This editorial was written and published by the Globe & Mail on January 5, 2025.
It should have been clear in November, 2024, when Donald Trump won re-election that Canada needed to act with urgency to end the drift of (especially) the past decade, during which the federal government dangerously neglected the basics of safeguarding national sovereignty.
The alarm bells were seemingly heeded last spring, when Mr. Trump launched his trade war and started greedily eyeing Canada as the 51st state. Against the odds, the Liberals won re-election under Mark Carney on the promise of an elbowsup response to Mr. Trump’s provocations.
But that promised response has not materialized, despite other worrying developments. In November, the U.S. administration published a National Security Strategy that would dramatically curtail the sovereignty of any Western Hemisphere country, Canada included.
Then came the U.S. military strike on Venezuela on Saturday. Any thought that Canada could simply wait out Mr. Trump’s term in the White House ended this weekend.
There has been no shortage of rhetoric from Prime Minister Mark Carney about the need to expand Canada’s military capacity and to end economic stagnation. What has been lacking for more than a year is action commensurate to the national emergency in which Canada finds itself.
The conundrum that Canada faces is that there is no immediate fix to today’s emergency. It will take years to build a new pipeline, and years to fully rebuild Canada’s military. Which is why there is not a moment more to lose.
The Liberals have talked about doubling non-U.S. exports over the coming decade. But what will happen this year? This month? The Liberals have talked about increasing Canada’s military spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035. What steps will be taken in 2026? The Liberals have signed a memorandum with Alberta that sets the stage for an oil pipeline to the Pacific. It’s a solid first step, but when will the next one come?
The right answer, the only answer, must be immediately, for the three herculean tasks of diversifying Canada’s exports, revitalizing the domestic economy and rebuilding this country’s military capacity.
The single biggest step that Ottawa can take in diversifying exports is to ensure a new bitumen pipeline to the West Coast is constructed. The economic logic was unassailable before the U.S. seized Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. Now, the United States is vowing to ramp up Venezuelan crude production, which would swell supplies of heavy oil for U.S. refiners – driving down prices for Alberta producers. The immediate response must be to green-light additional capacity for the Ottawa-owned Trans Mountain pipeline. The company has said it intends to boost capacity over the next five years. That timeline needs to be accelerated to start this year.
More important, Ottawa must work with Alberta to secure a private proponent in the coming months for a new oil pipeline, underpinned by a commitment that all regulatory approvals will be granted in under two years.
There will need to be consultation and accommodation with Indigenous communities to fulfill Ottawa’s constitutional duty. But the Liberal government must make it clear in those talks (and to any obstructionist premier) that the only question to be discussed is how a pipeline will be built.
The same kind of leadership is needed for the forging of a national economy. The promise of internal free trade has devolved, yet again, into inter-provincial squabbling. The federal government needs to step in to ensure that internal trade barriers are dismantled speedily and permanently.
Ottawa already has the only tool it needs, in the form of its very deep pockets. Federal funds should be made contingent on provinces and territories tearing down trade barriers.
On national defence, the Carney government has taken some initial measures to boost military capacity. But the announcements last year of an increase in defence spending and procurement reform are, at most, an overdue first step.
Recruitment needs to quicken, now. Procurement delays need to end, now. Any minister who attempts to detour spending into regional pork-barrelling should be booted from cabinet. Any staff officer who gets in the way of ending the bureaucratic snarls of procurement must be cashiered.
In June, former U.S. ambassador Kelly Craft told a Toronto business audience that if Canada doesn’t like being called a 51st state, it should stop acting like one. Those may be hard words for Canadians to hear, but they underscore the seriousness of the moment, and the urgency of action.
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.
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.
Province to create `special economic zones’ to offset effects of U.S. tariffs
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
This opinion was written by David Olive and was published in the Toronto Star on December 31, 2025.
In Mark Carney’s telling, he is still in the vanguard of fighting climate change.
That assertion is, on the surface, difficult to sustain given the prime minister’s apparent retreat on the climate front.
