up of other well-paid executives, that automatically converts good times at the top of the company into personal wealth there.

And the people on the other end of those price increases?

Between 2020 and 2024, the average Canadian worker’s wages rose about 15%. Inflation over the same stretch rose 18%. Do that subtraction, and you get a real-wage cut of roughly 3%. Meanwhile, the things people actually buy outran even that: pasta up 47%, beef up 39%, eggs up 35%, chicken up 29%, rent up 26%, and the cost of owning a home up 29%.

So the same pricing behaviour that funded a record year for CEO pay is the pricing behaviour that quietly drained the wallets of the people doing the paying. The bonus and the grocery bill are not two separate stories. They’re the same dollar, viewed from opposite ends.

Why CEO Pay Is So High (and Why It Wasn’t Always)

The most useful fact in this entire discussion is also the easiest to forget: the 248-to-1 ratio is not a law of nature. It’s not gravity. It’s a setting. And it used to be set very differently.

In the 1980s, Canada’s CEO-to-worker ratio sat around 40 to 50:1. By the late 1990s, it had reached 104:1. By 2008, 170:1. In 2024, 248:1. That’s not the slow drift of an economy growing. That’s a curve bending steadily upward in one direction, decade after decade.

Then there’s the comparison that really stings. Germany and Japan, countries with comparable industrial muscle and arguably better engineering, keep their executive ratios in the 30-50x range. Same century, same technology, wildly different outcome. So “our CEOs are just that much more productive” doesn’t survive contact with the evidence.

Three structural choices, made in North America and not in those peer economies, explain most of the gap:

1. The stock option loophole. In Canada, employee stock options get a preferential 50% tax deduction. In practice, this quietly subsidizes paying executives in stock, with no equivalent perk attached to a regular paycheque.

2. Who sets the pay? Compensation committees can be stacked with other executives and directors, the very people who benefit from high pay norms. There’s no one in the room whose job is to push the number down.

3. The disappearing counterweight. The share of private-sector workers covered by a union contract, historically the most reliable engine of wage growth, has fallen sharply since the 1980s. The people with the least bargaining power are the denominator in that 248.

None of that is a conspiracy. It’s just a set of rules that happen to point the same way.

A Quick Word About the Man Who Used to Run Brookfield

One more piece of context, and I’ll lay it out without the dramatic music.

The government in office is now led by Prime Minister Mark Carney. Before politics, Carney chaired Brookfield Asset Management, one of the country’s largest private equity and infrastructure firms, and before that, he was a Goldman Sachs executive. His own story is, to put it gently, not separate from the world the CCPA report describes. It’s woven right through it.

In May 2026, reporting showed the Carney government had handed corporate subsidies to the steel industry with no binding strings attached to prevent that money from flowing into executive compensation. A reporter put the question directly at the press conference: What stops this from becoming bonuses instead of wages? The government did not offer a binding answer.

Around the same time, the CCPA floated two specific fixes: a 2% annual wealth tax on Canadians with net worth exceeding $10 million, and the elimination of the 50% stock option deduction. Neither has made the legislative agenda.

You can draw your own conclusion about why. I’d only point out that asking the people who benefit from a system to dismantle it has a long and unimpressive track record.

The Fixes Exist. The Will Is the Missing Ingredient.

What makes this maddening is that it isn’t an unsolved problem. We are not waiting on a breakthrough. Every tool below already exists, already works, and is already running in some wealthy country that looks a lot like ours.

• Fix the stock option deduction. Tax options as ordinary income, and you remove the main tax reason to pay executives in stock in the first place.

• Require pay-ratio disclosure. The US already makes public companies publish their CEO-to-median-worker ratio every year. Canada doesn’t. Sunlight first, accountability second.

• Try the multiplier model. Cap executive pay at a multiple of the lowest-paid worker. Under a 20:1 rule, a CEO who wants $10 million has to ensure the lowest-paid person at the company earns at least $500,000. It ties the ceiling to the floor.

• Tax windfall margins. A temporary levy on profit margins that blow past their own historical average, modelled on the UK’s energy windfall tax, aimed straight at the greedflation engine.

• Put a worker in the room. Germany’s co-determination model seats employee representatives on the boards that set pay. Funny how the ratios stay lower when the people affected get a vote.

Not one of these is radical. Each is just a choice we have, so far, chosen not to make.

Subscribe now

Back to 9:23

So let’s return to that clock.

The thing about 9:23 a.m. is that the clock itself isn’t the scandal. The clock is just telling time, faithfully, the way clocks do. The scandal, if that’s even the right word, is everything that had to be arranged in advance for the morning of January 2nd to play out that way. The tax code. The boardrooms. The forty-year drift no one ever quite voted for.

A number like 248 to 1 feels like a force of nature when you’re standing underneath it. It isn’t. It’s a sum of decisions, and decisions can be made differently. Germany made them differently. Japan made them differently. We made them like this.

Next January 2nd, the clock will probably read a few minutes earlier. 9:21, maybe. 9:19. The curve has been bending the same way for forty years, and nothing on the current agenda is bending it back.

And the rest of us will still have 363 days to go.

If that sits wrong with you, good. That’s not outrage. That’s just paying attention. The two get confused all the time, and only one of them is useful.

Listen to the Sanity Project Podcast

Tired of News That Makes You Angry But Not Informed? Start Here.

The news cycle is designed to outrage you. The Sanity Project is designed to inform you.

If you’ve landed here, you probably already know the feeling. You open the news, and ten minutes later, you’re angrier, more anxious, and somehow less informed than when you started. Headlines scream. Pundits perform. Social media algorithms reward the loudest voices, not the most accurate ones.

That’s not an accident. Outrage is a business model.

This publication exists to offer something different.

Subscribe now

What We Do

The Sanity Project is a weekly newsletter and podcast that cuts through the spin, the noise, and the manufactured outrage to give you what most media won’t: facts, context, and clarity.

We don’t cherry-pick stories to confirm a bias. We don’t sensationalize to drive clicks. We don’t tell you what to think — we give you the information you need to think for yourself.

Every piece we publish asks the same question: What is actually happening here, and why does it matter?

What We Cover

We publish across five areas — all connected by the same lens:

🇨🇦 Canadian Politics & National Unity From Alberta separatism to federal elections, equalization battles to party politics — we cover the stories shaping this country with context you won’t get from a 30-second clip or an outrage-driven tweet.

💰 Corporate Power & Economic Justice: Who really benefits from the policies being made in your name? We follow the money — billionaire tax breaks, supply chain exploitation, corporate influence on democracy, and the gap between what politicians say and what they do.

⚡ Energy, Environment & Infrastructure: Canada’s energy future is one of the most important and most distorted conversations happening right now. We cut through the ideology on all sides to look at what the data actually shows.

🤖 Technology, AI & Social Media: From Facebook’s algorithm to AI data centres to the spread of digital misinformation — we examine how technology is reshaping power, information, and democracy.

📰 Media Literacy & Critical Thinking: How does outrage culture work? How do you spot spin? How does a misleading headline travel farther than a correction? We pull back the curtain on the mechanics of modern misinformation.

A Few Examples of What That Looks Like in Practice

• When the story broke about forced labour in Canadian supply chains, we didn’t just report the scandal. We traced who knew, who profited, and what the law actually requires.

• When billionaire tax break stories flooded the news cycle, we stripped out the partisan framing and showed you the actual numbers — what’s real, what’s exaggerated, and what both sides get wrong.

• When Alberta separatism flared up again on social media, we didn’t pile on or dismiss it. We laid out the economic math that separatist arguments depend on — and why that math doesn’t hold up.

• When Manitoba announced AI data centre deals, we explained what that actually means for jobs, energy use, and who benefits — before anyone else was asking those questions.

This is what we do. Every week.

Subscribe now

Who This Is For

You don’t have to be Canadian to read The Sanity Project — though we do start there, because Canada is where the stories are closest to home for us.

You do have to be someone who:

• Wants to understand the world, not just react to it

• Is tired of being manipulated by the media that profits from your anger

• Believes facts matter — even inconvenient ones

• Is curious enough to read past the headline

If that’s you, you’re in the right place.

How to Get the Most Out of This Publication

📬 The Newsletter — published weekly, delivered to your inbox. Each issue takes a story you’ve probably seen in the headlines and gives you the full picture.

🎙️ The Podcast — same rigorous approach, audio format. Great for commutes, walks, or anyone who prefers to listen.

📌 Notes — follow along between issues for sharp, bite-sized takes on breaking stories. This is where we react in real time — without the outrage.

One Last Thing

We’re not here to tell you what to think. We’re here to make sure you have what you need to think well.

Subscribe below. It’s free. And if you ever read something here that makes you say, “I didn’t know that,” share it with someone who needs to.

That’s how this grows. Not through algorithms. Through readers who trust us enough to pass it on.

— Bo Kauffmann, The Sanity Project

Subscribe now

Published weekly. Free to subscribe. Canadian stories, global stakes.

To subscribe to our free weekly newsletter, go to https://thesanity.org/p/subscribe

Unmasking Digital Deception: The Globalization of Local Outrage The Unexpected Face Behind Alberta Separatism

The conversation focused on the startling discovery that much of the apparent surge in Alberta separatism online was not, in fact, a product of local sentiment. Instead, the discussion explored how international actors—such as an Indonesian noodle merchant—have crafted fake political personas to stoke division and generate engagement. Rather than participating in Canadian politics, these individuals are exploiting digital ecosystems for financial gain.

Key Points:

• Accounts impersonating Alberta separatists are often run by individuals overseas.

• One concept discussed was a specific case: a woman named Nyeta Kila claimed to be canvassing in Calgary, but was actually a noodle merchant from Indonesia, copying real Albertans' posts for viral traction.

• Posts generated intense reactions, yet they were designed solely to maximize engagement, not foster discussion.

The Business Model: Profiting from Outrage

Several points were raised, including how these deceptive posts become highly profitable. Meta’s platforms reward high engagement—regardless of whether it’s positive or negative.

How It Works:

• Outrageous, polarizing content prompts users to react and comment.

• Meta’s algorithm promotes heavily commented posts, putting them in front of even more users.

• More views mean more ads—and a share of ad revenue goes to the content “creator.”

• The system incentivizes not healthy debate, but maximum emotional response.

The Pipeline in Action

• Copy and paste a real local’s grievance.

• Amplify it from abroad, posing as a provincial activist.

• Watch as genuine locals respond with anger and calls to action—even violence.

• Collect a payout from Facebook with every surge in engagement.

A key theme that emerged: It’s not a glitch or accident. The system works exactly as intended to monetize friction, and the only winners are the grifters and the platforms.

The Real-World Fallout

The discussion explored the serious consequences for local communities:

• Community members become embroiled in artificial outrage, intensifying polarization.

• The true voices and concerns of locals are co-opted for profit.

• Democratic discourse becomes increasingly vulnerable to remote manipulation.

Angus Bridgman from McGill University’s Media Ecosystem Observatory summarized the situation: only two parties benefit—overseas profiteers and the platforms themselves. Everyone else is left with division, suspicion, and the threat of escalating hostility.

Staying Savvy: How to Protect Yourself

• Pause before reacting—ask, “Who benefits from my engagement?”

• Check sources and account origins.

• Understand that engagement-driven platforms care only about clicks and comments, not the truth.

Critical thinking isn't just helpful—it's essential.

To never miss an episode, subscribe to this podcast wherever you are listening.

This is Part 2 of a 4-part deep dive!

On June 4, 2026, three things happened in three different places, and almost nobody connected them.

In Winnipeg, the Kinew government rejected Jet.AI’s application to build a natural gas-powered hyperscale AI data center, one that would have swallowed 13% of Manitoba Hydro’s entire annual generating capacity. In Ottawa, the federal government announced a $705 million sovereign AI compute strategy. And in Portland, Oregon, the local utility filed a proposal to raise residential electricity rates by 29%, citing data centers as the reason.

One country says no. The same country says yes. And a preview, three time zones away, of what the bill looks like when nobody asks the hard questions first.

Premier Kinew called the Manitoba AI data center proposal an “albatross.” That word choice deserves more attention than it got. An albatross isn’t just a burden. In the poem, everyone half-remembers from high school, it’s a thing that arrives promising good fortune and ends up hanging around your neck as a curse. Whether he intended the full literary weight or not, it turns out to be the most precise description anyone in public office has yet offered for what’s happening across this continent.

Because Manitoba is not an outlier. It’s a chapter in a much bigger story.

