Category: News article

Don’t fall for claims vegan­ism is fad­ing

This article was written by Jessica Scott-Reid and was published in the Toronto Star on January 4, 2026.

JESSICA SCOTT­REID JESSICA SCOTT­REID IS A CANADIAN JOURNALIST AND ANIMAL ADVOCATE. SHE IS THE CULTURE AND DISINFORMATION CORRE

You may have heard that vegan­ism is dead, and that eat­ing meat — so much meat — is back.

Accord­ing to some news out­lets and online influ­en­cers, the plant­based diet has fallen out of pop­ular­ity in favour of more meat­heavy trends like the car­ni­vore diet. Don’t fall for it, espe­cially this Veganu­ary: the time when people are encour­aged to give animal­free diets a go, for the planet, the anim­als and pub­lic health.

While plant­based brands includ­ing Bey­ond Meat have been facing slump­ing sales, and Yves Veg­gie Cuisine is no more, these devel­op­ments do not reflect genu­ine con­sumer rejec­tion, but rather years of co­ordin­ated efforts shaped by meat industry influ­ence, polit­ical power and online dis­in­form­a­tion. And regard­less of fleet­ing food trends, the sci­ence remains clear: West­ern coun­tries eat too much meat, rais­ing risks of heart dis­ease and some can­cers, while also killing the planet. Cut­ting back is cru­cial to meet­ing cli­mate goals, no mat­ter what the meat industry claims about the sup­posed eco­be­ne­fits of grass­fed beef. Because as hun­dreds of bil­lions of anim­als con­tinue to be mass­bred, con­fined to fact­ory farms and killed along speed­ing dis­as­sembly lines in Canada each year, the sci­ence — and the con­sequences — haven’t changed.

Animal agri­cul­ture groups are among the most act­ive and influ­en­tial lob­by­ists in Ott­awa and Wash­ing­ton. Organ­iz­a­tions like Dairy Farm­ers of Canada, Chicken Farm­ers of Canada and the Cana­dian Cattle Asso­ci­ation main­tain per­man­ent lob­by­ing oper­a­tions and fre­quent con­tact with fed­eral offi­cials, sup­por­ted by large budgets and co­ordin­ated national strategies. In the U.S., meat industry lob­by­ists spent an estim­ated $5.5 mil­lion in Wash­ing­ton to influ­ence fed­eral policy. And a 2023 Stan­ford ana­lysis found that from 2014 to 2020, Amer­ican meat and dairy interests in the U.S. received roughly 800 times more pub­lic fund­ing and wiel­ded 190 times more lob­by­ing power than plant­based and cul­tiv­ated meat com­bined. The imbal­ance of power and influ­ence is stark.

At the same time, the meat industry has worked hard to turn the pub­lic off of meat altern­at­ives and plant­based eat­ing. Early 2020 dis­in­form­a­tion cam­paigns por­tray­ing plant­based and cul­tiv­ated meats as “ultrapro­cessed,” “unnat­ural” and “syn­thetic,” planted seeds that would grow and align neatly with nar­rat­ives pushed today by fig­ures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Make Amer­ica Healthy Again move­ment. That mes­saging is that animal meat is inher­ently “nat­ural,” whole­some and healthy.

This has grown into full cul­ture­war rhet­oric, with online “meat­flu­en­cers” — some fun­ded and trained by the meat industry — por­tray­ing plant­based diets as left­ist, elit­ist, rad­ical and “woke,” while pro­mot­ing meat­heavy diets as not only healthy, but an act of defi­ance, strength and even pat­ri­ot­ism.

But cast­ing doubt on altern­at­ives is only part of the strategy; the other is a full­scale effort to gre­en­wash meat itself. Through massive mar­ket­ing budgets and fun­ded research, meat pro­du­cers have pro­moted ideas like “regen­er­at­ive” or “cli­mate­friendly” meat — claims that are increas­ingly dis­puted by cli­mate sci­ent­ists. This year, mega meat pro­du­cers JBS and Tyson were both forced to reckon with mis­lead­ing cli­mate claims, with JBS pay­ing a $1.1­mil­lion (U.S.) set­tle­ment over its “net­zero” mar­ket­ing and Tyson remov­ing “cli­mate­smart” labels from its beef fol­low­ing legal and reg­u­lat­ory pres­sure. Regard­less of whether meat is regen­er­at­ive, pas­ture­raised or grass­fed, its pro­duc­tion can­not magic­ally or mean­ing­fully off­set emis­sions pro­duced by large­scale animal farm­ing.

The res­ult of all of this man­oeuv­ring is not a nat­ural mar­ket cor­rec­tion, but a nar­rat­ive care­fully shaped to pro­tect an industry whose busi­ness model depends on keep­ing meat at the centre of our tables, no mat­ter the cost to health, anim­als or the cli­mate. This Veganu­ary, don’t con­fuse man­u­fac­tured back­lash with sci­entific fact. Cut­ting back our con­sump­tion of animal products was never a trend, it’s a neces­sity.

To truly improve transit, we need more sub­ways

In the 2010s, Rob Ford's idea of “subways, subways, subways!” was anathema to progressives, transit advocate Reece Martin writes, but for transit to be rapid, it has to get off the roads.

This article was written by Reece Martin and was published in the Toronto Star on January 3, 2026.

Pub­lic transit in Toronto feels slower than it’s ever been.