Carney scrapped the national consumer carbon tax soon after he became prime minister in March.
His “nationbuilding” projects under consideration for fasttracking unveiled this year include fossil fuel developments.
And the highprofile entente Carney negotiated between Ottawa and Alberta in November unwinds major climate change policies of the Trudeau government.
The controversial “memorandum of understanding” between the two governments effectively greenlights a second crude oil pipeline from the Alberta oilpatch to the B.C. coast — a sister to the Trans Mountain oil pipeline (TMX) that began operations in 2024.
The TMX reduces Canada’s reliance on the U.S. market for oil exports. Almost half of its volume in its first year of operation went to nonU.S. markets, notably China.
The starting point for Carney’s energy policy might be an offhand remark he made in one of several revealing yearend television interviews he gave just before Christmas.
“I am a politician, but I’m still a pragmatist,” Carney told the CBC.
Canada continues to fight climate change, Carney asserts, but with a more practical approach.
“Climate change is continuing remorselessly,” Carney said.
In addressing it more effectively, “there is a moral imperative, a moral obligation to future generations,” Carney said. Acting on that imperative, in Carney’s view, requires more comprehensive policies.
They consist, in a nutshell, of ramping up production of both “clean energy,” with major investments in hydroelectricity and nuclear power, and fossil fuels, because “the world is going to use hydrocarbons for coming decades” under every scenario experts put forward, Carney said.
For Carney the question is: “What kind of hydrocarbons are going to be used?” The answer, he said, is “low cost, low risk, low carbon. If Canada is going to continue to supply hydrocarbons, it needs to be low carbon.”
Meanwhile, Carney said, “we’re going to grow clean energy in this country at a scale never seen before.”
Is it possible for Canada to become an energy superpower, a transformation that Carney has promised Canadians, and still meet our netzero emissions targets for greenhouse gases?
In Carney’s vision, squaring that circle is possible with a new approach. That approach is to develop every kind of energy source, and to pair regulations with significant investment.
“We have too much regulation and not enough action,” Carney said of the energy policies he inherited.
And it’s true that with all the regulations, limitations and bans imposed on the energy sector by the Trudeau government, Canada is still far short of meeting its emissions reduction targets.
Carney vowed that his government is “one hundred per cent focused on doing things that are going to reduce emissions.”
Those things are going to cost scores of billions of dollars. They also promise to generate considerable economic activity.
They include lowcarbon liquified natural gas plants (LNG), a new clean electricity grid in B.C., cleanpower interties between provinces, the mininuclear reactors Ontario has under development, the world’s first zerocarbon copper mine in Saskatchewan, and a huge wind farm off the Nova Scotia coast.
Carney expects that most of the money for those transformative projects will come from the private sector and not the public purse, a contrast with the $34billion Ottawa spent building the TMX.
The memorandum of understanding between Ottawa and Alberta is something of a template. Alberta gets favourable Ottawa consideration of a second crude oil pipeline to the B.C. coast; removal of planned Trudeauera caps on oilpatch emissions; and a lifting of the federal oil tanker ban off the B.C. coast.
In return, the Alberta oilpatch builds a multibilliondollar carbon capture and storage facility that removes 16 megatons of carbon from its oil and gas production — roughly equal to taking 90 per cent of Alberta’s cars and trucks off the road.
It also removes about 75 per cent of methane emissions, a more potent contributor to climate change than CO2. And the oilpatch must pay more than six times the current industrial carbon tax — an incentive to decarbonize.
For Canada to pioneer “decarbonized” hydrocarbons is, Carney said, “an enormous opportunity for this country to leapfrog the United States.
“The United States has taken its eye off the ball on this — they’ve really downgraded it.”
So, the goal is to become a cleanenergy superpower, an advantage over rival hydrocarbon producers the U.S., the Middle East and Russia.
Much of the money to transform the Canadian energy sector will come from abroad, Carney believes.
“Virtually everyone wants to do more with Canada,” said Carney, who spent much of 2025 travelling in Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East.