The gold rush that skipped the homework

After ChatGPT launched in late 2022, the scramble that followed had no modern precedent. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta committed hundreds of billions to AI infrastructure within 18 months. By 2025, Goldman Sachs was projecting $2 to $3 trillion in global investment by 2030. The logic was simple: demand for generative AI would grow forever, and whoever locked in land, power, and fibre first would own the future.

Municipal governments lined up to compete. Land grants, tax freezes, utility priority. The pitch to residents was always the same: clean modern facilities, tax revenue, jobs.

Here’s the thing about that pitch. Almost none of it survives contact with the actual numbers.

Start with jobs, since that’s the headline promise. Food & Water Watch reviewed employment claims against actual outcomes across multiple U.S. facilities and found that despite billions in public subsidies, most hyperscale data centers employ fewer than 50 permanent staff once construction wraps. The construction jobs are real. They’re also temporary by definition. The permanent workforce is mostly remote engineers employed at headquarters, not locals. Run the math on subsidy per permanent local job, and you land in the millions of dollars. Per job.

Then there’s the cost nobody puts in the brochure: opportunity cost. Manitoba’s 13% wasn’t an abstraction. That’s energy that could power hundreds of thousands of homes, anchor northern communities, or attract a dozen smaller employers with actual payrolls. A renewable energy grid that took decades of public investment to build is a finite infrastructure. Hand a huge slice of it to a single private operator for decades, and every other use is foreclosed.

That’s not an environmental argument. It’s an economic one. Which is exactly why it’s spreading.

Starting an online business?

Canadian businesses deserve Canadian hosting. If you’re building a website or blog, this is where I’d start: Web Hosting Canada

Your power bill is the invoice

If you want to know where this story shows up first for ordinary people, look at electricity rates.

In the PJM grid region, which covers 13 U.S. states, capacity prices increased tenfold between 2023 and 2025, driven primarily by data center energy consumption outpacing supply. PJM grid capacity auctions are obscure machinery that most people never think about, right up until the moment they translate into an electricity rate hike on a household bill.

Oregon got there on June 4. Portland General Electric’s proposed 29% residential increase explicitly named data center load growth as the driver. Residents who never signed a contract with a tech company and never saw a dollar of the promised benefits are being asked to subsidize the infrastructure anyway.

And here’s the uncomfortable part: AI energy use is still accelerating. Every projection that justified the buildout assumed the demand curve bends upward only. The people writing those projections don’t pay Oregon utility bills.

The water cost nobody mentions at the ribbon cutting

Water has quietly become the most underreported dimension of artificial intelligence's environmental impact, and the numbers are hard to sit with.

Modern facilities use water in two ways: direct data center cooling and indirect consumption through the power generation that feeds them. A team at the University of California, Riverside, estimated that global AI water consumption reached roughly 765 billion litres in 2025 alone. The UN has projected that on current trajectories, data center water usage could match the water needs of 1.3 billion people by 2030.

Read that sentence again. Not a typo. 1.3 billion people.

The kicker: two-thirds of newly announced facilities are sited in water-stressed basins, places where water scarcity is already a managed crisis. The communities most aggressively courting these projects are frequently the ones least able to absorb them.

And that’s before the carbon. Credible estimates put the carbon footprint AI generated in 2025 at between 32.6 and 79.7 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, from AI workloads alone. Many facilities claiming green status are buying renewable energy credits that, on paper, offset their consumption without decarbonizing the actual grid that delivers their power. Sustainable technology, as practiced, often means sustainable accounting.

The money that never shows up

The economic case always rested on tax revenue. In practice, the subsidy war between jurisdictions ate the revenue before it arrived.

Texas is the canonical case. The state’s data center tax breaks were costing roughly $1.3 billion per year in forgone revenue before its own lawmakers, a bipartisan group of them, started using the word “unsustainable” in public. Texas. The state that practically invented this competition is now trying to claw its way back out.

Subscribe now

Virginia, home to the largest concentration of data centers on Earth, is losing approximately $1.02 billion annually in school funding to data center tax exemptions. That’s not an abstraction either. That’s a kitchen-table number. Parents understand exactly what a billion dollars a year not arriving at their kids’ schools means.

The pattern repeats everywhere: jurisdictions bid against each other by eliminating the very tax base that justified the deal. The community endures grid pressure, water demand, noise, and construction traffic. The revenue that was supposed to make it all worthwhile gets negotiated away before the first server rack arrives.

The AI data center bubble nobody wants to name

All of this assumes the demand projections are even right. There’s growing evidence they’re not.

SynMax, which checks announced projects against satellite imagery of actual construction, found that 30 to 50% of U.S. data centers planned for 2026 were delayed or quietly cancelled. Microsoft, which spent 2024 loudly warning about compute shortages, spent late 2025 admitting that its own projections had fueled an overbuild. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis is now openly warning about stranded assets: facilities built for demand that never materializes, leaving utilities and host communities holding the costs of underutilized buildings.

And Goldman Sachs, hardly a hotbed of technophobia, concluded that the first full year of massive AI capital deployment contributed “basically zero” to U.S. GDP growth in 2025.

That doesn’t mean AI is worthless. It means the productivity gains that justify trillions in AI infrastructure haven’t shown up in the data yet. Which sharpens Manitoba’s question to a point: who absorbs the risk if the demand curve bends before the infrastructure is paid off?

Spoiler: It is never the company that got the tax break.

This isn’t technophobia. It’s arithmetic with a voting record.

The revolt crosses every line that’s supposed to divide us.

Gallup found that 70% of Americans oppose building a data center in their community. Seventy percent. In this political climate, you can’t get 70% of Americans to agree on the shape of the Earth. Data Center Watch has tracked $64 billion in projects that have been blocked or delayed and counts 142 organized opposition groups across 24 states.

Tulsa, Oklahoma, not exactly a granola jurisdiction, imposed a moratorium on new approvals through the end of 2026 over grid stability. In Virginia, officials who voted to approve major facilities have been losing their seats as a result. Community opposition has stopped being a public-comment formality and started showing up in election results.

So what about sovereignty?

Honest pressure test time, because the counter-argument is real.

Canada’s $705 million sovereign compute strategy reflects a legitimate concern. If Canadian health records, financial systems, and government data run on servers subject to U.S. law, our digital sovereignty is structurally compromised. Given the state of the relationship since 2025, that’s not hypothetical. The “AI for All” framing treats compute as public infrastructure, the same logic that once built our electrical grids and railways. That argument holds.

But it holds for publicly anchored facilities, on Canadian soil, powered by Canadian renewables, under Canadian law.

It does not hold for Jet.AI. A U.S.-incorporated company burning natural gas and consuming 13% of a Canadian public utility’s renewable capacity to serve global commercial clients does not advance Canadian sovereignty. It advances Jet.AI’s balance sheet. Sovereignty is a real argument being borrowed as a regulatory lever by operators who deliver none of it.

Ottawa’s strategy and Manitoba’s rejection aren’t in contradiction. They’re two halves of the same standard, if anyone in Ottawa is willing to say so out loud.

The verdict

The gold rush will continue. The capital is too big and the politics too enthusiastic for it to stop. The only live question is what standards govern it.

What Manitoba applied wasn’t an obstruction. It was the minimum diligence any public utility owes its owners, who are, let’s remember, the public: how much of a finite asset, for what return, at what risk, for whose benefit. Asked rigorously, once, the answer was no. It won’t always be no. But the homework had to be done every single time, and for three years, almost nobody did it.

The seven costs are real and documented. The bubble risk is badly underweighted. The sovereignty argument is legitimate and currently being misapplied by the exact operators it doesn’t describe. Manitoba got this one right, and, as we argued in our previous coverage of the Manitoba Precedent on The Sanity Check, the rest of Canada is watching to see whether that rigour becomes the rule or remains a one-off.

An albatross, remember, was a blessing right up until somebody shot it.

So here’s where I’ll leave you with an actual position, because The Sanity Project doesn’t do “you decide”: sovereign compute, publicly governed, on Canadian terms, yes. Private hyperscale on a public grid at gold rush terms, no. If you think I’ve got the sovereignty math wrong, or if your community is facing one of these proposals, I want to hear about it in the comments. And if this kind of analysis is what you came for, subscribe at thesanity.org/p/subscribe so the next one lands in your inbox.

Listen to the Sanity Project Podcast

Somebody is counting on you not doing the math.

The number 76,475 is everywhere right now. It’s in viral videos, thumbnails, and breathless posts claiming Canada runs a “death conveyor belt.” It gets presented as proof that medical assistance in dying in Canada has spiralled out of control. It’s a real number. It comes from real government data. And the way it’s being used is one of the most calculated pieces of statistical misdirection in Canadian public life today.

Here’s the problem with that. The people pushing 76,475 are betting you won’t ask the one question that takes their whole framing apart: 76,475 over what period of time?

A death toll with no timeframe attached isn’t a statistic. It’s a weapon.

The Number That’s Designed to Shock You

The 76,475 figure is the MAID cumulative total: every provision since the practice became legal in June 2016. Nine years of data, squeezed into one number and presented as if it described last Tuesday.

That’s the arithmetic equivalent of announcing Canadians have eaten four billion meals and demanding to know why nobody’s talking about the obesity emergency. Cumulative totals always grow. They can’t do anything else. Every year, MAID in Canada stays legal; that number gets bigger, even in a year when annual MAID deaths in Canada actually fell.

And that’s exactly why the framing works. A nine-year total sounds like an annual catastrophe to anyone who isn’t told it’s a nine-year total. You’ll notice the viral posts never say “since 2016.” Four words would deflate the whole production, so the four words stay out.

Is the number accurate? Yes. Is it honest? Let’s talk facts.

Starting an online business?

Canadian businesses deserve Canadian hosting. If you’re building a website or blog, this is where I’d start: Web Hosting Canada

What Health Canada’s 2024 Data Actually Shows

The Sixth Annual Report on MAID, Health Canada's annual report covering 2024, is the largest and most transparent dataset on assisted dying in the world. No other country publishes anything close. According to Health Canada’s Sixth Annual Report, here’s what 2024 actually looked like.

2024 MAID by the Numbers

• 16,499: MAID provisions in 2024, the actual annual figure

• 326,779: total deaths in Canada in 2024

• 5.1%: MAID as a share of all Canadian deaths

• 6.9%: year-over-year growth, down from 36.8% in earlier years

• 78: median age of recipients

• 63.6%: share of cases where cancer was the underlying condition

Read that list again. The typical person receiving MAID in Canada is 78 years old and dying of cancer. Nearly three-quarters were already in palliative care. We’re not talking about the young, the poor, or the abandoned. We’re talking about elderly Canadians at the end of life, making a choice that the law was written, on purpose, to give them.

The real 2024 story isn’t explosive growth. It’s a system slowing down on its own.

The MAID growth rate has collapsed from 36.8% to 6.9%. That’s what a policy finding its natural level looks like. The population of people who meet the MAID eligibility criteria, who want this option, and who qualify under a grievous and irremediable medical condition is finite. The two-track design reflects this: track one for people whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, track two, with stricter MAID safeguards and a 90-day assessment period, for people whose death is not. In 2024, track two made up just 4.4% of provisions. And the safeguards written into Criminal Code Section 241.2 turned away more than 1,300 applicants last year. Conveyor belts don’t have rejection rates.

Subscribe now

The Arithmetic of Cumulative Fear

Why does the cumulative framing work so well? Because most people, reasonably, assume that when somebody quotes a death toll, they’re describing a rate.

So let’s do what the viral posts won’t. Divide 76,475 by nine years, and you get an average that sits below the current annual figure, because the program grew from a small base. Compare 16,499 against the total of 326,779 deaths, and you get 5.1%. One in twenty. Significant? Absolutely. A runaway crisis? The assisted dying statistics say otherwise, and they’ve been saying it for six straight annual reports.

But here’s the real kicker: the same Health Canada report that produced the scary number contains every figure you need to debunk the scary framing. The people circulating 76,475 read that report. They found the cumulative total, skipped the annual rate, skipped the slowing growth, skipped the median age, and built a narrative out of the one number that sounds apocalyptic once you strip the context off it.

When somebody hands you a death toll without a denominator, they’re not informing you. They’re recruiting you.

That’s marketing, not fact-finding. And what does it tell you about an argument when it only works if the audience never sees the rest of the page?

Share

Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada vs. the Netherlands After 24 Years

If the slippery slope theory were true, the Netherlands would be the proof. Euthanasia has been legal there since 2002. More than two decades of data, the longest track record on earth.