The street­cars have crawled along since we bought new vehicles without learn­ing any new oper­a­tional tricks. The sub­way is still in a state of con­stant slow zones, includ­ing along Allen Road where the tra­di­tion of sub­ways zip­ping past cars has been reversed. And even the not­par­tic­u­larly­fast buses are get­ting stuck in ever­worsen­ing con­ges­tion.

And then a few weeks ago, Toronto opened the mult­i­bil­lion­dol­lar Finch West light rail line and man­aged to make it not only slower than the buses it replaced, but also most half­decent jog­gers.

For­tu­nately, the crisis has not gone to waste. The mayor and TTC chair have launched into a blitz of motions and moves to not only try to fix the defi­cien­cies on Finch, but also to cap­it­al­ize on this moment to fix the same set of issues on the down­town street­cars. It’s been a rare pos­it­ive moment of polit­ical lead­er­ship and impro­visa­tion.

But at some point, once the dust settles, there’s an uncom­fort­able truth we’ll need to grapple with: Even with sig­nal pri­or­ity — as well as things we aren’t likely to do like insti­tute fewer stops — transit run­ning on or next to the street is just never going to be truly rapid.

The choice of what kind of transit to build became highly politi­cized in the 2010s, par­tic­u­larly with Rob Ford’s man­tra of “sub­ways, sub­ways, sub­ways!”

But the real­ity is that road­based transit is the equi­val­ent of our local roads, and transit still needs its high­ways.

I recently was on Bloor at a hol­i­day party, and upon open­ing Google Maps to see my travel time to get home to Scar­bor­ough on transit, my jaw dropped at the hour­and­ahalf travel time. Were we to hop in a car, I could have got­ten to Niagara Falls in that time, or just home in half that time. This is ulti­mately what cre­ates con­ges­tion and keeps people off transit: driv­ing is so often dra­mat­ic­ally faster than what’s sup­posed to be “the bet­ter way.”

The Transit City plan that birthed Finch West and also envi­sioned the Eglin­ton Crosstown wanted to “improve” my trip to Scar­bor­ough, mak­ing sure that the bus part of my jour­ney was now on a snazzy­street­car like we’ve now opened on Finch. This is still the play­book that’s shap­ing transit decision mak­ing at the city of Toronto, even though the city’s own stud­ies show the Eglin­ton East LRT would be slower than the express buses run­ning on Eglin­ton today; and yet the project is one of the city’s top transit pri­or­it­ies.

The real­ity is that to actu­ally achieve rapid transit, you need to have transit that isn’t chained to the road net­work.

This not only means never wait­ing for a traffic light and going through urban areas at 80 kilo­metres an hour or faster, but maybe even cut­ting across the street grid in diag­on­als.

The sub­ways being delivered by the province would actu­ally prob­ably shave 15 to 20 minutes off of my trip and those of tens of thou­sands of oth­ers if they were open today, and they are only being accep­ted begrudgingly. New GO sta­tions under the “SmartTrack” pro­gram are being treated like they are exclus­ively for the use of rich 905 com­muters, but had they all been open, my trip home could have been done in just 30 minutes — a third of the time it actu­ally took.

The sub­ways are com­ing, and more GO train ser­vice and sta­tions are com­ing, too, but we need to lean into this transit­build­ing renais­sance. There need to be more GO lines and more trains on them to more places, and addi­tional sta­tions to provide access to more neigh­bour­hoods. The sub­way net­work needs to expand fur­ther, with branches to other outly­ing areas, exten­sions, and more lines in the cent­ral city.

Achiev­ing this means chan­ging the way we do things. Toronto cur­rently has among the most expens­ive transit projects in the world — the Finch LRT has cost more than the Shep­pard sub­way. Tack­ling these costs isn’t straight­for­ward, but a start would be to stop think­ing that trains have to be under­ground. People rave about the Lon­don Under­ground, but more than half of that sys­tem is actu­ally above the ground — via­ducts, embank­ments and cut­tings might remind people that transit actu­ally exists, and they also let cit­ies afford transit. If we can change the way we do things, lay out some nation­build­ing projects for the nation’s largest city, and get build­ing, we could finally have a transit sys­tem to be proud of — and yes, that means sub­ways, sub­ways, sub­ways.

How we could reignite Inger­soll’s CAMI auto plant

The same GM facility that built cuttingedge electric vans could anchor a new, madeinCanada electricvehicle program, one built for ordinary Canadians, not just corporate fleets or luxury buyers, writes Colin Simpson.

This article was written by Colin Simpson and was published in the Toronto Star on January 3, 2026.

COLIN SIMPSON COLIN SIMPSON IS DEAN OF THE CENTRE FOR CONTINUOUS LEARNING AT GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE.

When Gen­eral Motors shut down Bright­Drop pro­duc­tion at the Inger­soll CAMI plant this fall, Oxford County lost more than a thou­sand skilled jobs and a vital piece of Ontario’s man­u­fac­tur­ing back­bone.

Yet this does not have to be another chapter in the long decline of Cana­dian auto pro­duc­tion.

The same facil­ity that built cut­ting­edge elec­tric vans could anchor a new, made­in­Canada elec­tric­vehicle pro­gram, one built for ordin­ary Cana­dians, not just cor­por­ate fleets or lux­ury buy­ers.

For dec­ades, CAMI has been part of Canada’s indus­trial DNA. Gen­er­a­tions of work­ers have built vehicles that ended up in drive­ways across North Amer­ica.

When GM con­ver­ted the plant to pro­duce Bright­Drop elec­tric deliv­ery vans, it seemed to mark a new begin­ning, proof that Canada could lead the EV trans­ition.