In addition to Canada’s political stability, “we’re an increasingly confident nation that has ambitions,” Carney said. “So, people want to deal with us.”
Leaders say move would `grind projects to a halt’
This article was written by the Canadian Press and was published in the Toronto Star on December 24, 2025.
First Nations leaders in British Columbia have issued a joint statement criticizing calls to amend the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in response to a recent court ruling.
The statement is endorsed by more than 50 First Nations in B.C. and says recent talks of changing legislation are a “fearbased response” from opponents of the ruling “that reaffirm the crucial need to consult and negotiate” with Indigenous communities on mining rights. It calls for British Columbians to “slow down, take stock, and reflect” on the path forward, noting resorting to “fearbased reactions” risk undoing hardwon progress on reconciliation.
The statement says changing the legislation would “grind projects to a halt” as First Nations may be forced to defend their rights through the courts.
The statement comes days after Kitasoo Xai’xais Nation chief councillor Chris McKnight warned B.C. Premier David Eby he risks fuelling racism and losing the trust of the Indigenous community if changes to the act are made.
The B.C. Appeal Court decision on a First Nations challenge of the province’s mining tenure system gives effect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Eby has said changes to the law may be necessary.
Among those endorsing the latest statement calling for B.C. to think carefully about changing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act are the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit.
The statement says the court decision affirms the need to consult and negotiate with First Nations, but a negative narrative has begun to take hold.
“This narrative wrongly blames First Nations for uncertainty, while ignoring the historical reality that British Columbia was largely settled without treaties. It replaces facts and experience with fear, and cooperation with division,” the statement says.
“We call on Premier Eby to uphold the Declaration Act, resist calls to amend it or pursue appeals, and to sit down with Indigenous leadership to continue the work of building certainty, trust, and economic prosperity for everyone in British Columbia.”
This article was written by Emma Graney and was published in the Globe & Mail on December 24, 2025.
The federal government has taken the next steps to scrap its looming ban on single-use plastic exports, though the Alberta government maintains that Ottawa should get rid of the domestic prohibition, too.
Ottawa published regulations to prohibit the manufacture, import and sale of single-use plastics in 2022, spurring a court challenge to the constitutionality of the rules. The federal government of the day said that items such as grocery bags, cutlery, stir sticks, straws and food takeout containers were environmentally harmful, and rolled out the domestic ban between 2022 and 2024.
The ban on exports was set to come into effect on Dec. 20 this year.
Instead, on Saturday, the federal government launched a 70day consultation period through the Canada Gazette on nixing the ban, saying that tariffs and global supply chain challenges are “creating significant pressure on the domestic economy.”
Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin announced in October that the government would no longer pursue the export ban, citing a review of the global policy landscape, trade conditions and domestic economic challenges.
“Most importantly, the export ban is not expected to lead to a net decrease in plastic waste with few peer countries following suit and many international buyers simply switching away from Canadian suppliers,” Ms. Dabrusin said in a statement at the time.
More than two dozen plastic makers joined forces in 2022 to ask the Federal Court to put an end to Ottawa’s ban on singleuse plastics. The following year, a judge ruled a federal decision to label plastics as toxic to be unreasonable and unconstitutional. (Ottawa appealed the decision, which is still making its way through the courts.)
The Alberta government was also part of the plastics court action. The province’s then-premier Jason Kenney argued that Ottawa had no real evidence that plastics are toxic.
“While the industry is investing massively in becoming more environmentally responsible, Ottawa – for, I think, political reasons – decided to say that plastics have the same risk as toxins like arsenic, which is clearly unscientific,” he told reporters at the time.
Rebecca Schulz, Alberta’s Environment Minister, congratulated Ms. Dabrusin in October when her federal counterpart announced the cancellation of the export ban – but noted her disappointment that the federal government is standing by the domestic prohibition.
Indeed, Ms. Dabrusin insisted in October that the domestic single-use plastics ban is working. “Canadians are seeing fewer plastic bags in trees, less Styrofoam containers on their beach walks and fewer wildlife being tangled in ring carriers,” she said at the time.
