In a September 23 address to business leaders in Saskatchewan, Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem delivered a candid assessment of Canada’s trade strategy, arguing the country has waited too long to reduce its economic reliance on the United States. He noted that while calls for diversification followed the 2008–09 financial crisis, meaningful progress stalled — and Canada is now facing the consequences.

Global Shifts Demand Urgent Action

Macklem emphasized that rising protectionism, disrupted supply chains, and shifting global trade dynamics make diversification more urgent than ever. Without decisive action, he warned, Canada risks falling behind in its ability to withstand economic shocks and sustain long-term growth.

Tariffs and Export Declines Highlight Vulnerability

Recent U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, and softwood lumber have exposed Canada’s trade fragility. Macklem also pointed to China’s restrictions on Canadian canola, which have hit Saskatchewan particularly hard. In Q2 2025, Canadian exports dropped sharply, contributing to a decline in real GDP and early signs of labour market weakness — all underscoring Canada’s deep exposure to U.S. demand.

Even when trade agreements soften the impact of tariffs, Macklem noted, the broader effect of protectionist sentiment has already disrupted trade flows and investor confidence.

Structural Barriers to Diversification

While the U.S. will remain Canada’s primary trading partner, Macklem stressed that expanding trade beyond it requires more than signing new deals. Internal hurdles — including interprovincial trade barriers, inconsistent regulations, infrastructure bottlenecks, and slow approval processes — continue to limit Canada’s ability to capitalize on its agreements with over 50 other countries.

He called for targeted reforms: improving east-west transportation corridors, expanding port capacity, harmonizing provincial rules (especially around professional credentials), and streamlining regulatory approvals.

Canada’s Trade Exposure by the Numbers

• Canada ranks among the most U.S.-dependent economies in the OECD.
• Key exports include energy, vehicles, machinery, metals, and forestry products.
• Trade shocks from tariffs and supply-chain disruptions have repeatedly exposed the risks of overreliance.
• Currency fluctuations and U.S. policy shifts continue to shape Canada’s economic trajectory.

Policy Response and the Road Ahead

The federal government has launched a multi-billion dollar initiative to help Canadian firms enter new markets and mitigate the impact of U.S. tariffs. But Macklem made clear that monetary policy alone won’t fix the structural vulnerabilities. Interest rate cuts may cushion short-term pain, but long-term resilience depends on deeper reforms.

“We should have been making these changes 15 years ago,” Macklem said. “But the next best time is now.”

Side-by-side: export diversification — Canada vs. three peers

The Liberal government’s proposed legislation, Bill C-2 — formally titled An Act Respecting Certain Measures Relating to the Security of the Border — is drawing sharp criticism from opposition MPs and civil liberties groups. At the heart of the controversy are provisions that would allow inspectors to open suspicious mail and examine outgoing containers without a warrant.

Points of Contention

• The bill seeks to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, expanding the authority of inspectors to open flagged mail and inspect packages deemed potentially dangerous.
• Opponents argue the move infringes on privacy rights and may violate protections against unreasonable search under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Conservative MPs have condemned the proposal as overly broad, calling it an “assault on all Canadians” and demanding that such powers be subject to judicial oversight.

Government’s Position

• Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has defended the legislation, citing national security concerns and the need to intercept illegal goods before they cross borders.
• Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux dismissed the backlash as “fearmongering,” suggesting critics are overstating the bill’s implications.

Context and Justification

• Under current law, mail cannot be opened without judicial authorization.
• Advocates for stronger postal and border security point to rising incidents of drug trafficking through mail, particularly affecting First Nations and northern communities. A 2022 Canada Post report highlighted that a significant portion of intercepted illicit substances were bound for these regions.

What’s at Stake

• If enacted, Bill C-2 would recalibrate the balance between privacy and security, granting broader inspection powers with reduced oversight.
• The debate touches on fundamental questions about government authority, citizen rights, and the acceptable limits of surveillance in the name of public safety.

What Legal Experts and Civil Liberties Advocates Are Saying

Charter Concerns: Section 8 in Focus

Legal analysts widely agree that Bill C-2’s provisions likely engage Section 8 of the Charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Expanding powers to open mail — including personal letters — and access data from service providers without a warrant is seen as a direct challenge to Canadians’ reasonable expectation of privacy.

Risk of Judicial Rejection

Privacy scholars warn that the bill’s language is overly broad and lacks sufficient safeguards. By lowering the threshold for searches and granting vague, discretionary powers, the legislation may fail the Section 1 test — which requires that Charter violations be minimally impairing and clearly justified. Several experts argue the bill’s wording could enable routine warrantless intrusions, increasing the likelihood of it being struck down in court.