Instead, the mar­ket shif­ted, orders stalled and pro­duc­tion ceased. The lights dimmed once more in Inger­soll. But those lights could, and should, come back on.

The frus­tra­tion in the com­munity is real.

Mike Van Boekel, chair of Uni­for Local 88, which rep­res­ents roughly 1,100 laid­off CAMI work­ers, recently said the union is ready to occupy the idled plant if GM attempts to remove equip­ment.

“The ball’s in GM’s court. If they don’t remove equip­ment, we won’t seize the plant,” he said, emphas­iz­ing that such a move is not his pre­ferred option.

Van Boekel and Uni­for’s national lead­er­ship have been work­ing with the fed­eral and pro­vin­cial gov­ern­ments to per­suade GM to assign a new vehicle to the site without suc­cess so far.

Canada has pledged to move toward zero­emis­sion vehicles over the next dec­ade, but policy tar­gets alone will not get us there. Afford­ab­il­ity and access will.

Imports from Asia and Europe remain costly and vul­ner­able to tar­iff swings. Amer­ican EVs enjoy heavy domestic incent­ives. Mean­while, most Cana­dians still can­not find an elec­tric vehicle under $45,000, and middle­income buy­ers are being left out of the shift.

That is the gap Inger­soll can fill. Reopen­ing CAMI to pro­duce an afford­able, prac­tical EV designed and built in Canada would not only revive a skilled work­force but also give the coun­try a sus­tain­able busi­ness model for long­term com­pet­it­ive­ness.

The plant already has the equip­ment, sup­ply con­nec­tions, and trained employ­ees to get mov­ing quickly. The infra­struc­ture is there. The expert­ise is there. The oppor­tun­ity is there. What is needed now is lead­er­ship and a busi­ness plan rooted in value, not vir­tue.

Ima­gine a com­pact hatch­back or small cros­sover with a 300­kilo­metre real­world range, built for our win­ters and our budgets.

Heated bat­ter­ies, cold­weather pre­con­di­tion­ing, cor­ro­sion pro­tec­tion, a price tag under $40,000. This is the kind of vehicle that could replace the second car in mil­lions of drive­ways or serve as the first EV for fam­il­ies who have been priced out of the mar­ket.

It is also the kind of product gov­ern­ments them­selves could use.

If Ott­awa and Queen’s Park want to strengthen domestic man­u­fac­tur­ing, they can start by pur­chas­ing Cana­dian.

Com­mit­ting to buy the first 25,000 units for fleets such as Canada Post, pro­vin­cial util­it­ies, school boards, and muni­cipal ser­vices would give a reborn CAMI steady demand from day one. It is a proven approach.

Que­bec’s and Brit­ish Columbia’s early pub­lic orders for elec­tric buses helped launch entire local indus­tries.

This plan makes eco­nomic sense. Reusing exist­ing facil­it­ies avoids the bil­lion­dol­lar costs of new con­struc­tion. The Oxford County sup­ply chain remains largely intact. Ontario’s energy rates are stable, and Canada’s elec­tri­city grid is among the clean­est and most reli­able in the world.

Each job saved or recre­ated in Inger­soll sup­ports sev­eral more across sup­pli­ers, trans­port, and ser­vice indus­tries. For tax­pay­ers, it is not a sub­sidy, it is a stra­tegic invest­ment that pays dividends in employ­ment, trade bal­ance, and tech­no­lo­gical know­how.

Crit­ics will argue that gov­ern­ments should not pick win­ners. But every coun­try that suc­ceeds in EV man­u­fac­tur­ing, from the United States to South Korea, does exactly that.

The dif­fer­ence is how smartly they do it. A reborn CAMI would serve real domestic demand, com­pete in a price seg­ment where the mar­ket gap is widest, and use the tools Canada already has in place.

This is not nos­tal­gia for a lost auto town. It is an argu­ment for sound eco­nom­ics. It is about mak­ing sure the trans­ition to elec­tric trans­port­a­tion sup­ports local jobs, local sup­pli­ers, and local con­sumers instead of send­ing oppor­tun­ity off­shore.

Inger­soll does not need another “what­if” head­line. It needs a reason to believe in its future, and so does the coun­try. We already have the plant, the tal­ent, and the tools. What we need now is the resolve to con­nect them.

If Canada is ser­i­ous about build­ing afford­able EVs, pro­tect­ing skilled man­u­fac­tur­ing, and keep­ing value inside our bor­ders, the path runs straight through Oxford County. The elec­tric future does not have to be impor­ted.

It can be made right here at home.

Flash floods kill at least 17

This article was written and published by the Toronto Star on January 2, 2026.

The sea­son’s first heavy rains and snow­fall ended a pro­longed dry spell but triggered flash floods in sev­eral areas of Afgh­anistan, killing at least 17 people and injur­ing 11 oth­ers, a spokes­per­son for Afgh­anistan’s national dis­aster man­age­ment author­ity said Thursday. Mohammad Yousaf Hammad, spokes­per­son for Afgh­anistan National Dis­aster Man­age­ment Author­ity, said the floods also dam­aged infra­struc­ture in the affected dis­tricts, killed live­stock, and affected 1,800 fam­il­ies, worsen­ing con­di­tions in already vul­ner­able urban and rural com­munit­ies.

2026 forecast: M&A, AI, EVs, (and more)

This opinion was written by Eric Reguly and was published in the Globe & Mail on January 2, 2026.