Ms. Schulz countered at the time that “silly statements about plastic bags and Styrofoam litter is divorced from reality,” adding there is no legal, policy, economic or scientific justification for the ban.
“The ban is an attack on Canada’s plastics industry – which employs thousands of Canadians and attracts billions in investment – while creating the plastics needed for every modern convenience, from surgical gloves to iPhones,” Ms. Schulz said in a statement.
As Ottawa marches toward nixing the export ban, leaving the domestic policy untouched, Ms. Schulz’s office said Tuesday that her position has not changed.
The Gazette released Saturday said that restricting access to global markets for single-use plastics would displace domestic producers in favour of competitors from other parts of the world. That in turn could drive production, investment and employment opportunities from Canada – but do little to reduce plastic pollution.
Removing the export ban would restore Canadian businesses’ access to international markets for single-use plastics, and “help re-establish economic opportunities curtailed under the prohibition.”
That’s particularly true for the highly trade-exposed plastic product manufacturing sector, which according to Ottawa generated $35-billion and supported roughly 85,000 jobs in 2023.
The sector is deeply integrated within North American supply chains, with roughly 94 per cent of Canada’s $14.9-billion in plastics exports in 2023 destined for the United States.
The export ban would have been particularly tough on small businesses.
An analysis by Dun & Bradstreet in November, cited in the Gazette, found that 82 per cent of the companies that retained the ability to manufacture and had access to the export market were small businesses with fewer than 100 employees or less than $5million in annual gross revenues.
This article was written by Devin Stevens and was published in the Globe & Mail on December 23, 2025.
The Nova Scotia government says it’s ready for companies to start exploring for onshore natural gas, with the province saying it may take ownership stakes in drilling projects to potentially give taxpayers a share of the profits.
During a news conference Monday, officials said the government has tapped Dalhousie University to administer a program in which the school’s researchers and the private sector will study the estimated 198 billion cubic metres of onshore natural gas in the province.
The $30-million investment program will see the region’s largest university issue a call for exploration proposals in the first quarter of 2026. Companies, however, will still need regulatory approval from the Department of Energy before any drilling can begin, officials said.
“We’re ranked 59th out of 60 in [gross domestic product] across North America and we want to improve that,” Karen Doane, the province’s executive director of energy resource development, told reporters.
“We want the lives of Nova Scotians to improve. So we’re excited to use our own resources.”
The program will offer financial incentives to companies as they explore natural gas reserves with a commitment to share their findings with researchers. All the data will be part of a public research paper to be published before the end of 2026.
Operators will be able to apply for up to 100-per-cent reimbursement of their exploration expenses. Officials say the government may negotiate so that money becomes an equity investment, or it may sign royalty agreements. Either way, they say any government income will “disproportionately” be reinvested into local communities.
Taking ownership in a resource company is not unheard of in Canada. Ms. Doane pointed to Newfoundland and Labrador’s provincially owned OilCo, which retains percentages of the Hibernia, Hebron and White Rose offshore oil projects, as one such example.
Officials say any wells that don’t produce natural gas could be assessed for other uses such as geothermal energy or research and development on carbon capture and storage.
About 64 per cent of the Nova Scotian onshore reserves outlined in a 2017 government report are made up of shale gas, the kind usually requiring fracking to extract in commercial quantities. About 20 per cent of Nova Scotia’s reserves are coal bed methane with the rest conventional natural gas.
The Progressive Conservative government lifted a decade-long embargo on fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, in March but Ms. Doane said that doesn’t mean the companies involved will necessarily use the technique opposed by environmentalists and First Nations.
“So just because you drill an onshore petroleum well, doesn’t necessarily mean you have to use hydraulic fracturing technology. You don’t know that until you actually drill a well,” she said.
In lifting the fracking ban, Premier Tim Houston had said the province needed to exploit its natural gas and other resources to better withstand economic challenges from the United States, including President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Mr. Houston has since named himself Energy Minister but was not at Monday’s announcement.