So what happened? The Netherlands euthanasia rate climbed gradually, then settled at roughly 4 to 5% of all deaths. No explosion. No runaway expansion. A ceiling, reached and held, for nearly a quarter century. If assisted dying in Canada were the uncontrolled outlier its critics describe, this is where the divergence would show up. It doesn’t.

Canada’s 2024 rate is 5.1%, almost exactly where the Dutch system settled, and Canada is arriving at that plateau on a near-identical curve, with euthanasia in Canada decelerating right on schedule. Two different countries, two different health systems, two different legal frameworks, landing on the same number. That’s what happens when a policy serves a stable, finite population: people facing the end of life who value autonomy over duration.

The critics who quote Dutch psychiatrists as a “warning” never quote the Dutch data. There’s a reason for that. The warning only frightens people who haven’t seen the numbers, and the numbers have been public for twenty years.

Twenty-four years of Dutch evidence shows a plateau, not a slope, slippery or otherwise.

Why This Framing Exists, and Who Benefits

The 76,475 narrative didn’t grow on its own. It feeds specific audiences and specific agendas.

For engagement-driven media, fear of a “death system” outperforms a story about elderly cancer patients making considered choices about end-of-life care in Canada. For opponents of the right to die in Canada, many of whom fought the law on principle long before any data existed, the cumulative total is a gift: a number that grows forever and never needs context. For the wider misinformation economy, MAID statistics 2024 are just raw material, the same way crime numbers and vaccine numbers are.

Meanwhile, the public is somewhere else entirely. Polling conducted for Dying With Dignity Canada shows strong majority support for assisted dying in Canada, and that support has held steady for years. The Death with Dignity Canada movement didn’t manufacture the consensus. Decades of Canadians watching people they love suffer did that.

Are there legitimate debates? Yes. Access to palliative care in Canada needs real investment. The delayed expansion covering MAID for mental illness as a sole condition, which remains excluded by law no matter what YouTube tells you, deserves hard scrutiny, as the federal government’s own background materials acknowledge. Data gaps around income and Indigenous identity should be closed. Those conversations matter. The 76,475 panic is drowning them out.

The cost of the fake debate is that we never get to have the real one.

The Verdict

Medical assistance in dying in Canada is one of the most heavily monitored, thoroughly documented end-of-life systems in the world, and the data shows a program working as designed. The annual figure is 16,499, not 76,475. The share of deaths is 5.1%, right in line with the Netherlands after 24 years. Growth is at 6.9% and falling. The median recipient is a 78-year-old cancer patient who was already receiving palliative care.

The viral number is real. The story wrapped around it isn’t. And anyone who quotes a nine-year cumulative total as an annual rate has already told you how much they trust you with the full picture.

Reason beats rage. Facts beat fear. Follow for more fact checks that cut through the noise. Go to thesanity.org.

Listen to the Sanity Project Podcast

And most Canadians have absolutely no idea.

There’s a particular kind of irony that only shows up in national politics. It goes like this: a country gets told, loudly and repeatedly, that it is weak. The pundits say it. The op-ed pages say it. The guys on political podcasts say it with great confidence and very few facts. Meanwhile, that same country is quietly sitting on one of the most strategically valuable resource bases on the planet.

That’s Canada right now.

For the better part of two years, one narrative has dominated the airwaves and the comment sections. Canada is fragile. Canada is over-regulated. Canada is economically dependent on American goodwill and has almost no cards to play. When Trump’s tariff pressure hit in 2025, plenty of pundits were practically lining up to suggest we should accept our place as a subordinate trading partner and be grateful for what we get.

Compelling story. Completely wrong.

Here’s what those same pundits weren’t telling you: at the exact moment commentators were describing Canada as a weakling at the negotiating table, Canada was in Toronto hosting the world’s largest mining conference, announcing $12.1 billion in new partnerships with twelve nations, and chairing a global body it had built from scratch to govern the most strategically important supply chains of the 21st century.

Not a participant. The chair.

That’s not a weakness. That’s leverage. And the story of how Canada got here, and why it matters for every single one of us, is one of the most important economic stories almost nobody is actually telling.

The Minerals That Run the Modern World

Start with the basics, because this is where it gets genuinely fascinating.

The global clean energy transition, electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and small modular reactors are not really an engineering story. It’s a materials story. Every EV battery pack is a concentrated mass of lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and manganese. Every offshore wind turbine contains rare earth elements in its magnets and copper running through its wiring. Every solar panel needs silver and silicon. You cannot build any of this without the raw materials. Full stop.

The International Energy Agency has done the math on what this actually means for global demand:

• Lithium demand is projected to grow by over 40 times by 2040

• Graphite, cobalt, and nickel demand will grow 20 to 25 times in the same period

• Copper, needed to wire every renewable energy system on the planet, faces extraordinary demand growth across every scenario the IEA has modelled

Forty times. Sit with that for a second. The demand for lithium alone will be forty times what it is today within fifteen years. And that’s the conservative projection from the world’s leading energy authority.

So, the obvious question is: where do these minerals come from? And who controls them?

Right now, the answer to that second question is almost entirely: China.

China produces 92% of the world’s rare earth elements, 91% of natural graphite, 77% of cobalt refining, 65% of lithium processing, and 44% of copper refining. This is true even when the raw ore comes from elsewhere. China doesn’t just mine these materials. China controls their processing, and that’s where the real power in the supply chain lies.

And China has already shown, publicly, that it will use that control as geopolitical leverage. Export controls on graphite, gallium, and germanium weren’t trade policy footnotes. They were a message: we own this, and we can turn it off.

Every allied nation on Earth, the United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and India got that message at the same time and drew the same conclusion.

We need an alternative. Fast.

Canada’s Geological Lottery Win

Here’s where Canada walks into the story. And honestly, the timing is almost too perfect to believe.

Canada sits atop one of the most extraordinary mineral endowments on the planet. Not metaphorically. Literally. The Canadian Shield, the ancient Precambrian rock underlying most of central and northern Canada, contains concentrated deposits of virtually every critical mineral needed for the clean energy transition.

Look at what we actually have:

Lithium -- Quebec holds one of the world’s largest deposits of spodumene ore, the primary source of lithium. Sayona’s North American Lithium mine in Quebec is already in commercial operation. Frontier Lithium’s PAK Lithium project in Ontario has a signed offtake agreement with Panasonic Energy of Japan.

Nickel and Cobalt -- Canada is a world-leading producer of both. Ontario’s mining corridor and Newfoundland’s Voisey’s Bay are among the most significant nickel-cobalt operations anywhere on Earth.

Uranium -- Canada is the world’s number two uranium producer, in a world increasingly turning back to nuclear as a clean grid-balancing tool. Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin holds some of the highest-grade uranium deposits ever discovered.

Graphite -- Canada ranks 4th in global graphite production. Quebec alone holds 14 advanced-stage graphite projects.

Potash -- Canada is the world’s number one producer. Saskatchewan potash feeds roughly one in five people on Earth. If you ate bread, pasta, or rice today, there’s a decent chance Saskatchewan helped grow the grain it was made from.

Rare Earth Elements -- Cyclic Materials Inc. in Kingston, Ontario, is building a rare earth recycling Centre of Excellence, backed by a $9.1 million federal investment and a US$25 million equity stake from the Canada Growth Fund.

All told, Canada produces 60 minerals and metals at almost 200 mines, with total mineral production valued at $64.3 billion in 2024 according to Natural Resources Canada. Canada lists 31 minerals on its official critical minerals list and ranks among the top 5 globally for cobalt, diamonds, gold, nickel, niobium, platinum, and titanium concentrate.

Oh, and Canada is home to nearly half of the world’s publicly listed mining and mineral exploration companies. The world’s mining industry doesn’t just sell to Canada. It operates from Canada.

Starting an online business?

Canadian businesses deserve Canadian hosting. If you’re building a website or blog, this is where I’d start: Web Hosting Canada

The $3.8 Billion Strategy Nobody’s Talking About

In 2022, the federal government launched the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy, an $3.8 billion, eight-year commitment to transforming Canada’s position in global mineral supply chains. Not just by digging more holes, but by capturing more of the value chain.

This is the part that gets completely lost in the political noise. There’s a massive difference between a country that digs up ore and ships it out and a country that refines minerals, produces battery-grade materials, and manufactures the clean energy inputs the world needs. The difference is measured in jobs, in GDP, and in strategic independence. The Strategy is explicitly designed to move Canada up that ladder.

Three pillars hold it up.

Domestic production and processing. Canada should be refining its own lithium into battery-grade material, producing its own cathode active materials, and building the processing capacity to be not just a miner but a manufacturer. Twenty-eight processing projects are currently in development across the country.

Sovereignty protection. The Strategy includes provisions to block foreign takeovers of Canadian critical mineral assets by state-owned enterprises that conflict with Canadian values and security interests. Several such acquisitions have already been reviewed or blocked under these rules.

Indigenous partnership. This is framed not as a legal checkbox but as a cornerstone of project success. Indigenous Peoples are recognized as rights holders, stewards, and in many cases title holders of the land where development occurs. Projects that genuinely partner with Indigenous communities move faster and carry greater ESG credibility globally, which matters enormously to the European and Asian buyers Canada is courting.

Here’s what the scoreboard looks like so far:

• Domestic production of critical minerals increased by more than 10% for 9 different minerals by 2024

• Critical mineral exploration spending hit $2.1 billion in 2024, which is 51% of ALL mineral exploration spending in Canada

• Canada cut its net import reliance for 38% of previously import-dependent critical minerals between 2020 and 2024

• 14 critical mineral projects advanced through the federal impact assessment process

That 38% import reduction figure is the one the “weak Canada” crowd never mentions. Canada isn’t becoming more dependent. It’s becoming more sovereign. Those are opposite directions.

📥 Before We Go Further...

I put together a companion piece to this article. It’s called Canada’s Hidden Superpower: The Critical Minerals Intelligence Guide, and it’s a 15-slide visual briefing that maps every major mineral Canada holds, shows exactly where the deposits are, lays out the threat matrix (where China still has the upper hand in processing), and breaks down the ingredients list for every clean energy technology running on Canadian geology.

Think of it as the visual version of everything you’re reading right now, designed for people who want to actually understand this story rather than just skim a headline.

You get it free when you subscribe to The Sanity Project.

Subscribe now

The World Lines Up at Canada’s Door

Now, here’s the part of the story that, frankly, should be making headlines every single day. Somehow it isn’t.

In June 2025, Canada launched the Critical Minerals Production Alliance at the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta. Canada didn’t join this body. Canada created it. Canada chairs it. Canada convenes it. The world’s democratic economies are sitting around a table that Canada built, discussing supply chain strategies that Canada wrote the agenda for.

Let that sink in for a moment, because the “weak Canada” story doesn’t really survive contact with that sentence.

What happened next was even more interesting.

Round 1, October 2025, Toronto. Canada announced 26 new investments, partnerships, and measures at a G7 Energy and Environment Ministers’ meeting. Bilateral agreements were signed with Australia and Sweden. The democratic world started lining up.

Round 2, March 2, 2026, PDAC Conference, Toronto. Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson announced 30 new partnerships and investments with 12 allied partners, unlocking $12.1 billion in critical mineral projects. The names on this list are not small players:

• Panasonic Energy (Japan) -- a memorandum of understanding for lithium offtake from Frontier Lithium’s Ontario refinery

• Siemens Canada -- a strategic partnership for domestic lithium conversion infrastructure

• Outokumpu (Finland) -- a US$2 billion, 10-year offtake agreement

• Apple (United States) -- commercial agreements for a BC mineral extraction and site restoration project

• India -- a minerals collaboration MOU signed during PM Carney’s bilateral visit

• European Union -- a Joint Declaration on Critical Minerals Collaboration

• Companies from Germany, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, and Finland -- across multiple project partnerships

Combined with the October 2025 round, the Critical Minerals Production Alliance is now mobilizing $18.5 billion in Canadian critical minerals projects.

Panasonic. Apple. Siemens. The EU. India. Japan.

None of these actors signed these deals out of charity or goodwill toward Canada. This is strategic desperation meeting geological reality. Every one of them looked at their critical mineral supply chains, saw 60 to 80 percent exposure to China, and made the same calculation: Canada is the answer.

When Apple signs a resource partnership with you, you are not a weakling. You are a supplier.

The Numbers That Should Change the Entire Conversation

Let’s talk scale, because the political conversation in Canada is almost never calibrated to what’s actually at stake.