Canada could strike a deal this year to build the Swedish Saab Gripen E-series fighter jet and the Saab GlobalEye surveillance plane on Canadian soil.

The Globe’s European bureau chief predicts there will be less free trade and more mergers and acquisitions this year

In gambling casinos, the house edge, depending on the game, is typically one to five per cent. With that in mind, I will be happy if half of my predictions for 2026 prove accurate, or even largely accurate. Here goes, and happy new year from snow-free Rome.

PLANE LOGIC

Canada will do a deal to build the Swedish Saab Gripen E-series fighter jet and the Saab GlobalEye surveillance plane on Canadian soil, presumably at a Bombardier factory in Ontario or Quebec. The Canadian military has not warmed to the Gripen, largely because it fears the expense of running a dual-fighter fleet. It wants Canada to stick with the U.S.made F-35 stealth fighter jets, of which 16 are on their way, with options for another 72.

The generals are betting that Prime Minister Mark Carney doesn’t have the courage to anger U.S. President Donald Trump by adding the Gripen at the expense of some or many F-35 orders. But Saab has said that building the Gripen and GlobalEye in Canada would create 10,000 jobs, or possibly more if the Canadian factories pump them out for Ukraine and other export customers.

The chance to develop the largest military aerospace R&D talent pool and supply chain since the death of the Canadian developed Avro Arrow interceptor in 1959 will be too hard to pass up. Yes, Mr. Trump will get angry and possibly retaliate, but so what? Anger and retaliation are his default positions.

LESS FREE TRADE

The Trump-directed trade wars won’t flare up again in 2026, since tariffs are not a universal win for the U.S. They trigger retaliation from other countries and put upward pressure on consumer prices; the U.S. President wants inflation to fall in the run-up to the midterm elections in November. But a tariff lull does not mean the trade storm is over, at least in North America.

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement is up for review in 2026. Mr. Trump and his MAGA backers will demand a U.S.-centric replacement. No surprise there; the 25-per-cent tariffs on Canadian autos, steel and aluminum that hit in 2025 were a forewarning that Canada is doomed on the trade front. The USMCA won’t go without a fight, but it will go.

MERGER MANIA REDUX

Mergers and acquisitions are coming off a banner year. Harvard’s 2025 M&A review said that compared to 2024, deal volume is expected to rise by almost half in the U.S. alone to US$2.3-trillion, equivalent to Canada’s gross domestic product. Global volumes should rise by about a quarter. There is every reason to believe the frenzied pace will continue in 2026.

Interest rates in the U.S. and elsewhere are coming down, making financing costs cheaper. The U.S.’s anti-consolidation stance is vanishing (which is not to say antitrust reviews are history). Europe is practically begging for global champions in defence, banking, pharmaceuticals, energy and other industries, meaning regulatory reviews will be given the light touch there, too.

My guess is that mining and banking are the sectors to watch. The lunge for critical metals, especially copper, means that megadeals will remain on the agenda. A blockbuster merger between Glencore of Switzerland and Britain’s Rio Tinto is not out of the question, nor is the takeover of Anglo American , considering its purchase of copperheavy, Vancouver-based Teck Resources has received shareholder approval.

On the resources front, my other guess is that once-mighty BP , the former British Petroleum, is not long for this world as an independent player. The company has had too many value-destroying reversals (black-togreen and vice versa) to play in the big leagues – its market value is less than one-fifth of Exxon’s .

In the financial world, watch out for the Canadian banks. They are huge, even by global standards. Royal Bank of Canada is worth US$240-billion, closing in on Wells Fargo’s value. It’s only a matter of time before RBC and its Canadian rivals pounce on big targets in the U.S.

AI’S SOCIAL BACKLASH

The joy of the artificial intelligence industry’s stunning growth and investment returns will be replaced in 2026 by fear and loathing over job losses. Nothing puts a smile on the faces of CEOs and company shareholders more than sinking labour costs, and AI is putting the curve in the right direction for them.

The Financial Times reported this week that Morgan Stanley forecasts the European banks alone will eliminate 200,000 banking jobs, equivalent to 10 per cent of their payrolls, by 2030, as AI takes over. The job cuts are expected to come within the central services divisions, such as back-office roles. Repeat in other industries.

I predict that AI-related job cuts will see strikes in 2026, as employees demand contracts insulated from the technology. Automation has sparked labour agitation in the past, including the Luddite rebellions in the early 19th century and, in 2023, the Hollywood strikes, where writers and actors demanded work clauses that curtail AI use.

TESLA’S BATTERY WILL DRAIN

Elon Musk’s Tesla had a pretty good year. The shares were up nine per cent, giving the electric vehicle giant a market value of US$1.5-trillion. A repeat performance in 2026 is highly unlikely. Mr. Trump has no love for EVs, even if his bromance with Mr. Musk seems to have been restored. The U.S. federal tax credits for EVs are on their way out, and rules to reduce or eliminate vehicle emissions are being scrapped.

In the European Union, gas and diesel cars were given a new lease on life just a few weeks ago with the dilution of the 2035 zeroemissions requirement. Meanwhile, Chinese EVs are coming on strong pretty much everywhere except Canada and the U.S., where 100-per-cent tariffs banish them from showrooms. They have moved up the quality chain fast and are cheaper than Teslas.

Musk’s nightmare scenario – a Chinese ban on Tesla sales on national security grounds, because the cars are equipped with all sorts of cameras and sensors – has gone from the unimaginable to the possible.