Legal Precedents Signal Trouble

Recent case law has shown courts becoming less tolerant of warrantless searches, especially involving digital devices and personal data. Legal commentators point to these rulings as evidence that judges will scrutinize Bill C-2 closely and may invalidate parts of it if adequate safeguards are not in place.

Surveillance Ecosystem Expansion

Civil liberties organizations — including Citizen Lab, OpenMedia, and other advocacy groups — argue that the bill goes beyond mail inspection. They warn that Part 14 and related sections could establish legal pathways for the government to demand data from private entities without judicial oversight, effectively expanding state surveillance powers beyond traditional Section 8 limits.

Government’s Justification

The federal government maintains that the proposed powers are essential for national security and border enforcement, particularly in combatting organized crime and fentanyl trafficking. Officials emphasize that the bill includes oversight mechanisms and procedural limits. However, legal experts caution that any Charter challenge will hinge on whether those safeguards are sufficiently robust and clearly defined.

How Courts Are Likely to Assess Bill C-2

Section 8 — Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Courts will first ask whether the item being searched — such as letters, packages, or digital records — carries a reasonable expectation of privacy. If so, any search must be legally authorized and conducted in a reasonable manner.

Section 1 — Justification of Infringement If a Section 8 breach is found, the government must justify it under Section 1 of the Charter. This involves proving a pressing and substantial objective, and passing the proportionality test: a rational connection to the goal, minimal impairment of rights, and a balance between benefits and harms. Legal experts are skeptical that Bill C-2, as currently drafted, meets the minimal impairment and proportionality standards for its broadest powers.

Legal and Political Fallout of Bill C-2

Charter Challenge Expected

Legal experts and civil liberties organizations anticipate that Bill C-2 will face a constitutional challenge if enacted. The bill’s warrantless search provisions are likely to trigger litigation under Section 8 of the Charter, with privacy advocates preparing to contest its legality.

Partial Invalidation Likely

Commentators suggest that courts may strike down or sever the bill’s broadest powers while preserving narrower, well-defined provisions. If certain elements are found to lack sufficient safeguards, judges could invalidate them while allowing more targeted border-security measures to stand.

Pressure for Legislative Amendments

Political and regulatory scrutiny is expected to intensify. Observers foresee Parliamentary debate and calls for amendments that introduce clearer thresholds, independent oversight, mandatory reporting, and judicial authorization in sensitive cases. These changes may be necessary to ensure the bill withstands legal review and public scrutiny.

Crown Corporations Hand Out $190 Million in Bonuses Amid Fiscal Scrutiny

Newly released government records reveal that Canada’s Crown corporations awarded more than $190 million in bonuses to executives and staff during the 2024–25 fiscal year.

Notable Payouts:

• The Business Development Bank of Canada topped the list, distributing over $60 million in bonuses. Reports indicate that every executive received a payout, averaging $216,000 each.
• Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) followed with approximately $30.6 million in bonuses. Nearly 99% of executives were recipients, with average bonuses around $42,900.
• Despite posting $385 million in operating losses, VIA Rail paid out $11 million in executive bonuses.
• The Canada Infrastructure Bank issued $8.6 million in bonuses, with 83% of executives receiving an average of $197,000.

Other Crown entities, including Canada Post and the National Capital Commission, declined to share bonus figures, stating they had “nothing to report”.

Between 2015 and 2023, federal departments and agencies collectively distributed over $1.5 billion in bonuses — often despite falling short of performance targets.

Critics argue that these payouts place an undue burden on taxpayers, especially as Canada’s national debt continues to climb. Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation criticized the practice, saying bonuses “shouldn’t be handed out like participation trophies” and called for an end to rewarding underperformance with public funds.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Mark Carney has instructed Crown corporations to identify spending reductions of up to 15% by 2028, prompting calls for bonus programs to be among the first areas considered for cuts.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree is facing mounting criticism following the release of a leaked audio recording that appears to reveal his personal misgivings about the federal gun buyback initiative.

The recording, allegedly captured by a tenant residing in a property owned by the minister, features Anandasangaree expressing skepticism about whether local police forces are equipped to implement the program effectively. He also alludes to political pressure from Quebec as a driving force behind the policy, implying that the Liberal government is pushing forward to honor a campaign commitment.

In a moment of levity, the minister reportedly jokes that he would help bail out the tenant if they were arrested for intentionally flouting the rules.