• $117.1 billion in planned or proposed Canadian mining projects from 2024 to 2034. Nearly half specifically target critical minerals.

• $64.3 billion in total mineral production in 2024 alone.

• $40 billion contribution to Canada’s GDP from the critical minerals sector in 2023, and remember, most of the Strategy’s investments haven’t matured yet.

• 109,000 jobs are currently supported by the sector, with significant expansion coming as projects move from exploration to production.

• GDP attributable to critical mineral production grew 63% nominally between 2019 and 2023.

For context, the fossil fuel narrative that right-wing commentators keep invoking as Canada’s economic salvation represents an extraction-based model competing against structurally falling clean energy costs. It is a story of declining demand. Critical minerals are a story of demand that can only go up, driven simultaneously by climate policy, the electrification of transport, and military and defence technology that cannot function without them.

Nearly 140 mining projects are planned or proposed in Canada between 2024 and 2034. That’s not a boom. That’s a generational industrial transformation.

Why the “Weak Canada” Story Fails the Facts Test

Let’s be direct about something, because it matters.

The narrative that Canada is economically fragile, resource-cursed without the will to exploit its resources, and fundamentally dependent on American goodwill to survive serves a political purpose. It’s designed to suppress Canadian confidence in our own sovereign economic capacity. It makes people feel we have no choice but to accept whatever terms we’re offered in any negotiation, with anyone.

The evidence, not the rhetoric, the actual evidence, fails this narrative on five separate grounds.

Resource power has shifted. The 21st-century resource economy is defined by critical minerals, not petroleum. Canada ranks among the top 5 globally for the most-in-demand clean energy minerals. This is new leverage, not inherited weakness.

Canada is the convener, not the supplicant. Twelve allied nations are investing in Canadian projects. Canada didn’t go looking for partners. Partners came looking for Canada. There’s a difference.

The alternative to Canada is China. Every nation diversifying away from Chinese supply chains is choosing between China and a small number of democratic alternatives. Canada’s Rule of Law, ESG standards, governance framework, and Indigenous partnership models make it the premium supplier in this market. The “weak Canada” framing conveniently ignores the fact that Canada’s only serious competition is an authoritarian state that has already demonstrated it will weaponize its mineral dominance.

The investment numbers are contracted. $18.5 billion mobilized through the Alliance. $117.1 billion in projected domestic mining investment. These aren’t government projections or wishful thinking. They are signed capital commitments from Panasonic, Apple, Siemens, Outokumpu, and sovereign export credit agencies across Europe and Asia. Real money. Real signatures.

Canada is reducing dependency, not increasing it. Net import reliance for 38% of critical minerals was cut between 2020 and 2024. The trajectory is toward supply sovereignty. That is the opposite of the story being sold.

What You Used Before You Finished Your Morning Coffee

Here’s where this gets personal.

This morning, before you finished your first cup of coffee, you almost certainly used somewhere between 9 and 15 critical minerals. Your phone alarm ran on lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements. Your coffee maker operates on copper wiring. If you drove to work in an EV or charged one overnight, you used lithium, nickel, graphite, cobalt, and manganese. Solar panels on your roof? Silicon, silver, and copper.

Critical minerals aren’t abstract geopolitical commodities. They’re the physical foundation of modern daily life. And Canada holds an extraordinary share of the raw material that modern life runs on.

The World Bank has estimated that mineral production for clean energy technologies could increase by nearly 500% by 2050. Five hundred percent. Canada doesn’t just have a seat at that table. Canada’s geology is the table.

Listen to the Sanity Project Podcast

The Kicker

Here’s what I keep coming back to.

At the exact moment that certain voices were telling Canadians they were powerless, that Canada was a second-tier economy that should be humble and careful not to upset anyone, Canada was busy:

• Launching and chairing a new global body at the G7

• Closing a $2 billion deal with a Finnish steel company

• Signing a minerals agreement with India

• Getting Apple to put its name on a Canadian resource partnership

• Announcing $12.1 billion in new deals at a single Toronto press conference

None of this was an accident. It happened because Canada’s geological reality collided with a global supply chain crisis, and Canada, for once, actually had a strategy ready when the moment arrived.

The question isn’t whether Canada holds the cards. The question is whether Canadians understand the hand they’re holding.

Because a Canada that understands its leverage is a Canada that doesn’t accept a subordinate position in any trading relationship, with anyone.

That’s not nationalism. That’s arithmetic.

If you found this useful, share it with someone who still thinks Canada has nothing to offer at the negotiating table. The receipts are above.

And if you want the full visual breakdown, the mineral map, the China threat matrix, the clean energy ingredient list, subscribe below, and I’ll send you Canada’s Hidden Superpower: The Critical Minerals Intelligence Guide as my welcome gift.

Subscribe now

Sources:

• IEA -- The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions

• Natural Resources Canada -- Critical Minerals Facts

• Canada’s Critical Minerals Strategy

• Asia Pacific Foundation -- Canada’s Critical Minerals Advantage

• Canada Growth Fund

• World Bank -- Climate-Smart Mining

I’ll be honest with you. For most of my adult life, the word “Chernobyl” sat somewhere deep in my brain as a kind of shorthand for technological catastrophe. Nuclear power was dangerous. Everyone knew that. It was one of those things you simply absorbed from the culture without ever really examining, like knowing not to stand under a ladder.

Then I looked at the actual data.

Not the documentaries. Not the headlines. The mortality tables.

And what I found dismantled something I had held, unquestioned, for decades.

The Number Nobody Talks About

Nuclear energy results in 99.8% fewer deaths per unit of electricity than coal. Per terawatt-hour produced (roughly enough to power a mid-sized city for a year), coal causes approximately 25 deaths. Nuclear causes 0.04.

Sit with that for a second.

In November 2023, the British Medical Journal published a study estimating that ambient air pollution from fossil fuel combustion causes 5.13 million excess deaths globally every single year. That works out to roughly 14,000 people dying every day from the energy source we consider normal and unremarkable.

Meanwhile, the total confirmed death toll from radiation at Fukushima, to this day, is zero.

Not low. Zero.

More than 1,300 people died at Fukushima, but not from radiation. They died in the panicked evacuation that followed the accident, mostly elderly residents displaced from nursing homes, killed by the stress and chaos of relocation. The fear of radiation turned out to be more lethal than the radiation itself.

We have spent fifty years afraid of the wrong thing. The question worth asking is how that happened.

Follow the Money

The standard image of the anti-nuclear movement involves passionate grassroots activists: tie-dye, folk music, genuine moral alarm. That grassroots anxiety was real. People genuinely feared radiation. The concern wasn’t manufactured from thin air.

But the infrastructure that amplified and sustained that fear for half a century has a paper trail.

In 1969, Robert O. Anderson, the CEO of the Atlantic Richfield Company, a major petroleum corporation, contributed $80,000 to create a brand new environmental organization called Friends of the Earth. He followed it with another $200,000 the following year. Adjusted for inflation, that’s millions of dollars in seed funding for what became one of the world’s most aggressively anti-nuclear organizations.

The logic wasn’t complicated. The fossil fuel industry understood something early on that its critics largely missed: nuclear power was the only technology capable of replacing coal and oil at the grid scale, around the clock, without carbon emissions. If nuclear succeeded, fossil fuel assets would be worth dramatically less. A direct attack on nuclear would look like monopolists protecting their turf. Proxy environmental organizations could carry the message without the petroleum brand attached. Think of it as a tobacco company secretly funding a massive anti-vaping campaign.

The Capital Research Center’s 2025 analysis found more than 700 nonprofit and advocacy organizations in the United States that oppose nuclear energy. Their combined annual revenue exceeds $3.3 billion.

Here’s where it gets specific. The Sierra Club has taken $136 million from natural gas and renewable energy interests that stand to profit when nuclear plants close. The Natural Resources Defence Council holds at least $70 million invested in oil, gas, and renewables. The Environmental Defence Fund has received at least $60 million from investors who benefit directly from anti-nuclear outcomes. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth both refuse to disclose their donors.

None of this means every person inside these organizations is acting in bad faith. Many are sincere. But sincerity and funding are two different things. The organic anxiety was real. The machine built around it was not.

Starting an online business?

Canadian businesses deserve Canadian hosting. If you’re building a website or blog, this is where I’d start: Web Hosting Canada

The Three Accidents, Honestly

You know the names. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Fukushima. They’ve lived in cultural memory for decades as proof that nuclear power is uniquely and irreducibly dangerous. Looking at what actually happened at each site is more instructive than the cultural shorthand suggests.

Chernobyl (1986) was not a failure of nuclear physics. It was a failure of a specific Soviet reactor design, the RBMK-1000, which had a known engineering flaw: under certain conditions, as the water coolant boiled into steam, the nuclear reaction sped up rather than slowed down. Western regulators would never have licensed this design. The plant had no containment building. It was operated by a political system that routinely suppressed safety information. When operators pushed it into a condition its design couldn’t handle, the results were catastrophic. The confirmed death toll is approximately 30 direct deaths and an estimated 160 thyroid cancer fatalities among those exposed as children. A genuine tragedy, and an indictment of Soviet industrial culture rather than of nuclear power itself.

Three Mile Island (1979) came down to a stuck valve and ambiguous instrumentation. Operators misread the signals, made wrong decisions, and the reactor core partially melted. The part that rarely gets told: the containment building, a massive steel-reinforced concrete dome built specifically to trap radiation if the reactor vessel ever breaches, did exactly what it was designed to do. It held. Minimal radiation was released. Zero people died. Multiple peer-reviewed studies over the following decades found no measurable increase in cancer in the surrounding population. The containment worked. The accident actually proved that the safety systems functioned even when the operators failed.

Subscribe now

Fukushima (2011) absorbed a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, one of the strongest ever recorded in human history, and the reactors initially survived it. The meltdowns came when a tsunami overwhelmed the seawalls and drowned the backup diesel generators. Without power, the pumps circulating coolant failed, and three reactors melted down. Radiation was released. The confirmed radiation death toll remains zero. What killed people was the evacuation itself. The World Health Organization, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the Fukushima Prefecture health survey all reached the same conclusion: the response to the fear of radiation caused more death than the radiation itself.

Germany’s Billion-Dollar Lesson

If you want to see what nuclear fear costs in concrete, measurable terms, look at Germany.

Following Fukushima, an earthquake and tsunami event in a country with neither significant earthquake nor tsunami risk, Chancellor Angela Merkel accelerated the shutdown of Germany’s entire nuclear fleet. The last reactor closed in April 2023. Seventeen reactors that had been generating over a third of the country’s electricity were gone.

The Anthropocene Institute’s 2025 report quantified what came next. Germany replaced 98% of its lost nuclear generation with coal and natural gas. That substitution added 730 million tonnes of CO₂ to the atmosphere. More than Germany’s entire annual greenhouse gas output was erased in a single policy decision. The estimated human cost of that extra coal burning: 19,200 premature deaths.

PricewaterhouseCoopers modelled the counterfactual. If Germany had kept its nuclear fleet running, 94% of its electricity in 2024 could have been emission-free. The actual figure was 61%. Average electricity prices would have been roughly 23% lower. Instead, Germany now operates 28,000 megawatts of coal capacity, imports nuclear-generated power from France, and pays some of the highest electricity bills in Europe.

The German Green Party built its founding political identity on opposing nuclear power in the 1970s. History will record that in their effort to protect the environment, they chose coal.

Looking to grow your YouTube channel?

One of my favourite tools is vidIQ. It helps take the mystery out of YouTube growth by providing keyword research, channel audits, AI-powered content ideas, and competitor insights.

Canada’s Moment

While Germany was dismantling its clean energy infrastructure, Canada was quietly positioning itself at the center of the global nuclear revival, and most Canadians haven’t noticed.

Start with what’s in the ground. Canada is the world’s second-largest producer and exporter of uranium, with operations in northern Saskatchewan supplying roughly 20% of global demand. In a world pivoting hard toward nuclear energy, Canada holds the raw material.

In April 2025, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission issued Ontario Power Generation a Licence to Construct a BWRX-300 small modular reactor at the Darlington site, the first grid-scale SMR construction licence issued in any G7 country. The Canada Infrastructure Bank committed $970 million in financing. Three additional units are planned for the same site. The federal government has included nuclear in its green bond framework.

Then in May 2026, Bruce Power and the Government of Ontario signed a $300 million predevelopment agreement to add up to 4,800 megawatts of new nuclear capacity at the Bruce Power site. If completed, Bruce Power would become the largest nuclear generating station on Earth, producing enough power for 4.8 million homes and injecting an estimated $238 billion into the economy over its operational life.