U.S. LNG exports hit record highs as Ottawa seeks to boost Canada’s output

This article was written by Brent Jang and was published in the Globe & Mail on January 2, 2026.

The Cedar LNG site in Kitimat, B.C., is set to be completed in 2028. Cedar has applied to B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office to export up to 3.75 million tonnes a year.

Canada’s southern neighbour is looking to solidify top global ranking as Ottawa seeks to boost output

U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas are reaching record-high levels, while Ottawa seeks to expand Canada’s modest LNG output in the quest to rank among the top six countries globally within five years.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), a U.S.-based research group, forecasted that there will be roughly 140 million tonnes of LNG export capability from the U.S. by the end of 2026, or about 10 times greater than anticipated capacity from Canada.

Eight U.S. LNG export terminals have opened since 2016, and another four are slated to be operating by 2028, including the first exports from Golden Pass LNG in Texas within weeks.

IEEFA analyst Clark Williams-Derry estimates that there were a record-high 109 million tonnes of LNG exported from the U.S. in 2025. He made the estimate after crunching the numbers from Kpler, a provider of real-time global data and analytics.

The U.S. has now been the largest exporter of LNG in the world for three consecutive years. American exports are headed for fresh highs in 2026, with the final tally dependent on the pace of startup at Golden Pass and expansion at the Corpus Christi LNG terminal in Texas, Mr. Williams-Derry said.

By contrast, LNG Canada became the first Canadian export terminal for the fuel when it began shipping to Asia from Kitimat, B.C., in mid-2025.

As the U.S. trade war persists, Ottawa has been striving to smooth the way for economic diversification and reduced dependence on American customers.

Prime Minister Mark Carney announced in September that LNG Canada’s Phase 2 expansion plan made the list of major projects of national interest to be considered for fast-tracking.

In November, he said Ksi Lisims LNG in Northwest British Columbia has been added by Ottawa to the growing roster of plans submitted to the Major Projects Office, which has the goal of expediting a wide range of developments in sectors such as energy, mining and infrastructure across Canada.

Canada is the fifth-largest natural gas producer in the world but recently ranked near the bottom of 22 countries exporting LNG.

The U.S., Australia and Qatar have been by far the world’s largest LNG exporters. Russia ranks fourth, followed by Malaysia.

It is unclear exactly how high Canada might move up the global rankings because several countries already have projects under construction and will expand their exports over the next five years, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

CAPP predicts that Canada could become a key LNG player, with exports of the fuel having the potential to place the country in the top six in the world by 2030.

In 2013, there were more than 20 LNG proposals in British Columbia.

Today, only two smaller B.C. projects – Woodfibre LNG near Squamish and Cedar LNG in Kitimat – are under construction in Canada.

Construction on Woodfibre is scheduled for completion by late 2027 while Cedar is slated to be finished by late 2028.

In what the industry calls nameplate capacity, LNG Canada’s Phase 1 has the initial ability to export 14 million tonnes a year, though the Shell PLC-led project could increase it to 15 million tonnes annually through operating efficiencies at the Kitimat site located on the traditional territory of the Haisla Nation.

Woodfibre has a nameplate capacity of 2.1 million tonnes a year while Cedar has applied to British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Office for permission to export up to 3.75 million tonnes a year.

If Ksi Lisims gets built, that would add another 12 million tonnes a year of exports.

LNG Canada’s Phase 1, Ksi Lisims, Cedar and Woodfibre could have a combined export capacity totalling nearly 33 million tonnes annually by 2030.

If LNG Canada forges ahead with its Phase 2 plan to double the Kitimat terminal’s capacity by the early 2030s, Canada would solidify its position as a major exporter of natural gas in liquid form.

“We continue to work in close collaboration with all levels of government to find a pathway to a Phase 2 expansion while navigating a complex global trade and tariff environment,” LNG Canada said in a statement.

Industry analysts expect LNG Canada to make a final investment decision by the end of 2026 on whether to proceed with Phase 2.

The contentious Coastal GasLink pipeline, operated by TC Energy Corp., is supplying natural gas from Northeast B.C. to LNG Canada and also will be used for Cedar.

Proponents of energy projects have had to deal with a range of issues such as volatile commodity prices, cost overruns, court battles and protests from citizens’ groups and climate activists.

“New Canadian LNG diverts resources away from real climate solutions such as renewable power generation and a clean transportation system,” said Steven Haig, a policy adviser at the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

In a recent report, IEEFA warned about a looming LNG glut on global markets.

“Market developments in 2025 indicate that policymakers and consumers in Asia are already responding to key LNG challenges in ways that could significantly slow future demand growth,” said the report co-authored by Christopher Doleman and Sam Reynolds.

RBC Capital Markets analyst Michael Harvey estimates that LNG Canada exported more than 2.3 million tonnes of LNG to Asia between the startup in late June and mid-December.

Ksi Lisims is expected to make a final investment decision in 2026. The Nisga’a Nation, Houston-based Western LNG and a group of natural gas producers called Rockies LNG are partners in the Ksi Lisims project near Gitlaxt’aamiks, B.C.

“We’ve learned a lot of stuff to better position ourselves as Indigenous nations to take our rightful place at the helm of this economic shift,” said Andrew Robinson, chief executive officer of the Nisga’a Lisims government.

BC Hydro is proposing the North Coast Transmission Line project, in collaboration with First Nations, that would run along the route of its current line between Prince George and Terrace in British Columbia. With the eventual addition of spur lines, the goal is to supply or increase electricity to customers such as the Port of Prince Rupert, mining companies and the proposed Ksi Lisims project.