When the ban was lifted, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs called out the Premier for a lack of consultation and have said they may seek a legal injunction.
As part of the new program, Dalhousie will be tasked with setting up an oversight committee composed of academics, the public, government, the private sector and First Nations. The school’s acting vice-president of research and innovation, Graham Gagnon, said it has yet to reach out to the Mi’kmaq. He noted that the outreach will be handled by John Sylliboy, Dalhousie’s first vice-provost of Indigenous relations, a position created earlier this year.
Nova Scotia has had mixed results on resource development since the government made it a priority after the last election. The private sector has shown some interest in wind and hydrogen development but when the province lifted a ban on uranium mining earlier this year, no companies responded to a call for proposals.
The Sable and Deep Panuke offshore gas projects generated billions of dollars in royalties for the province but were shut down in 2018 after 25 years of exploration and development. There’s been little interest from the private sector in the province’s offshore sector since. The government issued a new call for proposals in the summer, which closes in April.
There’s about 90 billion cubic metres of gas confirmed to exist on the Scotian shelf and a potential for more than 10-times that amount, the province says.
About 64 per cent of the Nova Scotian onshore reserves outlined in a 2017 government report are made up of shale gas, the kind usually requiring fracking to extract in commercial quantities. About 20 per cent of Nova Scotia’s reserves are coal bed methane with the rest conventional natural gas.
This article was written by the Canadian Press and was published in the Toronto Star on December 21, 2025.
HALIFAX Tens of thousands of people were without power across Atlantic Canada on Saturday after a storm with high winds pummelled the region.
Nova Scotia’s largest utility said in a statement its crews have been working through challenging conditions to restore power as winds reaching up to110 km/h hit much of the province, causing damage Friday evening and into the early hours of Saturday.
Nova Scotia Power said hurricaneforce wind gusts hit 120 km/h in parts of Cape Breton.
Pam ScullyPoirier, the utility’s storm lead, said more than 600 people were working in the field, with hundreds more behind the scenes to restore power. As of 8 a.m. Saturday, about 186,000 customers were in the dark. That number dropped to about 37,000 by 3:30 p.m. and was down to just over 11,000 by Saturday evening.
“We want our customers to know we are doing everything we can to get their power back on. Along with our crews in the field, we’ll also be using a helicopter to patrol power lines in different parts of the province today to look for damage,” ScullyPoirier said in the statement.
In New Brunswick, more than 17,500 NB Power customers were without electricity by Saturday night, down from 54,000 earlier in the day.
In Newfoundland, the major utility reported more than 500 people were still in the dark by late Saturday, down from 5,000.
In Prince Edward Island, Maritime Electric said the number of customers without power dropped from 1,200 to 150 by 3:30 p.m. and was down to seven by 9:30 p.m.
Environment Canada had issued weather warnings in all four provinces on Friday, saying winds up to 100 km/h could hit Newfoundland and New Brunswick’s Fundy shore.
Environment Canada had issued weather warnings in all four provinces on Friday, saying winds up to 100 km/h could hit Newfoundland and New Brunswick
The prime minister’s political journey from climate `visionary’ to pipeline promoter
This article was written by Allan Woods and was published in the Toronto Star on December 21, 2025.
When Mark Carney arrived on the Canadian political stage, Richard Brooks’s colleagues sought out his professional opinion.
Would they be dealing in the Liberal prime minister with a friend of the environment or a foe?
Brooks, the head of climate finance with Canadian advocacy group Stand.Earth, has followed Carney’s meteoric rise over the past decade from staid central bank governor to global climate guru to the Prime Minister’s Office.
“I regret it now,” he recalled in an interview, “but I said at the time, `If there’s one person that an environmentalist or a climate activist would choose to be the head of (government), who understands climate issues … Mark Carney would be at the top of the list.”
Carney had an intimate understanding of how economies work, having served as governor of the Bank of Canada during the 2008 financial crisis, then as governor of the Bank of England during Brexit.