This is not observation from the sidelines. Canada is building the architecture of what comes next.

The Renaissance Nobody Expected

What finally cracked the decades-long stalemate wasn’t a policy breakthrough or a government mandate. It was artificial intelligence.

AI data centers require massive, uninterrupted electricity around the clock, regardless of whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Solar and wind, whatever their merits, cannot promise that. In September 2024, Microsoft signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with Constellation Energy to restart Unit 1 at Three Mile Island, the same plant that became the symbol of American nuclear failure, to power its data centers. The reactor is expected back online in 2028, ahead of schedule.

The irony is almost too much. The plant the fear industry used as its most powerful cautionary tale is being resurrected to power the technology defining this century.

Amazon, Google, and Meta are all pursuing nuclear agreements. The International Energy Agency projects $900 billion in global SMR investment by 2050. The industry spent forty years defending itself against a well-funded campaign. Now the world's biggest companies are knocking on its door.

What the Data Actually Says

Nuclear power is the safest and most reliable form of energy ever deployed by human civilization. Safer, by orders of magnitude, than the fossil fuels that still dominate global electricity production.

The fear of nuclear is not rooted in evidence. It grew from a half-century campaign seeded by fossil fuel interests, sustained by organizations whose funders had every financial reason to keep nuclear sidelined, and kept alive by the emotional power of three accidents that together, over fifty years, killed fewer people than coal kills in a typical 48-hour period.

Germany’s phase-out alone added 730 million tonnes of CO₂ and an estimated 19,000 deaths to the ledger. Globally, the suppression of nuclear has prolonged fossil fuel dependence and extended the invisible daily toll of air pollution deaths that no documentary has ever dramatized, because they don’t happen in a single televised moment. They happen quietly, in respiratory wards and hospitals, one at a time.

I was wrong about nuclear power. And when I traced back why I believed what I believed, the thread didn’t lead to data. It led to money.

That’s worth carrying with you the next time you find yourself certain of something you never actually investigated.

The Sanity Project Research Desk white paper on nuclear energy, including full source documentation, mortality tables, and policy reports, is available at blog.thesanity.org.

Listen to the Sanity Project Podcast

To subscribe to our free weekly newsletter, go to https://thesanity.org/p/subscribe

The Hidden Numbers Behind America’s Tariff Pretext The Official Story: A Gold Standard—On Paper

• The U.S. government cited a record $1.4 billion in suspected forced labour goods intercepted by U.S. Customs in 2024.

• This figure became the centrepiece of a 92-page U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) report, used to criticize Canada and 59 other nations for their comparatively lax enforcement—a mere two blocked shipments over six years.

• The report claims moral high ground, positioning the U.S. as a global leader in human rights and supply chain purity.

The Omitted Collapse: Missing Data, Missing Context

• The numbers presented in the USTR report end in 2024—glossing over the subsequent year entirely.

• In 2025, U.S. forced labour enforcement plummeted by 87.6%, from $1.4 billion intercepted to just $171 million.

• This was not an unnoticed accident. In December 2025, members of Congress formally warned the Department of Homeland Security that forced labour interdiction had drastically waned.

Key facts:

• The enforcement drop coincided with a new administration’s first year in office.

• The 2025 collapse was publicly flagged, yet the report omitted it, relying instead on the previous year’s peak.

Behind the Headlines: Financial Motives and Legal Maneuvers

• The timing of the new investigations is telling: They followed a Supreme Court decision striking down the White House’s previous tariff scheme and erasing $160 billion in customs revenue collected.

• Section 301 forced-labour probes became the administration’s new vehicle for tariffs—a way to legally restore lost revenue streams by using human rights as a pretext.

Consider this:

• The U.S. government needed a justification to reinstate tariffs.

• Presenting outdated “gold standard” numbers while omitting critical declines provided a convenient narrative.

A Double Standard: Domestic Policy vs. International Demands

• The U.S. demands “pristine” supply chains from allies—even as its own Constitution (13th Amendment) permits forced labour for incarcerated individuals.

• Over 800,000 people currently work in American prisons for little or no pay—a striking contradiction for a nation wielding economic sticks in the name of human rights.

Takeaways for Critical Thinkers:

• The human rights rationale collapses when current data and domestic policy are considered.

• The episode uncovers a deliberate construction of a statistical narrative, not a simple oversight or error.

• Selecting which numbers to share—and which to omit—creates stories that justify policy, regardless of the underlying truth.

Why This Matters

In a hyper-connected moment, questioning official narratives is more necessary than ever. By breaking down the data and context too often left out of mainstream coverage, The Sanity Project arms you with the facts you need to challenge spin, think critically, and demand accountability.

To never miss an episode, subscribe to this podcast wherever you are listening

Welcome to Part 1 of a 4-Part Deep Dive.

On the morning of June 4, 2026, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew appeared on CBC Radio and said, essentially, no thanks.

Not a hedged “we need more study.” Not a “we support responsible development, but.” Just a clean, plainspoken no to a proposed 500-megawatt hyperscale AI data centre backed by a Las Vegas company called Jet.AI and a Vancouver firm called Consensus Core. The facility would have consumed 141 hectares of farmland near Île-des-Chênes, burned natural gas around the clock, and made promises about jobs and tax revenue that Kinew clearly didn’t buy.

Hours later, in Toronto, Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled “AI for All,” Canada’s national artificial intelligence strategy, anchored on building sovereign AI infrastructure. Specifically, it called for “large-scale AI data centres with total planned capacities greater than 100 megawatts.”

The federal government launched its biggest technology bet of the decade on the same day a province told that bet to find somewhere else.

That collision wasn’t accidental. And the tension it exposed isn’t going away.

What Manitoba Actually Said No To

The tech industry’s framing has been predictable: Manitoba said no to jobs and innovation. That narrative doesn’t survive contact with the actual numbers.

The Jet.AI/Consensus Core project was not a clean-energy facility drawing from Manitoba Hydro’s predominantly renewable grid. It was a gas-fired operation. Six natural gas turbines, self-generating power on-site, capable of scaling into the hundreds of megawatts. The companies argued this shielded Manitoba Hydro from demand pressure. Kinew’s government concluded it introduced a different problem: burning fossil fuels at an industrial scale in a province that has pledged to phase out natural gas-fired electricity generation by 2035.

The economic case was equally thin once you looked past the headline numbers. Construction jobs, yes. Permanent jobs? Minimal. Data centres are among the most capital-intensive, least employment-dense investments in the infrastructure world. The computing output serves clients outside the province. The profits flow to Nevada and British Columbia.

“Most of the economic benefit probably leaves the province.” — Premier Wab Kinew

That one sentence does more damage to the industry’s pitch than any environmental objection. It names the extraction model plainly: Manitoba absorbs the noise, the gas combustion, the land conversion, and the grid complexity. The money leaves.

A community of roughly 2,000 people near Île-des-Chênes gathered 13,500 signatures opposing the facility. Climate Action Team Manitoba had filed a formal position statement months earlier. The politics were not subtle.

The Grid Problem Nobody Wanted to Say Out Loud

Here’s what makes Kinew’s decision rational, even if you set the gas combustion question aside entirely. Manitoba Hydro has been quietly telling the province for the past year that it’s running out of room.

The Crown corporation’s own Integrated Resource Plan is unambiguous. Peak demand will exceed generating capacity by 2029 or 2030. Manitoba Hydro has already filed a $1.36 billion preliminary estimate with the Public Utilities Board for a new 500-megawatt dispatchable capacity resource. Translated from utility-speak: a fuel-burning generating station, needed to prevent what the filing calls “sustained winter peak capacity deficits.”

Manitoba’s total generating capacity is approximately 6,120 megawatts when all stations are running, and reservoir levels are optimal. One hyperscale data centre draws roughly 13% of that total. Kinew put it in terms anyone could understand:

“We use about one to 1.5 megawatts of compute as the entire government… so the idea of building, like, a 500-megawatt facility, it doesn’t really make sense.” — Premier Wab Kinew

Let that sit for a moment. Every health record in Manitoba. Every school network. Every government administration system, every public institution in the province. All of it runs on 1.5 megawatts. The proposed data centre would have demanded 333 times that amount.

If Manitoba already can’t meet projected residential and commercial demand without burning gas by 2029, adding a facility of that scale to the queue isn’t a tension to manage. It’s a crisis to absorb.

Starting an online business?

Canadian businesses deserve Canadian hosting. If you’re building a website or blog, this is where I’d start: Web Hosting Canada

The Bubble Nobody in the Industry Wants to Name

Kinew didn’t stop at environmental and economic objections. He said something more uncomfortable: the whole thing might be a bad bet regardless.

“I have the feeling that maybe these $30-billion hyperscale data centres are going to be albatrosses in the future, when people can run the AI that’s necessary for their day-to-day use on their local MacBook.” — Premier Wab Kinew

Albatrosses. That’s the word a sitting premier used to describe what the federal government is now calling national strategic infrastructure.

He’s not alone. Ed Zitron, whose newsletter and podcast have become essential reading for anyone trying to understand AI’s actual financial model, published an analysis on June 2 arguing that every major AI subscription is effectively subsidized. Users are conditioned to ignore the true cost of compute, and the entire infrastructure buildout rests on demand projections that have never been tested against real pricing. One enterprise client accidentally spent $500 million in a single month on AI model calls after failing to set spend limits. GitHub Copilot burned through 50% of its monthly credits in a single prompt after Microsoft moved to consumption-based billing.

University of Manitoba economics professor Fletcher Baragar put it more carefully but arrived at the same neighbourhood: “It’s not clear how long that demand will last, whether it’s sustainable or whether it is, perhaps, a bubble. These are relatively new. We haven’t got a good body of evidence.”

If the infrastructure boom is built on demand projections that don’t account for actual prices, whoever committed land, energy, and water to these facilities ends up with stranded assets. The costs don’t vanish when a facility goes dark. They move to ratepayers and taxpayers.

Manitoba just declined to be first in line for that scenario.

Manitoba Wasn’t Alone. It Just Went First in Canada.

Kinew’s announcement felt abrupt in the Canadian context. South of the border, the backlash had been building for months.

On the very same day Kinew said no, and Carney launched his AI strategy, Portland General Electric filed a request to raise electricity rates on data centres by 29% while lowering rates for residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Oregon had already passed the Power Act, a law specifically designed to prevent data centre costs from being spread across ordinary ratepayers.

Oklahoma’s governor signed the Data Center Consumer Ratepayer Protection Act on May 13. Tulsa imposed a construction moratorium through the end of 2026. Oklahoma City passed a similar moratorium in May. Sedgwick County, Kansas, recorded 96% negative sentiment toward hyperscaler proposals in local government meetings. At least 14 U.S. jurisdictions enacted data centre restrictions between March and April 2026 alone.

GatherGov, a civic analytics firm, analyzed over 3,300 mentions of data centre proposals in local government meetings across 46 states. The breakdown: 54% negative, 37% neutral, 9% positive. Among members of the public who actually showed up to speak, negativity reached 77%.

Jobs, the industry’s primary argument, registered 77 positive mentions in those meetings. Utility rates and energy consumption drew 729. Infrastructure strain: 680. Water usage: 560.

People are not rejecting artificial intelligence. They’re rejecting the deal being offered: absorb the noise, the carbon, the water consumption, and the grid pressure, while the financial returns flow to shareholders in Nevada and Silicon Valley. That deal is losing almost everywhere it’s proposed. Manitoba is just where it lost loudest in Canada.

The Sovereignty Argument and the Question It Can’t Answer

Carney’s national strategy deserves to be taken seriously. The case for sovereign compute infrastructure isn’t invented. If Canada depends entirely on U.S.-controlled cloud infrastructure, a trade dispute or security crisis creates a different kind of vulnerability. His warning that “AI could be weaponized against us” lands differently in a country that has spent the past year absorbing American threats of economic annexation.

But the sovereignty argument rests on a premise nobody has examined: that hyperscale centralized infrastructure is the only path to sovereign AI capability.

Kinew offered a different model. Manitoba bought its own rack of GPUs and upgraded MERLIN, the Manitoba Education, Research and Learning Information Networks, to handle sensitive provincial data on provincial infrastructure. Sovereignty at the scale the province actually needs, for the data the province actually generates, at a cost the province can actually manage.