A recent study by the Pembina Institute, titled Power Struggle, said limited supplies of hydroelectricity in B.C. should be earmarked for areas that provide the most economic benefit such as critical minerals, and not for fossil fuels such as LNG.

“Maybe going all-in on LNG isn’t the best way,” said Will Noel, a senior analyst at the Pembina Institute who co-authored the study with Ian Sanderson and Janetta McKenzie.

But Nisga’a leaders have touted Ksi Lisims and the associated Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline project as prime examples of economic reconciliation.

Construction of the 750-kilometre PRGT project, which is coowned 50-50 by the Nisga’a and Western LNG, would be across Northern B.C.

The Gitxsan Nation has traditional territories that the natural gas pipeline would cross. A group of Gitxsan hereditary chiefs has expressed conditional support for PRGT.

“We’re thinking about future generations,” said Catherine Blackstock, whose Gitxsan hereditary chief name is Geel.

But Kolin Sutherland-Wilson, a spokesperson for the Gitxsan house group named Tsi’basaa, said there is considerable opposition to PRGT.

Indigenous hereditary chiefs belonging to the Gitxsan and Gitanyow Nation previously signed benefit agreements to support PRGT, but Mr. Sutherland-Wilson said those deals are lacking substance. “The whole thing is just wishy washy,” he said.

Environment, economic prosperity can coexist

This opinion was written by Tim Gray and was published in the Globe & Mail on January 2, 2025.

It will require bold leadership to get to a better future

As we move into 2026, the landscape of environmental advocacy in Canada has changed dramatically. Canada’s closest neighbour and biggest trading partner is driving massive political and economic restructuring, which has created unease among Canadians at a collective and personal level.

These new threats have also forced public attention away from clean energy, climate change, chemical and plastic pollution and urban sprawl. Unfortunately, many polluting industries have seized this moment to maximize their profits, lobbying decision-makers to roll back progress and carry out attacks on long standing environmental protection rules and legislation.

These industries argue that it’s for the greater economic good. But is it? Evidence from history shows that societies succeed in the long term when they integrate protection of the environment into economic and social development strategies. In fact, for the first time in human history, scientifically conclusive evidence is telling us that economic progress must be grounded in what is best for the environment.

As we move into 2026, my prediction (and my hope) is that Canada will take the opportunity to get some key things right to chart a course toward a better future.

The federal government has been hyper focused on nation building projects. In 2026, watch for these projects to start aligning with clean energy, climate action and protection of nature. Prioritizing projects like highspeed rail, offshore wind farms, clean steel and better public transit will keep us in our nation building era without leaving the environment behind.

The fossil fuel industry has worked hard to block renewable energy projects. Fortunately, the price of solar, wind and battery storage systems has dropped so dramatically that it will become increasingly difficult to convince citizens to stick with expensive and polluting gas and oil. In 2026, expect to see a continuing shift from gas furnaces to heat pumps and from gas plants to renewable energy production projects.

As we change the way our homes are powered, big changes will also come to the rules that guide how those homes are built. In place of regulations that have prevented midrise buildings, we can anticipate that cities and towns will recognize that the housing crisis will be partly solved by encouraging more of this type of building. This will allow us to densify existing neighbourhoods.

Making our neighbourhoods denser and more walkable will hopefully mean fewer private cars on the road. But when we do need to drive, those cars should be electric. This year, we’ll be moving toward more affordable EVs and hope for a major government push on charging infrastructure. There is no future for Canadian automakers and the jobs they provide if Canada sits out the move to EVs. In 2026, EVs will be back in style as both consumers and governments recognize that they are less polluting and better value.

Speaking of value, 2026 is the year we think we’ll finally see the Ontario government put a price on non-alcoholic drink containers through an expanded deposit-return program. This will greatly increase recovery and recycling rates. It’s not hard to do, and eight of the other 10 Canadian provinces already have successful programs in place.

It will also be the year that the jig is up on the long-hidden truth about the risks of polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals.” These include developmental effects, cancers and disruption of hormone regulation. These chemicals are found in a plethora of everyday products, including non-stick coatings, menstrual products and furniture. Fortunately, after long delays, we can watch for federal bans on at least some of the most egregious PFAS uses this year. We must continue to push for action on all of them.

Finally, the cynical Alberta-federal government MOU that undercuts Canadian climate action will run up against rocks of its own making. Oil demand is expected to peak by the end of this decade, meaning the massive increases in oil sands production and a risky bitumen pipeline to the British Columbia northwest coast make no economic sense. These projects will never move forward. We’ll be reading the MOU’s epitaph well before the year’s end.

The predictions I’ve laid out here can become a reality, but it will require bold action from our leaders. This year, let’s hold them accountable and ensure that Canada moves in the right direction. Here’s to a 2026 where clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities ground all our efforts to create economic and social prosperity.

Min­is­ter won’t prom­ise bill won’t change

This article was written by Alessia Passafiume and was published in the Toronto Star on January 1, 2026.

With her gov­ern­ment under pres­sure to finally elim­in­ate boil­water advisor­ies in First Nations com­munit­ies, the fed­eral min­is­ter respons­ible for Indi­gen­ous ser­vices isn’t com­mit­ting to bring­ing back a defunct clean water bill in the new year as writ­ten — after two provinces objec­ted to it.

That bill, which died when the last fed­eral elec­tion was called, was draf­ted with input from First Nations and sought to ensure they could pro­tect fresh water sources on their own ter­rit­or­ies.