Tracey Wilson of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights said that Anandasangaree willingly engaged in a ten-minute conversation about the program, during which he acknowledged its flaws. According to Wilson, the minister even suggested that, given the chance to start over, he might abandon the initiative altogether and instead focus on cracking down on illegal firearms.

The buyback plan has long been a target of criticism, particularly from Conservative voices who argue that it unfairly penalizes responsible gun owners while failing to address the root problem of criminal gun activity.

1. Credibility Crisis for the Gun Buyback Program

• The minister’s apparent doubts about the feasibility and enforcement of the buyback initiative undermine the government’s public messaging.

• If a senior cabinet member privately questions the program’s effectiveness, it raises concerns about internal coherence and policy integrity.

• This could embolden critics who argue the program is more symbolic than practical.

2. Fuel for Opposition Attacks

• Conservatives have long framed the buyback as a “gun grab” that punishes lawful gun owners. This leak hands them fresh ammunition.

• Expect intensified scrutiny in Question Period and campaign messaging, especially in rural and suburban ridings where firearm ownership is more common.

3. Quebec’s Influence and Regional Tensions

• The minister’s reference to Quebec’s political pressure could stir resentment in other provinces, especially those already skeptical of federal overreach.

• It may also revive debates about regional favoritism and the role of Quebec in shaping national policy.

4. Impact on Liberal Cohesion and Messaging

• If more internal dissent surfaces, it could fracture the party’s unity on gun control — a key plank in their public safety agenda.

• The Liberals may need to recalibrate their messaging or risk appearing out of touch with both their own ministers and the broader public.

5. Trust and Transparency Concerns

• The casual tone of the minister’s remarks — including the joke about bailing out someone who breaks the law — could be seen as flippant or dismissive.

• This risks eroding public trust in the seriousness with which the government approaches firearms policy and law enforcement.

6. Strategic Reassessment Ahead of the Next Election

• With the next federal election on the horizon, the Liberals may be forced to reconsider the buyback’s political cost.

• If internal polling shows the issue is alienating swing voters or energizing opposition bases, they might pivot toward more targeted anti-crime measures.

Similarities

1. Liberal Party Sponsorship

• Both initiatives were introduced by Liberal governments as part of broader gun control efforts.

• Each was framed as a public safety measure aimed at reducing gun violence.

2. Controversial Reception

• Both policies sparked intense backlash, especially from rural communities, firearm owners, and Conservative politicians.

• Critics argued that the measures targeted law-abiding citizens rather than criminals using illegal firearms.

3. Enforcement Challenges

• The long gun registry faced logistical hurdles in registering millions of firearms.

• The buyback program now faces similar concerns about enforcement, especially at the municipal level, as highlighted in the leaked audio involving Minister Anandasangaree.

4. Regional Tensions

• The registry was seen as disproportionately affecting Western and rural provinces.

• The buyback program has also stirred regional sensitivities, particularly with Quebec’s influence being cited as a driving factor.

Differences

Political Lessons and Legacy

• The long gun registry became a political liability for the Liberals, especially in Western Canada, and contributed to the rise of populist opposition movements like the Reform Party.

• The current buyback program risks repeating history if it’s perceived as ineffective, costly, or politically motivated — particularly given the leaked audio suggesting internal doubts and regional pressure.

Jean Chrétien’s Long Gun Registry (1995–2012)

• 1995: Bill C-68 passes, creating the Firearms Act and mandating registration of all firearms, including non-restricted long guns.

• 1996–2002: Implementation struggles with cost overruns, technical issues, and resistance from gun owners.

• 2002: Auditor General reports the registry cost nearly $1 billion — far above initial estimates.

• 2006: Stephen Harper’s Conservative government begins dismantling the registry.

• 2012: Registry officially scrapped for non-restricted firearms; data deleted (except in Quebec, where legal battles ensue).

Trudeau-Carney’s Gun Buyback Program (2020–Present)

• May 2020: Following the Nova Scotia mass shooting, the Liberals announce a ban on over 1,500 models of “assault-style” firearms.

• 2021: Buyback program announced to compensate owners for turning in banned firearms.

• 2022–2024: Delays in rollout; questions arise about logistics, costs, and enforcement.

• 2025: Leaked audio from Minister Anandasangaree reveals internal doubts, reigniting debate.

Public Opinion: Then vs. Now

What’s Changed?

• Technology & Transparency: Today’s digital landscape means leaks (like the Anandasangaree audio) spread instantly, amplifying backlash.