The federal strategy sets goals without showing its work. Two hundred billion dollars in additional growth. 250,000 new jobs. AI adoption is rising from 12% to 60% by 2034. None of the strategy documents quantifies the energy demand those targets would require. None of them addresses ratepayer risk. None of them engage seriously with the possibility that the underlying economics of AI infrastructure might not hold up.

Kinew framed the choice in language no one in Ottawa has come close to matching:

“I reject the idea that we have to be slaves to surveillance capitalism in order to participate in the modern economy.” — Premier Wab Kinew

That’s not a technophobe talking. That’s someone with a different theory of what technology is actually for.

Listen to the Sanity Project Podcast

The Question Ottawa Still Hasn’t Answered

There’s one more Kinew line, and it’s the one the federal government will eventually have to respond to. Not because it scores political points, but because it’s economically correct:

“If we could do 100 Selkirk steel mills or a data centre, which one is going to create more long-term benefits, which one is going to create more happiness, which one’s going to create more jobs?” — Premier Wab Kinew

The AI data centre industry has operated on the assumption that jurisdictions with surplus renewable capacity will line up eagerly for hyperscale facilities. Manitoba has some of the cleanest, cheapest electricity in North America. If Manitoba declines to compete, the pool of willing host jurisdictions shrinks quickly.

And three days before the Manitoba decision, the Angus Reid Institute surveyed roughly 1,800 Canadians and found that 68% would oppose a large AI data centre being built near their home. Rural and urban residents were equally resistant. Only 46% agreed that Canada needs domestic AI data centres to maintain digital sovereignty.

The federal government launched its most ambitious technology strategy into a public that, by a two-to-one margin, is ready to say no.

That’s not a messaging problem. It’s a legitimacy problem.

What the Math Is Going to Require

Manitoba’s rejection shifted the burden of proof. The question stopped being “why would a province say no?” It became “what evidence would actually justify a province saying yes?”

That question now follows every proposed hyperscale facility in Canada.

Promises of tax revenue won’t close it. Not when communities can watch Oregon charging data centres 29% more to protect ratepayers, and 14 U.S. jurisdictions pausing to study what they’re being asked to give away.

Sovereignty arguments won’t close it on their own. Not when provincial sovereignty, in practice, looks like one rack of GPUs on MERLIN rather than a 500-megawatt gas-burning operation on 141 hectares of farmland.

What’s required is a public, verifiable cost-benefit analysis. One with honest numbers on energy demand, permanent job creation, ratepayer exposure, and how much economic value actually stays in the province. The kind of analysis Kinew said his government ran. The kind that doesn’t appear anywhere in Ottawa’s June 4 strategy document.

Canada is not anti-AI. It’s asking for receipts.

The industry should get ready for that conversation.

Coming next in this series: The AI data centre gold rush has arrived on Canada's doorstep, and one premier just slammed the door. In Deep Dive 2, we go inside Manitoba's rejection of a $30-billion hyperscale facility and the continental revolt it just joined.

Fourteen U.S. jurisdictions have already enacted restrictions. Oregon utilities want to hike data centre rates by 29%. And the federal government launched a national AI strategy on the same day Kinew said no. Let's talk facts.

The Sanity Project explores the collision between technology, power, and the people who get to decide none of it.

Looking to grow your YouTube Channel?

One of the tools I’m committed to is vidIQ. It helps take the mystery out of YouTube growth by providing keyword research, channel audits, AI-powered content ideas, and competitor insights. Check it out here!

To subscribe to our free weekly newsletter, go to https://thesanity.org/p/subscribe

Canada’s Quiet Power Play: A Global Supply Chain Revolution

A single day in March 2026 quietly changed Canada’s economic destiny. While most headlines kept replaying old assumptions of Canada as a middle power dependent on American goodwill, international powerbrokers were assembling in Toronto to reshape the future of clean energy.

From “Weak Link” to Strategic Architect

For years, the dominant perspective described Canada as:

• Over-regulated and reliant on the U.S. for trade survival

• Lacking true economic or geopolitical leverage

• Doomed to remain a subordinate player in global markets

That story unraveled at the 2026 Pediac Conference, as 12 nations and some of the world’s biggest tech and auto companies committed a staggering $18.5 billion to Canadian critical mineral projects. These deals weren’t just positive headlines—they fundamentally re-mapped the world’s industrial future:

• Participants: Tech giants like Panasonic, Apple, and Siemens joined sovereign states including the EU and India

• Resource focus: Canadian reserves of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite became the future’s must-have commodities

• Strategic intent: Nations and corporations were eager to bypass Chinese domination of mineral processing (60–80% global market share) and ensure stable, democratic supply chains

The Critical Minerals Production Alliance: Canada’s Strategic Move

Rather than play catch-up, Canada took the driver’s seat:

• Founded and chaired the Critical Minerals Production Alliance during its G7 presidency

• Forged new supply chain links between North America, Europe, and Asia

• Mobilized $18.5 billion by combining March 2026 deals with late 2025 partnerships

• Attracted long-term investment, including:

  • Panasonic Energy securing Ontario lithium refining

  • Apple funding extraction in British Columbia

  • Siemens and Finland’s Outokumpu committing to processing agreements

Key advantages making Canada the partner of choice:

• Massive, underused mineral reserves

• High environmental standards

• Stable legal, political, and regulatory system

Why This Moment Matters for the Global Economy

This investment wave reflects a fundamental shift in what defines economic power:

• Old Model: Petroleum exports, traditional manufacturing, and trade balances

• New Reality: Control over the raw materials that enable energy transition—“If you own the minerals, you own the future.”

• Global dependency on Canada’s critical minerals reduces the leverage of traditional trade barriers and transforms the country into an indispensable industrial partner

The Narrative Gap: What the Media Missed

While international agreements and strategic supply chain realignments usually make front-page news, this historic reshaping of Canada’s role mostly escaped mainstream attention. Outdated metrics and unconscious bias kept the “weak Canada” story alive, even as allies locked in their industrial futures through Canadian deals.

Bottom Line: Canada didn’t just benefit from global trends—it authored the next industrial chapter. By quietly assembling the pieces, it emerged as the crucial supplier for tomorrow’s clean economy.

To never miss an episode, subscribe to this podcast wherever you are listening.

There’s a particular kind of audacity that stops you mid-scroll.

Not loud audacity. Not the blustering, fist-pounding kind. The quiet kind. The kind that arrives in a 92-page government report, written in bureaucratic prose so dry it practically crackles, making an argument so breathtaking in its hypocrisy that you have to read it twice just to make sure you understood it correctly.

On June 2, 2026, the United States Trade Representative released findings from 60 simultaneous investigations into whether America’s trading partners were doing enough to ban goods made with forced labour.

All 60 failed.

Every single one. Canada. The European Union. Mexico. Ecuador. All of them: guilty. Not one trading partner, out of sixty investigated, was deemed to have adequate enforcement.

Sixty for sixty. A perfect score. Statistically preposterous, as one trade expert put it to CBC News, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The fun part comes later.

The proposed punishment for Canada: a new 10% tariff on exports not covered by CUSMA.

The justification: Canada is soft on forced labour.

The narrator, in this particular story, is a country whose own Constitution still explicitly permits it.

Let’s Start With the Country That Has Forced Labour Written Into Its Constitution

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in 1865. It is one of the most celebrated legal documents in American history, the culmination of a civil war, the supposed turning point of a nation.

It also has an asterisk.

“Except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”

That asterisk has been doing a lot of work for 160 years.

Today, approximately 800,000 incarcerated workers perform labour inside U.S. state and federal prisons. The majority do so by compulsion. Wages average between 13 and 52 cents per hour. In several Southern states, built on the same land where enslaved people once worked, the wages are zero. Nothing. Not a thin dime.

Workers who refuse assignments face solitary confinement, loss of family visitation, and denial of parole.

In 2025, Walk Free, the international human rights organization behind the Global Slavery Index, concluded that “modern slavery remains legal in the United States and the government is profiting from it.” They called on Washington to “publicly acknowledge the existence of serious human rights violations that amount to state-imposed forced labour” and to “repeal legislation and criminalize practices that enable state-imposed forced labour to continue.”

Washington’s response, apparently, was to open 60 investigations into other countries.

The Economic Policy Institute has documented the racial geometry of this system in detail. Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of white Americans. The prison labour infrastructure in the South bears what EPI calls a “direct lineage” to convict leasing, the post-Reconstruction practice of leasing overwhelmingly Black incarcerated workers to private employers, often under conditions that worked them to death. The crops are sometimes the same. The land is sometimes the same.

The United States incarceration rate is 614 per 100,000 people. Canada’s is 88.

So. When the U.S. government sits down to write a 92-page report about forced labour enforcement failures, and Canada is in it, and the U.S. is not, that takes a certain kind of confidence.

Starting an online business?

Canadian businesses deserve Canadian hosting. If you're building a website or blog, this is where I'd start: Web Hosting Canada

The Part Where Their Own Star Witness Asks Them to Stop

Here’s what the USTR report doesn’t mention, because it would have been awkward.

The human rights organization whose research formed the evidentiary backbone of the case against Canada, Above Ground, publicly asked the United States not to impose these tariffs.

In April 2026, Above Ground submitted a formal comment to the USTR urging Washington to back off. When the tariffs were announced anyway, Above Ground’s director Karen Hamilton told CBC News:

“In the current context, there’s very little appetite in Canada to be told what to do by this current U.S. administration, especially on issues of human rights and labour rights.”

She added that her organization stands by its findings that Canada’s enforcement is inadequate. But:

“We are concerned that this will undermine our efforts to achieve real change and actually have measures that do combat forced labour and that do uplift the rights of workers.”

Read that again. The people who identified the problem, who have spent years pushing Canada to do better, who genuinely care about the workers caught in these supply chains, they looked at the U.S. tariff announcement and said: This will make things worse.

Subscribe now

The U.S. used their research, ignored its objection, and proceeded anyway.

When your own witnesses ask you to stop, and you keep going, you’ve moved from “moral intervention” into something else entirely.

What Actually Happened: A 20-Day Sprint to Find a New Legal Hook

To understand June 2, 2026, you have to go back to February 20, 2026.

That was the day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump struck down the entire architecture of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. The sweeping 10-50% duties were imposed on April 2, 2025. Gone.

The financial hit was staggering. The Tax Foundation estimated the IEEPA tariffs had already collected more than $160 billion in customs duties. Over the next decade, they would have raised $1.4 trillion. The Supreme Court erased nearly three-quarters of the administration’s planned tariff revenue in a single morning.

They needed a replacement. Fast.

Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, one of the few remaining statutory pathways not invalidated by the ruling, allows the president to impose tariffs on countries whose trade practices are “unreasonable or discriminatory.”

Twenty days after the Supreme Court ruling, USTR Jamieson Greer launched 60 simultaneous Section 301 investigations. Sixty. At once. No prior administration had ever launched more than a handful at a time. Eighty-two days later, all 60 were found guilty.

David Henig, policy director at the European Centre for International Political Economy, told CBC the finding was “actually preposterous.” He said the evidence doesn’t justify the tariffs and described the forced labour framing as “an excuse to impose the tariffs that they wanted to do anyway.”

That’s the architecture. Supreme Court kills the tariffs. Administration needs a legal hook. Forced labour, real, documented, genuinely concerning in global supply chains, gets conscripted into service as the hook.

The cause didn’t matter. The pretext did.

The Enforcement Numbers They Didn’t Want You to See

The USTR report makes a point of comparing Canada’s enforcement record unfavourably to America’s own. Canada blocked two shipments in six years. The U.S., meanwhile, denied entry to “more than 6,300 shipments in 2024 alone” under the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act.

Impressive. There’s just one number missing from that paragraph.

In fiscal year 2024, U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained $1.38 billion in goods suspected of having originated through forced labour. In 2025, the first full year of the Trump administration, that number dropped to $171 million.

That’s an 87.6% collapse. In one year.

In December 2025, Democratic members of Congress, including Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi and Rosa DeLauro, sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security and CBP explicitly stating that enforcement had “decreased significantly” following Trump’s April 2025 tariff announcements. Their conclusion:

“These and other data suggest that combating forced labour is not a priority for this Administration.”

William Pellerin, a partner with McMillan LLP’s international trade group, told the Globe and Mail that the numbers raise “some really important questions” about the aggressiveness with which the U.S. is judging others, “given its own efforts appear to be abating.”

The USTR report omitted this data entirely.

Apparently, selective memory is a feature, not a bug, in 92-page government accountability documents.