Prime Min­is­ter Mark Car­ney prom­ised chiefs at the Assembly of First Nations’ gath­er­ing early in Decem­ber that new clean water legis­la­tion would come in the spring.

The bill sought to ensure First Nations could pro­tect fresh water sources on their own ter­rit­or­ies

Indi­gen­ous Ser­vices Min­is­ter Mandy Gull­Masty told the Cana­dian Press last sum­mer she was com­mit­ted to rein­tro­du­cing the pre­vi­ous legis­la­tion — des­pite oppos­i­tion from the pro­vin­cial govern­ments in Alberta and Ontario, which warned in a media state­ment that rein­tro­du­cing the bill as writ­ten would “under­mine com­pet­it­ive­ness and delay project devel­op­ment.”

Gull­Masty vowed in the sum­mer the new bill would affirm First Nations have a human right to access clean drink­ing water. She did not explain how that might work after the pas­sage of legis­la­tion in June that speeds up the approval timeline for major infra­struc­ture projects and gives cab­inet the abil­ity to sidestep some envir­on­mental laws.

In a fol­lowup inter­view with the Cana­dian Press earlier in Decem­ber, Gull­Masty would not com­mit to includ­ing the same source water pro­tec­tions in the new bill. She also wouldn’t say if she is push­ing for those pro­tec­tions around the cab­inet table.

“I don’t want to put aside work that has pre­vi­ously been done. I think that’s found­a­tional. But I do think there has to be a com­pon­ent where you are hav­ing that region­al­ized approach,” she said.

“That bill, while it may not have been per­fect, I think has really put a lot of oppor­tun­ity on the table. When we come back in the spring, we will be announ­cing what the bill is going to look like.”

Car­ney prom­ised Cana­dians dur­ing the spring elec­tion cam­paign that his gov­ern­ment would move rap­idly to mater­i­ally improve their lives.

But many Indi­gen­ous lead­ers say the gov­ern­ment’s pro­gress on address­ing their own com­munit­ies’ crit­ical pri­or­it­ies slowed to a crawl over the past 12 months — that 2025 was a lost year for efforts to repair drink­ing water sys­tems, reform the child wel­fare sys­tem and erad­ic­ate tuber­cu­losis in the North.

In early 2016, the Cana­dian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Ott­awa’s chronic under­fund­ing of First Nations child wel­fare ser­vices was dis­crim­in­at­ory because it meant kids liv­ing on­reserve were given fewer ser­vices than those liv­ing off­reserve.

The tribunal tasked Canada with reach­ing an agree­ment with First Nations to reform the sys­tem and com­pensate those who were torn from their fam­il­ies and put in foster care.

The Trudeau gov­ern­ment, fol­low­ing nego­ti­ations with the Chiefs of Ontario, Nish­nawbe Aski Nation and the Assembly of First Nations, presen­ted a $47.8 bil­lion com­pens­a­tion and reform pack­age in 2024. First Nations chiefs and their prox­ies voted to reject it that same year; many opposed it because the fund­ing would only be avail­able for 10 years and would be sub­ject to annual reviews.

After the tribunal ordered both sides to present it with new child wel­fare set­tle­ment plans by the end of Decem­ber, it ended up with two pro­pos­als. Ott­awa’s would provide $35.5 bil­lion in fund­ing up to 20332034, fol­lowed by an ongo­ing com­mit­ment of $4.4 bil­lion annu­ally. The First Nations pro­posal, mean­while, calls for the co­devel­op­ment of a stat­utory fund­ing mech­an­ism between First Nations and Ott­awa.

Gull­Masty told the Cana­dian Press she has spent a lot of time ana­lyz­ing the file, learn­ing what dif­fer­ent groups want and think­ing through approaches to reform.

“We’re obliged to respond to the tribunal, but we are also obliged to respond to com­munit­ies that are ask­ing for their own pro­cess,” she said.

Crit­ics decry PCs’ devel­op­ment plan

Province to cre­ate `spe­cial eco­nomic zones’ to off­set effects of U.S. tar­iffs

Premier Doug Ford, left, and Economic Development Minister Vic Fedeli are fasttracking development in Ontario with new regulations that allow the province to bypass local and provincial rules for “trusted proponents and projects.”

This article was written by Rob Ferguson and was published in the Toronto Star on January 1, 2026.

Ontario is pav­ing the way for Premier Doug Ford’s con­tro­ver­sial “spe­cial eco­nomic zones” in 2026 amid other changes that include mak­ing life tougher for impaired drivers and easier for skilled work­ers mov­ing here.

Step­ping up the push to fast­track devel­op­ment to off­set eco­nomic dam­age from U.S. Pres­id­ent Don­ald Trump’s tar­iffs, new reg­u­la­tions tak­ing effect Thursday let the province bypass local and pro­vin­cial rules for “trus­ted pro­ponents and projects.”

But crit­ics are wor­ried pro­tec­tions for the envir­on­ment, work­ers, wild­life, endangered spe­cies, Indi­gen­ous com­munit­ies and their treat­ies will be watered down in what they dub “no law” zones.

Ford, who is keen to develop the vast Ring of Fire’s crit­ical min­eral depos­its in north­west­ern Ontario for elec­tric vehicles, defence projects and other indus­tries, argued too much red tape would hold projects back at a crit­ical time.

“We need to get mov­ing, folks,” he told report­ers when Bill 5, legis­la­tion estab­lish­ing the zones, passed in June.