He went on to serve as the United Nations special envoy for climate action and finance, and convinced some of the world’s largest financial companies to endorse a carbonneutral world by 2050 under the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.
To Brooks’s mind, Carney knew about market forces and was a true believer in the need to move away from fossil fuels and toward lowemission energy sources.
“My opinion was based on his historical record and what he had said previously,” Brooks said. “The truth is that I think his values have always been about being a banker first and foremost, and an investment banker in particular, and those values have been about making money.”
That word— “values” — is an important one, and not just because it was the title of Carney’s 2021 book about “a common crisis in values and (the) radical changes … required to build an economy that works for all.”
Carney has built a reputation over the past decade as the ultimate ethical banker, one able to marry economic and environmental interests in the service of stopping global warming.
In 2015, he was hailed as a visionary when he warned of the looming climate “tragedy” and the urgent need to drive the banking, investment and insurance sectors toward activities that would save the planet rather than ravage it.
In 2025, he squandered some of that good faith in striking a deal that conditionally backs increased oil production, weaker regulations and a controversial pipeline that would take petroleum from the Alberta oilsands to the west coast for Asian markets.
The memorandum of understanding with the Alberta government is premised upon development of the Pathways carbon capture and storage program, which would pipe harmful greenhouse gas emissions underground.
Carney made the announcement in Calgary along with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, declaring, “This is Canada working.”
The agreement maintains the ultimate commitment to making Canada carbon neutral by 2050. But it prompted the resignation from cabinet of Steven Guilbeault, a veteran climate activist. The Montreal MP warned that the deal could increase emissions and was part of a larger dismantling of Canada’s existing climate change plan.
The Prime Minister’s Office did not respond to requests for comment on this article.
Carney said in a yearend interview with RadioCanada that his differences with Guilbeault were not about need to cut emissions, but about how to do so. His approach is based not on regulations and restrictions but on attracting investment in technologies like carbon capture and storage while boosting the use of nuclear power and renewable energy.
“I have dedicated most of my career to environmental issues,” he told RadioCanada. “I know how we can reduce greenhouse gases and what investments will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gases.”
It was a “trust me” response to an issue on which there is little good faith.
Ahead of the Alberta deal, Carney secured the support of Green Party Leader Elizabeth May for his first budget with the the promise that enhanced oil recovery activities — pumping gases underground to retrieve additional oil — would not be eligible for a federal tax credit.
Then he promised Alberta the exact opposite.
“The prime minister’s word doesn’t mean much, even to him,” May told the CBC.
There is a charitable view that sees Carney as adapting to unexpected challenges and realities of Canadian politics.
He leads a minority government in the House of Commons. He leads a fractious federation in which provincial demands and threats are the common currency. He’s trying to steer a national economy through the economic minefield of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs.
But Carney himself has been something of a Net Zero zealot, with little sympathy for those making excuses to defer climate action.
In 2022, he said the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which caused energy prices to spike across Europe, was no reason to delay or abandon emissionreduction efforts. Continued global warming would entail “future costs that will dwarf current hardships,” he said.
“We know the climate doesn’t care why emissions happen, only how much occur. The more we emit now, the more radical action will be needed later. We need to speed up, not slow down.”
A year later, in 2023, U.K. prime minister Rishi Sunak said he was putting off emissions reduction measures, including pushing back an electric vehicles mandate by five years, because the impact on the population would be too high in a costofliving crisis.
Carney said the decision was “disappointing and mistaken,” and would muddle the signals to markets and investors who are looking to do business in cleanenergy countries.
Carney’s international climate prominence and credibility came from the lofty pulpit from which he pronounced. Rarely had such a key
We know the climate doesn’t care why emissions happen, only how much occur. The more we emit now, the more radical action will be needed later. We need to speed up, not slow down.
MARK CARNEY IN 2022 AFTER RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE
player in the riskaverse global economy been so willing to stick their neck out on environmental matters.
What propelled him was the 2015 Paris Accord and the global push to achieve carbon neutrality (dubbed “net zero”) by 2050.