• Framing: The registry was seen as bureaucratic; the buyback is framed as moral and reactive to tragedy — but both face accusations of symbolism over substance.

• Political Landscape: The rise of populist and regional parties has made gun control a wedge issue, especially in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Today’s deep dive into the leaked audio involving Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree revealed more than just a moment of political vulnerability — it opened a window into the broader tensions surrounding the Liberal government’s gun buyback program. The minister’s candid remarks, captured by a tenant, cast doubt on the program’s enforceability and hinted at regional political pressures, particularly from Quebec. These revelations have intensified criticism from Conservative voices and reignited debates about the program’s legitimacy and effectiveness.

We then examined the political implications of this controversy, highlighting how it threatens the Liberals’ credibility, fuels opposition attacks, and risks alienating key voter blocs. The buyback’s resemblance to the Jean Chrétien-era long gun registry — another Liberal-led initiative that faced fierce backlash — underscores the cyclical nature of gun control politics in Canada. Both policies were framed as public safety measures but struggled with cost, enforcement, and public trust.

By comparing timelines and shifts in public opinion, we saw how gun control has evolved from a bureaucratic registry to a reactive ban-and-buyback model. Yet the core challenge remains: balancing safety with fairness, and symbolism with substance.

As the next election looms, the Liberals face a familiar crossroads — whether to double down on a controversial policy or pivot toward more targeted, pragmatic solutions. The echoes of past missteps are loud, and the political stakes are high.

Ninety-six executives from Canada’s oil and gas sector have signed an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, urging the federal government to take stronger action to support resource development. The letter, titled “Build Canada Now”, argues that regulatory and fiscal barriers are discouraging investment and preventing the industry from reaching its full potential.

The signatories, which include senior leaders from companies such as Suncor Energy and Enbridge, say that while recent steps like the creation of a Major Projects Office and an Indigenous advisory council are positive, they fall short of what is needed to ensure long-term growth.

Main concerns raised by the industry

• Regulatory hurdles: The letter points to measures such as the Impact Assessment Act, proposed emissions caps, and tanker restrictions as creating uncertainty and delays for major projects.

• Investment climate: Executives argue that Canada lacks clear and competitive policies compared to other jurisdictions, which makes it harder to attract and retain investment.

• Economic opportunity: The industry maintains that oil and natural gas development could create jobs and generate significant economic activity, but only if conditions are improved.

Proposals in the open letter

The group is calling for:

1. Simplified and more predictable project approval processes.
2. Clear timelines for regulatory decisions.
3. Reconsideration of policies that restrict operations, such as unlegislated emissions caps.
4. A more competitive fiscal framework, including changes to how carbon costs are applied to major emitters.
5. Greater roles for provinces and stronger opportunities for Indigenous communities to participate as partners in projects.

Broader implications

The executives warn that without prompt action, Canada could miss what they describe as a “generational opportunity” to strengthen its economy and support global energy needs. They argue that delays and regulatory uncertainty risk driving away investment and reducing Canada’s competitiveness.

The letter concludes by stating that industry leaders are ready to work with the federal government, provinces, and Indigenous communities to build a more reliable framework for resource development.

Ever wonder why your streaming bills keep going up? If your first thought is something along the lines of “greedy corporations”, you may be missing something.

Parliamentary records show that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has spent more than $15 million so far implementing the federal Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11).

Of that amount, $11.9 million went toward salaries and $3.3 million covered operational costs. Roughly $9 million was spent in the 2024-25 fiscal year alone. Looking ahead, the regulator estimates it will require about $9.7 million annually to sustain the program.

To cover these costs, the CRTC has invoiced streaming services $19.9 million for 2024-25, with collections projected to rise to $22.9 million in 2025-26. The Commission confirmed these revenues will be used to fund the regulatory system itself rather than directly supporting Canadian creators. Currently, 59 full-time employees are assigned to enforcing the law.

How do streaming services cover those additional costs? Have a look at your streaming bills from 2022 and compare it to today!

Bill C-11 expands the CRTC’s authority over online streaming platforms, requiring them to promote Canadian content and comply with new reporting and funding rules. Supporters argue this will ensure Canadian voices remain visible in an increasingly global digital marketplace.

Critics, however, warn the framework gives regulators significant influence over what content viewers see, while imposing compliance costs that could affect platform investment and consumer prices. Some legal experts have questioned whether the law addresses broadcasting challenges effectively, or whether it risks unintended consequences for free expression online.