Two and a Half Percentage Points: The Full Price of Moral Equivalence

Canada was placed in the second tier of violators: countries that have a forced labour import ban but “failed to effectively enforce” it. Canada’s companies in this tier: Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan.

The first tier, economies found to have failed entirely, many with no forced labour legislation at all, includes China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, and 50 others.

Canada’s proposed tariff: 10%. The worst-tier countries not covered by existing agreements: 12.5%.

Two and a half percentage points. That’s the moral distance, in tariff terms, between Canada, a country with functioning labour protections, a supply chain transparency law, and an active import ban, and authoritarian states with no forced labour protections whatsoever.

If this were a genuine calibration of moral failure, the numbers would span an order of magnitude. The fact that they don’t tells you everything you need to know about what this exercise actually was.

It was a revenue instrument seeking justification. It found sixty of them in 82 days.

Canada Does Have a Problem. A Tariff Won’t Touch It.

None of this is to say Canada’s hands are clean.

Two blocked shipments in six years, across a trade relationship handling C$800 billion in goods annually, is a meaningful gap. The CBSA’s opacity around enforcement statistics is a legitimate concern. Canadian civil society organizations, including Above Ground, the same group the USTR conscripted into its case against Canada, have been saying for years that Canada needs stronger import controls, particularly for goods from Xinjiang.

They’re right. These are real problems. They predate Trump’s return to office and will outlast it.

But here’s the thing about tariffs: they don’t hire customs inspectors. They don’t fund supply chain audits. They don’t help organizations like Above Ground document labour abuses in remote corners of global supply chains. They tax American importers and consumers and deposit the proceeds into the U.S. Treasury. Tariffs are not a remedy. They’re a cash register.

If the administration actually cared about forced labour in Canadian supply chains, the tool was already sitting on the table. CUSMA’s labour chapter, which the U.S. itself demanded during the 2018 negotiations, explicitly commits all three parties to prohibit the importation of forced labour goods. Bilateral enforcement mechanisms exist.

They were not used.

Instead: tariffs. A blunt instrument making no distinction between Canada and Cambodia, deployed not because it solves the problem but because a federal judge can’t strike it down as easily as the thing the Supreme Court just finished shredding.

Prime Minister Carney’s pledge to “beef up” Canada’s forced labour laws is a reasonable policy step. It’s also a dangerous precedent: the U.S. can now extract domestic legislative concessions from its closest allies by threatening tariffs under whatever legal theory is most convenient this quarter. Today, it’s forced labour. Next quarter, who knows? The creativity here is genuinely impressive.

Listen to the Sanity Project Podcast

The Verdict, Which Was Never Actually in Question

Let’s take stock of where we are.

The United States has 800,000 prison workers earning between 13 and 52 cents an hour, with zero wages in some Southern states, compelled to work under threat of solitary confinement, covered by zero federal labour standards, operating under a constitutional carveout that was literally written as a footnote to the abolition of slavery.

The international human rights community has called this state-imposed forced labour. The U.S. government has not disagreed. It has simply declined to address it while opening investigations into 60 other countries.

The human rights organization whose research the USTR used as its case against Canada publicly asked them to stop. The U.S. proceeded. Apparently, being asked to stop by your own evidence is no reason to pause.

The U.S.’s own forced labour enforcement collapsed 87.6% in 2025, the exact same year it decided the world’s trading partners were not enforcing hard enough.

All 60 economies investigated failed. Every single one. A statistically perfect sweep that trade experts called preposterous on the record.

And Canada, with its functioning import ban and supply chain transparency legislation, sits 2.5 percentage points away from Saudi Arabia in the tariff schedule.

This is not moral leadership. This is a country that lost its preferred tariff weapon in the Supreme Court, needed a replacement within the month, found a legal hook in the Trade Act of 1974, and dressed the whole exercise in the language of human rights because “we need to replace $1.4 trillion in projected customs revenue” doesn’t look great in a press release.

The 13th Amendment’s asterisk has been doing a lot of work for 160 years. It just got a new job title: trade policy justification.

Canada has real work to do on forced labour. The people who have been saying so the longest looked at these tariffs and said: This will make things worse.

They’re the ones who would know. Not the government running a constitutionally sanctioned forced labour system while writing 92-page reports about everyone else’s.

The Sanity Project Research Desk prepared the white paper on which this post is based. All sources are publicly available.

Sources Used For This Deep Dive

https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/june/ustr-makes-findings-and-proposes-action-60-section-301-investigations-relating-failures-take-action

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/2026/USTR%20Report%20Sec%20301%20FL%20301%206-2-26%20FINAL%20for%20upload.pdf

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-ruling/

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/trade/uyghur-forced-labor-prevention-act-statistics

https://www.walkfree.org/news/2025/13th-amendment-loophole-fuels-forced-labour-in-us-prisons-violating-human-rights-and-benefiting-the-government-and-companies/

https://www.epi.org/publication/rooted-racism-prison-labor/

https://democrats-selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/press-releases/krishnamoorthi-and-delauro-lead-letter-homeland-security-cbp-urging-stronger

https://economics.td.com/ca-canada-us-trade-balance

In this episode of The Sanity Project, we push past the headlines with a critical thinking lens to deliver a news breakdown you won’t hear anywhere else. Unpacking a recent trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada, we examine the deeper realities hiding beneath current events: the American legal system’s massive, constitutionally protected forced labour economy, and the hypocrisy embedded in global labour rights enforcement. This episode challenges listeners to rethink what’s really driving international trade policy.

“To subscribe to our free weekly newsletter, go to https://thesanity.org/p/subscribe

U.S. Tariffs on Canada: Beyond the Headlines

Recent news spotlighted the U.S.’s decision to impose a 10% tariff on Canadian exports, citing Canada’s poor enforcement against goods produced with forced labour. This move was touted as a principled stand for workers’ rights and global trade fairness. But a closer look at America’s own labour practices raises crucial questions about the authenticity and consistency of this stance.

The 13th Amendment's Hidden Clause

• Abolition with an Exception: The U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, but with a critical carve-out: involuntary servitude is permitted as punishment for a crime.

• Scope of Impact: As a result, roughly 800,000 incarcerated individuals are legally compelled to work within U.S. prisons every year.

• Wage Disparities: Prison labourers earn 13 to 52 cents an hour on average—in several states, nothing at all.

• Consequences for Refusal: Refusing to work carries severe penalties, such as solitary confinement, loss of visitation, or even denial of parole.

Prison Labour by the Numbers

• Excluded from Protections: The Fair Labour Standards Act does not apply to prison labour.

• Economic Scale: The modern prison labour system generates about $11 billion annually.

• Racial Disparities: Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of white Americans, creating disproportionate economic and social impacts.

Historical Continuity

• Legacy of Slavery: Many southern prison farms operate on the land of former plantations, compelling inmates to produce crops their enslaved ancestors once picked.

• Academic Consensus: Research links today’s prison labour directly to post-Reconstruction convict leasing, sustaining a system with deep historical roots.

American Hypocrisy on Forced Labor Enforcement Double Standards

• International Actions: In the same year, the U.S. initiated 60 forced labour investigations against trading partners; its own enforcement of forced labour import controls dropped by nearly 88%.

• Financial Motivation: A recent court ruling eliminated $160 billion in customs revenue, incentivizing the search for new justifications to levy tariffs.

Human Rights Groups Weigh In

• Walk Free’s Verdict: One of the leading global human rights organizations, Walk Free, concluded:

  • "Modern slavery remains legal in the United States, and the government is profiting from it."

• International Standards: This isn’t a political statement but a finding based on established international criteria for labour exploitation and trafficking.

Moral Language as Policy Weapon

• Legal Architecture: The discussion explored how the vocabulary of human rights can be repurposed to justify economic policies, often leaving the most affected populations further away from meaningful change.

• Follow the Money: Several points were raised, including the advice to scrutinize the financial motivations behind any moral rhetoric in international trade disputes.

To never miss an episode, subscribe to this podcast wherever you are listening

To subscribe to our free weekly newsletter, go to https://thesanity.org/subscribe

A New Lens on Canadian Politics

The Sanity Project delivers news analysis grounded in skeptical inquiry and robust political analysis. Forget divisive shouting matches or clickbait narratives. Instead, we pierce the fog of media misinformation to reveal what’s really happening in canadian news and the broader world of canadian politics.

Rethinking Power and Progress

Canada has often been underestimated in wider politics circles, but this episode unpacks how the country—guided by democratic values and progressive politics—has quietly leveraged its critical minerals sector to become an indispensable force in the clean energy supply chain. Our political commentary doesn’t just recount facts; it challenges old frameworks, encouraging listeners to question inherited narratives and apply critical thinking to daily news.

Against Outrage Culture

We cut through outrage culture, focusing on meaningful, civil news commentary. Learn why stories like this rarely make the front page of current events, and see how being informed can empower citizens amid shifting liberal and conservative tides.

To never miss an episode, subscribe to this podcast wherever you are listening.

I have a friend who is genuinely struggling right now.

Not dramatically, not in a way that makes headlines. Just the quiet, grinding kind of struggling that a lot of people recognize. Rent is tight. The paycheck disappears faster than it arrives. He’s careful with money in the way people are careful when they don’t have the luxury of being careless.

Last week, he shared a post defending millionaire tax breaks. Not sarcastically. Earnestly. With a comment about government overreach and the importance of letting people keep what they earn.

And I sat there staring at my screen, not knowing what to say.

He isn’t stupid. He reads more than most people I know. But I’ve spent enough time studying this particular machinery to recognize exactly what I was looking at. And it made me sad in a way that anger couldn’t quite reach.

I’d bet you know someone like him. A family member, a coworker, someone in your feed who has become, without a single meeting or a dollar of compensation, a volunteer foot soldier for people who wouldn’t recognize them on the street.

This isn’t a piece about tax policy. It’s about something stranger and more human than that. It’s about why perfectly intelligent people fight for a club they will never be invited to join, and why that loyalty was manufactured deliberately, at serious expense, by the very people who benefit from it most.

The Graphic That Wasn’t What It Looked Like

A few weeks ago, a chart started circulating on social media. Clean, authoritative-looking. The headline: How much of a $1 million salary do you keep after taxes? Countries listed side by side. Canada and the UK are near the bottom. Dubai, Monaco, and Switzerland are near the top.

The comment sections went nuclear. People were outraged, furious, sharing it as proof that North America had become a punishing, broken system that penalized success.

Here’s what the graphic quietly forgot to mention.

🚩 Dubai and Monaco show zero income tax. Sounds incredible, until you realize Monaco requires hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in a local bank account just to be allowed to live there. It isn’t a tax system. It’s a gated community with a flag.

🚩 Switzerland looks great on paper, too, right up until you discover that Switzerland has a wealth tax applied every single year to everything you own: your home, your savings, your investments. That part didn’t make the infographic.

🚩 The US vs. Canada comparison shows roughly an $80,000 difference in take-home pay on a million-dollar salary. That number made people lose their minds. But in the United States, a serious illness, cancer, a cardiac event, or major surgery can cost between $500,000 and $1 million out of pocket, even with private insurance. Medical bankruptcy is one of the leading causes of personal financial ruin in America. The Canadian millionaire in that comparison walks into any hospital in the country. No bill. No GoFundMe. No negotiating with a billing department from a hospital bed.

That $80,000 gap doesn’t just disappear when illness hits. It flips entirely.

The graphic wasn’t a comparison of tax systems. It was a curated collection of tax havens, European principalities, and emerging economies lined up next to Canada and the US to make a single number look outrageous. Comparing tax rates without comparing what those taxes actually fund is like comparing two cars and forgetting to mention one of them doesn’t have an engine.

But here’s the question worth sitting with. Even if everyone in those comment sections had known all of this, would it have changed anything? Would they have stopped?

Probably not. And the reason tells us something important about how people actually work.

Subscribe now

The Dream They Sold Him

John Steinbeck wrote something in 1966 that I keep coming back to.

“People don’t see themselves as poor. They see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

Read that again slowly.

Steinbeck wasn’t describing ignorance or foolishness. He was describing a belief so powerful, so carefully maintained, that it overrides self-interest, overrides lived experience, and overrides the numbers sitting directly in front of you.

My friend wasn’t defending a millionaire’s tax rate. He was defending the version of himself he believes he’s about to become. And that hope was sold to him deliberately, at significant expense, by people who needed him to keep holding onto it.

Researchers call the underlying mechanism system justification theory. The human brain has a deep need to believe that the system is fair, that success is earned, that the game isn’t rigged. Because the alternative is genuinely devastating.