His first real act of climate advocacy was a 2015 speech as governor of the Bank of England, in which he pushed for a public accounting of the climate risks to which financial institutions were exposed so that they could then be factored into business and investing decisions.
It was Carney’s “Field of Dreams” theory: publicly identify lowemission investments and the selfinterested investors would surely come.
It was “groundbreaking stuff,” said Charlie Kronick of Greenpeace U.K., calling Carney a “visionary” compared to his central banker colleagues and predecessors.
As a government appointee, he could only make recommendations, not law. But he did act where he could, introducing in 2019 climate stress tests for regulated British financial institutions.
“Firms that align their business models to the transition to a netzero world will be rewarded handsomely. Those that fail to adapt will cease to exist,” he warned in a speech at the time.
A few months later, Carney was named the UN special envoy for climate action and finance, a sign of his growing influence and appreciation.
The stress testing was an important initiative that was widely copied in other countries, said University of Oxford’s Ben Caldecott, director of the Oxford Sustainable Finance Group.
“That actually did a lot of work in terms of getting big institutions to do things differently and to lay the foundations for an analytics industry, I suppose, in this area that has become very helpful,” Caldecott said.
After his Bank of England term ended, Carney became an adviser to U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson ahead of the 2021 climate change summit in Glasgow. The sentiment at that global meeting was perhaps best summed up by the late Queen Elizabeth II, who was overheard complaining of world leaders, “It’s very irritating when they talk but they don’t do.”
But one source of hope was the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), a group of financial institutions that had pledged to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Carney was the alliance’s chair.
He earned a splashy headline at the Glasgow climate conference with a news release stating that “$130 trillion of private capital is committed to transitioning the economy for net zero.”
The initial excitement and adulation turned to egg on Carney’s face when he was forced to admit that the enormous sum he cited was the value of the assets the companies in his coalition controlled, not the amount they were committing to the creation of a cooler planet.
In fact, hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in fossil fuel industries.
“That didn’t come from anyone but him,” said Caldecott, who helped organize the Glasgow summit. “That was his line. That’s what he wanted to communicate, despite advice to the contrary and, you know, that was very misleading and set expectations at an incredibly high level.”
Ultimately, academic analysis of Carney’s push to have financial institutions disclose their climate risks showed that it largely failed to drive investment away from carbonintensive activities.
Brooks recalled a testy conference call at the Glasgow climate summit in which Carney confronted those who were criticizing GFANZ for not having set stricter conditions for membership.
“What I recall from that conversation was this level of arrogance that his way was the right way,” Brooks said.
He said Carney argued the greater the number of financial institutions making the netzero pledge, “the greater the chance that the waters will rise all boats.”
“What we ended up seeing in the end is many of the bigger financial institutions who were heavily investing or financing fossil fuels … were basically pulling the plug out of the bathtub and lowering the water.”
Trump’s reelection as U.S. president prompted American banks to flee the netzero alliance. Canadian banks soon followed. Carney himself resigned his various leadership positions when he entered federal politics in early 2025 with a pledge to scrap prime minister Justin Trudeau’s controversial carbon tax.
In October, the remaining members of the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a GFANZ subsidiary Carney had hailed in 2021 as “the breakthrough in mainstreaming climate finance the world needs,” voted to disband.
Now, the man who warned about the climate tragedy lurking on the horizon, has some contemplating a different sort of tragedy, one of unrealized promise, of a true believer potentially tainted by realpolitik.
How to reconcile the Carney who, in a 2020 speech, pitched the lowcarbon economic transition as “the greatest commercial opportunity of our time” with the one doubling down on the Alberta oilsands, backing pipelines, scrapping clean electricity regulations and promising fossil fuel subsidies?
“It’s hard to know the realities of government and doing those sorts of jobs. I do have sympathy for the need to make compromises sometimes,” said Caldecott. “He’s still early in his premiership. Can he turn things around? I hope he can. We all hope he can.”
My Climate Change Website 