“We aren’t going to sit back and wait 15 years to get shovels in the ground while the whole world is eat­ing our lunch,” he added, not­ing that’s how long it can take to open a mine in Ontario.

Eco­nomic Devel­op­ment Min­is­ter Vic Fed­eli sig­nalled two weeks ago that the province is work­ing with “inter­ested part­ners” to des­ig­nate the first sites.

“Spe­cial eco­nomic zones will bol­ster Ontario’s advant­age by cut­ting red tape, accel­er­at­ing approvals and pro­tect­ing the jobs and indus­tries that keep our province resi­li­ent and com­pet­it­ive,” he said.

The zones will be a “crit­ical tool to accel­er­ate major nation­build­ing projects and secure job­cre­at­ing invest­ments that deliver last­ing prosper­ity for our work­ers,” Fed­eli said.

He pledged to main­tain the province’s stand­ards for envir­on­mental pro­tec­tions and to con­sult with rel­ev­ant parties — includ­ing Indi­gen­ous com­munit­ies, some of which were vig­or­ously opposed to Bill 5.

Oppos­i­tion parties aren’t buy­ing Fed­eli’s assur­ances about the zones, which can be des­ig­nated any­where in the province, such as on prime farm­land.

“You can­not trust this gov­ern­ment to give them­selves unlim­ited powers,” said New Demo­crat Leader Marit Stiles, cit­ing the Pro­gress­ive Con­ser­vat­ive gov­ern­ment’s $8.28­bil­lion Green­belt land swap scan­dal now under crim­inal invest­ig­a­tion by the RCMP.

Green Leader Mike Schreiner issued his own warn­ing given that Ford is under fire for his $2.5­bil­lion Skills Devel­op­ment Fund that gave hefty pay­outs to hun­dreds of groups with low­ranked applic­a­tions — with Labour Min­is­ter David Pic­cini now under invest­ig­a­tion by Ontario’s integ­rity com­mis­sioner over it.

“Spe­cial eco­nomic zones will open the door to back­room deals and insider giveaways, while Indi­gen­ous rights, envir­on­mental pro­tec­tions, worker rights and local demo­cracy suf­fer,” Schreiner said.

Under the reg­u­la­tions filed Dec. 16, Fed­eli must be con­vinced projects are “eco­nom­ic­ally sig­ni­fic­ant or stra­tegic­ally import­ant” and that pro­ponents have “a good record of com­ply­ing with legal require­ments” such as health and safety for work­ers, the envir­on­ment and fin­an­cial stand­ards. (The same goes for any sub­con­tract­ors a cor­por­a­tion or other pro­ponent hires to work on a project.) In addi­tion, Fed­eli must be con­vinced pro­ponents “do not pose a secur­ity risk” and he must con­sent to any change in the con­trol of a com­pany build­ing a project.

Also in regard to Ontario’s eco­nomy, the province is now allow­ing cer­ti­fied pro­fes­sion­als — includ­ing health­care work­ers, archi­tects, engin­eers, land sur­vey­ors and elec­tri­cians — from other Cana­dian jur­is­dic­tions to start jobs in Ontario shortly after arriv­ing.

They can work on a pro­vi­sional basis until their cer­ti­fic­a­tions are form­ally recog­nized by the rel­ev­ant Ontario reg­u­lat­ory author­it­ies. The change is inten­ded to help employ­ers in Ontario get the skilled work­ers they need.

Mean­while, Ontario is also tak­ing aim at drivers who get behind the wheel when they shouldn’t. Amend­ments to the High­way Traffic Act now impose life­time sus­pen­sions for any­one con­victed of impaired driv­ing caus­ing death.

Other meas­ures include man­dat­ory remedial edu­ca­tion for drivers after first­time alco­hol and drug occur­rences, longer road­side sus­pen­sions for driv­ing under the influ­ence, auto­matic man­dat­ory min­imum licence sus­pen­sions upon con­vic­tion for stunt driv­ing and life­time licence sus­pen­sions upon a third con­vic­tion for vehicle theft.

Addi­tion­ally crack­ing down on auto theft, a new offence under the High­way Traffic Act provides for fines up to $100,000 and six months in jail for know­ingly provid­ing a false vehicle iden­ti­fic­a­tion num­ber when selling an auto­mobile. That’s in addi­tion to a licence sus­pen­sion of up to a year. (Fur­ther changes pro­posed in Novem­ber under “Andrew’s Law,” but not yet passed by the legis­lature, would impose a life­time driv­ing ban for any­one con­victed of dan­ger­ous driv­ing caus­ing death.)

Also tak­ing effect in 2026:

■ For homeown­ers, the Muni­cipal Prop­erty Assess­ment Cor­por­a­tion will now be able to send assess­ment notices by email.

■ Updates to the Ontario Fire Code require homeown­ers and land­lords to install work­ing car­bon monox­ide detect­ors on every floor of a res­id­ence. Some detect­ors mon­itor for both smoke and car­bon monox­ide.

■ Par­ents receiv­ing Cana­dian Dis­ab­il­ity Bene­fits will no long have those pay­ments con­sidered as income when determ­in­ing eli­gib­il­ity for child­care­fee sub­sidies.

Spe­cial eco­nomic zones will open the door to back­room deals and insider giveaways, while Indi­gen­ous rights, envir­on­mental pro­tec­tions, worker rights and local demo­cracy suf­fer. MIKE SCHREINER ONTARIO GREEN PARTY LEADER