If the system isn’t fair, if success isn’t purely earned, then your struggles weren’t just bad luck. They were by design. The game was tilted before you sat down. The deck was stacked before you picked up a card.

The brain doesn’t want to accept that. So it rewrites the story. It finds evidence that the system works. It defends the rules of a game it believes it can still win. It protects the hope even when the data says otherwise.

That isn’t a character flaw. That’s a survival mechanism. And it is enormously useful to the people at the top of that system.

There’s another layer underneath this one, and it’s the part that surprises people most. Researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research set out to understand which income group most strongly opposes policies that help low-income people. The answer isn’t the wealthy. It’s the people just above the bottom, the ones closest to the lowest rung of the ladder.

They call it last-place aversion.

No matter how little someone has, there is almost always someone below them. Any policy that raises the floor for people at the bottom feels like a direct threat, because the one small advantage that remains, the one thing still intact, is not being last. These people aren’t voting against themselves out of stupidity. They are voting to protect the one rung they are still standing on.

The people who designed the messaging around tax policy have always known this. They built their entire strategy around it.

The Pipeline Nobody Talks About

This didn’t happen by accident. Here’s exactly how it works, step by step.

💰 Corporate donors — large companies and ultra-wealthy individuals with a direct financial interest in lower tax rates — fund think tanks and lobby groups.

🏛️ Think tanks generate talking points engineered to sound like common sense, then distribute them to partisan media networks across North America and beyond.

📺 Media networks turn those talking points into content: articles, segments, opinion pieces, all reinforcing the same narrative.

📲 That content becomes viral graphics that flood your social media feed, looking like data and objective truth.

🙋 And then you — a regular person just trying to get through the month — end up in a comment section passionately defending a tax policy that has never benefited you and almost certainly never will.

You became an unpaid lobbyist. No meeting. No salary. No idea the handoff even happened.

The message repeated until it felt like your own opinion. The government is the enemy. Taxes are theft. The wealthy earned everything they have. You could be next.

None of those things is entirely true. But all of them are useful to the people who paid to have them repeated endlessly until they felt like common sense.

They don’t need you to be uninformed. They don’t need you to be foolish or gullible. They only need you to be human. To want to believe the system is fair. To want to believe your situation is temporary. To want to believe that one break, one lucky moment, could change everything.

That hope is real. That desire is real. And it is being used against you with precision.

Here’s the number that was deliberately left off that viral graphic. According to tax data, fewer than one-tenth of one percent of people earn a million dollars or more in a year.

Not one percent. One tenth of one percent.

Picture a room with a thousand people in it. Statistically, not a single person in that room earns a million dollars a year. Not one. The number rounds down to zero.

Now, picture the comment sections. Hundreds of people, furious, passionately defending millionaire tax rates. Almost none of them will ever be touched by those rates in any meaningful way.

They weren’t defending their money. They were defending an idea. And that idea was manufactured and distributed with remarkable precision by people who had every financial reason to make sure it spread.

What They Actually Took From Him

I keep thinking about my friend.

He’s not a bad person, not a foolish one. He’s a person who was handed a story that felt true, the same story that millions of working people across North America are handed every day through the content they consume, the media they trust, the graphics that land in their feed looking like data.

The cruellest part isn’t that they took his money. He doesn’t have enough for that to matter to them.

The cruellest part is that they took his anger.

A completely legitimate, completely justified frustration about a system that is failing him. And they aimed it in the wrong direction. They handed him a target and made sure it was the government, the tax collector, the faceless bureaucrat wasting his hard-earned dollars.

Not the donor class. Not the think tank. Not the media network. Not the people who built the pipeline and keep it running.

The people who benefit most from his loyalty will never know his name.

That, more than any tax rate or viral graphic or policy debate, is the thing worth being angry about.

The way out of this isn’t rage. It isn’t cynicism, or deciding the whole thing is broken, and nothing matters.

The first step is simply knowing the machine exists. Recognizing the pipeline when you see it. Read the fine print on the graphic before you share it.

That’s the whole move. It really is.

My friend is still out there, defending people who will never defend him back. I’m not going to argue with him. That’s not how any of this changes.

But I might send him this.

If this made you think, share it with one person who might be ready to hear it. Not to fight, just to think. That’s what The Sanity Project is for.

Listen to the Audio Podcast

Listen

Host notices a Facebook meme and traces how American culture-war language and grievance politics have been imported into Canadian political conversation through social media and political strategy.

The episode argues this shift rewards outrage over governance, distracting from real Canadian problems like housing, healthcare, and productivity while amplifying anger for engagement.

It calls for reclaiming a politics focused on Canadian priorities and solutions rather than borrowed outrage.

I was scrolling through Facebook the other day when I saw yet another meme attacking a Canadian politician.

Nothing unusual there. Politics has always been rough around the edges. Canadians are not, despite the reputation, uniformly polite about the people who govern them.

But then I looked closer.

The meme wasn’t Canadian. The language wasn’t Canadian. The talking points weren’t Canadian. The image had clearly originated in the American political ecosystem and, with a few names swapped out, made its way into a conversation about Canada.

And that’s when a question occurred to me that I haven’t been able to shake since.

When did so much of Canadian political conversation stop actually being about Canada?

The Politics We Used to Have

It wasn’t that long ago that Canadian conservatism was, whatever you thought of it, distinctly Canadian.

The arguments were about issues such as fiscal responsibility, resource development, trade relations, and the perennial tension between Ottawa and the provinces. People disagreed, sometimes loudly, but they were disagreeing about Canadian things. The size of the federal government. The management of public finances. Whether a pipeline made economic sense.

You could set your watch by it. Budget debates. Transfer payments. The National Energy Program is still generating heat decades later. Senate reform. These were the fights.

They were our fights.

Then Something Changed

At some point, roughly a decade ago and accelerating sharply after 2016, a different vocabulary arrived.

Suddenly, Canadian political conversations were about the “war on woke.” About globalist elites. About fake news and legacy media. About protecting children from things that had not previously been considered threats. About freedom convoys and mandates and a creeping tyranny that, to many Canadians, seemed to have been imported wholesale from somewhere south of the border.

The concerns weren’t always illegitimate. Distrust of institutions has real roots. Media consolidation is a genuine issue. Government overreach is worth scrutinizing.

But the vocabulary — the specific framing, the grievance architecture, the us-versus-them structure — sounded less like it had grown organically from Canadian soil and more like it had been copied from a different country’s culture war.

A Saskatchewan town hall suddenly sounded like a Texas rally. An Alberta Facebook group suddenly sounded like it was run out of Florida. A school board meeting in Ontario suddenly featured talking points that had been field-tested in places like Loudoun County, Virginia.

The words were the same. The targets were different. But the anger was identical.

Subscribe now

The Places Running the Experiment

Here’s a fair question to ask: if this political model produces good results, we should be able to see them somewhere.

The United States has had states governed by this approach, culture-war politics, anti-expert rhetoric, and aggressive grievance messaging long enough that we can start measuring outcomes. States like Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama have been running some version of this experiment for years.

The people who live there are not caricatures. Many live ordinary, decent lives and have priorities and values worth taking seriously. That’s important to say clearly.

But if we’re evaluating the political model and not the people, the data is sobering. These states consistently rank near the bottom of national measures for education outcomes, health coverage, life expectancy, and economic mobility. They have some of the highest poverty rates and some of the weakest public infrastructure in the developed world.

None of that is because the people are less capable or less deserving. It’s because a politics built primarily around grievance and culture war tends to be very good at winning elections and very poor at governing.

So when we ask what Canada hopes to achieve by importing this model, it’s a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.

Canada’s Version

Look across the Canadian political landscape, and you’ll see the pattern taking shape.

In Alberta, the dominant political conversation has shifted from managing oil revenues and negotiating with Ottawa to something that feels more like permanent conflict with the federal government, with renewable energy, with institutions, and with the very idea of compromise. The grievance is the point. The fight is the product.

In Saskatchewan, a similar posture has taken hold. In Ontario, a blend of populism and culture-war signalling has become the defining feature of provincial politics. The specific issues differ by region, but the underlying architecture is remarkably consistent and remarkably familiar to anyone who has watched American conservative politics over the past decade.

The strategy is the same: make voters feel surrounded, embattled, and disrespected, then position yourself as the only one willing to fight for them.

It works. Electorally, it works very well.

What it doesn’t do is build affordable housing, fix healthcare wait times, or raise Canadian productivity.

The Business of Keeping People Angry

Here is the part of this conversation that gets uncomfortable, because it stops being about left versus right.

Outrage has become a product.

Politicians have discovered that angry constituents donate more, show up more, and are easier to mobilize than satisfied ones. Media companies, traditional and digital, have discovered that rage drives more engagement than nuance. Social media platforms are optimized by design to surface content that produces strong emotional reactions. Influencers have discovered that a steady diet of manufactured crisis keeps audiences returning.

The algorithm doesn’t care whether a post is true, useful, or Canadian. It cares whether it makes you feel something.

And so content designed to inflame American audiences gets fed seamlessly to Canadian audiences. The platforms don’t distinguish. Why would they? The emotional response is the same.

Angry citizens have become the raw material for an attention economy that profits from their anxiety. The more we share, react, and engage with imported outrage, the more of it we’re served.

Nobody sat down and planned the Americanization of Canadian politics. The algorithm did it for free.

The Most Canadian Question of All

Canada has no shortage of real problems.

Housing has become genuinely unaffordable for a generation of younger Canadians. The healthcare system is under serious strain. Productivity growth has been weak for years. Infrastructure is aging. These are not small issues. They are the kind of structural challenges that will define what kind of country Canada is in twenty years.

But too often, the political energy that might be directed at these problems is being consumed by whatever culture-war controversy exploded south of the border yesterday. Because that’s what the algorithm served up. Because that’s what the political consultants, who are increasingly taking their cues from American counterparts, have learned generates the most noise.

The result is a politics that is very loud and very busy while somehow making very little progress on the things that actually affect Canada’s lives.

Back to the Facebook Meme

There is nothing wrong with criticizing Canadian governments. There is nothing wrong with taking sharp aim at Mark Carney, Pierre Poilievre, Danielle Smith, Doug Ford, or anyone else who holds public office.

That is democracy. That is exactly what it should be.

But there is a difference between criticism rooted in Canadian realities, criticism that wrestles with Canadian trade-offs and Canadian priorities, and criticism that has simply been imported, rebranded, and handed to us pre-assembled.

One asks us to think. The other asks us to react.

A country that continuously imports another country’s outrage eventually stops having its own conversation. The issues get blurry. The solutions get borrowed. The anger starts to feel familiar, but the problems never quite get solved, because the solutions were never designed for here.

If there’s one thing Canada doesn’t need right now, it’s more borrowed anger.

We have enough of our own problems to be angry about. The least we can do is be angry about the right ones.

Sources:

• Poverty Rate by State

• US Census Bureau — Poverty in States 2024

• Life Expectancy by State

• List of U.S. states by life expectancy — Wikipedia

• States with Best and Worst School Systems — WalletHub

Listen To The Sanity Project Podcast

The Sanity Project is a publication about thinking more clearly in a world that profits from confusion. If this resonated, share it with someone who might need it.

To subscribe to our free weekly newsletter, go to https://thesanity.org/p/subscribe

Decoding the Narrative: A Guide to Political Analysis in Canada Shattering Myths in Canadian Politics

This episode pushes past knee-jerk outrage culture by relying on rigorous news analysis and in-depth political commentary. Listeners are reminded that much of what drives canadian news is narrative: from media misinformation to recycled stereotypes about canadian politics. Here, you’ll see how critical thinking and evidence-driven news commentary offer a clear-eyed look at the real economic forces shaping the nation.

Progressive Politics, Democratic Power, and Media Accountability

We dive into how progressive politics and democratic values intersect with global supply chains, dispelling myths held by both liberals and conservatives. Real political analysis means tracking investments, alliances, and policies, not just following the noise in daily news. Our episode shows how Canada is moving from a resource exporter to a player defining the rules—showcasing the power of evidence over emotion in politics.

Timely, Trusted, and Transparent: Your Source for Canadian News

Stay informed by approaching current events with independent, data-driven scrutiny. This podcast serves as your alternative to reactionary headlines, encouraging curiosity and discernment in the era of spin. For anyone invested in Canadian news and the future of Canadian politics, this is the place for fact-first, reliable news analysis.

To never miss an episode, subscribe to this podcast wherever you are listening.