Published by 
The increasing severity and frequency of climate change-related events in Canada and the resulting property-insurance issues are changing how homebuyers and real-estate developers look at land and buildings. It’s also a growing factor in how real-estate investment, development and urban-planning strategies are being reshaped from coast to coast.
While there are climate-risk insurance options available, the premiums are high and rising. Governments must therefore embark on a range of solutions – such as beefing up infrastructure, backstopping insurance plans or mitigating risk through better research and analysis.
The insurance-availability challenge is exacerbated because it’s often difficult for residential and commercial landlords to pass increased costs to tenants, who are already facing the high cost of living.
The interplay between the cost and availability of climate-related insurance is already influencing real-estate development decisions at the investment stage, with many previously viable projects now facing greater scrutiny for risk.
Adding to the problem is that many lenders, including Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), are taking a hard look at underwriting mortgages on floodplain properties. This means that even if developers have technical solutions to mitigate flood risks, it can be nearly impossible for homebuyers to secure a mortgage – effectively rendering the property unsellable.
In the past, builders could construct near floodplains if the homes had raised foundations, sump pumps and other technical solutions. Now, with insurance and mortgage options disappearing, along with a higher frequency of climate-related events, such developments are no longer viable.
Insurance companies are also refining their risk assessments, using advanced forecasting to predict climate-related disasters and areas of high risk. As a result, they are adjusting their coverage strategies by geography and property type. This is influencing investors to avoid high-risk areas and diversify their portfolios to minimize exposure.
One potential way forward is for real-estate owners to adopt a strategy known as the “hardening of assets.” The term originated in the world of cybersecurity, but in real estate it’s about incorporating climate-resilient elements in the design of built structures to protect physical assets and to lower insurance costs.
For example, some developers addressing climate-related flood risks by replacing impervious paved parking lots with permeable surfaces that allow water to soak into the ground, which improves drainage and reduces the risk of flooding.
In addition, mechanical systems are being elevated to protect them from potential water damage. Landscapes are being designed to better capture and manage stormwater runoff.
Major government infrastructure projects are also playing a role in mitigating climate risk.
The Don River realignment project in Toronto is a prime example of how cities can reduce flood exposure through large-scale environmental engineering. The river basin was re-naturalized – meaning the river’s flow was reshaped and restored to a more natural, meandering path that allowed the surrounding land to better absorb and manage floodwaters.
This was necessary to allow the possibility for the surrounding land to be developed given the high inherent risk of flooding in the area. By restoring the river’s natural dynamics and creating new wetlands and green space, the project reduced flood exposure and unlocked previously unusable land for safe and sustainable urban development.
From an infrastructure perspective, a lot of innovation can be introduced through flood-prediction models and material choices, which can lessen the impact when floods happen. An interesting model is Copenhagen’s climate parks, where urban green spaces are designed to absorb stormwater during heavy rainfalls to reduce the risk of flooding while also serving as vital community amenities.
These examples illustrate that private-sector innovation alone isn’t enough to solve the challenges. Government participation in strategic partnerships, adequate funding and smart policy direction are critical to creating sustainable long-term solutions.
One approach worthy of consideration is for governments at various levels to financially backstop insurance in high-risk areas to ensure that coverage remains available to property developers and owners.
This practice has been explored in parts of the U.S., where state-backed insurance programs provide much-needed stability in disaster-prone regions. However, there is a big financial risk for governments in the case of catastrophic events such as the recent Los Angeles wildfires.
Governments can also enforce stricter building codes, introduce tax incentives for climate-resilient developments and invest in sustainable public infrastructure. These interventions, coupled with environmental-management measures – stormwater-handling systems, flood barriers and drought-resistant landscaping – can all contribute to making cities more resilient.
Government policymakers also have a role to play in supporting R&D around climate-resilient building materials and techniques. Promoting the use of mass timber, low-carbon concrete and net-zero building practices can help reduce the environmental impact of new buildings while improving their durability in extreme weather.
In addition, financial incentives such as tax breaks for climate-adaptive buildings can go a long way toward encouraging developers to integrate climate-resilience measures at the earliest design stages.
Climate change is reshaping the way real-estate investment decisions are being made and insurance costs are now a critical determining factor in whether many projects will even move forward.
Developers, investors and governments must therefore work together to address the climate-driven challenges of designing and building resilient urban buildings and spaces that are sustainably livable, insurable and economically viable.
The author is a board member of the Association of Ontario Land Economists.
Recent elections would suggest Canada is increasingly integrating immigrants, visible minorities and others from diverse gender, social and religious backgrounds into the country’s political life. From 2015 to 2021, demographics and political realities combined for slow and steady increases in the number of these candidates and elected MPs.
This analysis looks at both contexts to assess whether the upward trend in diversity continued in the recent federal election, specifically for women, visible minorities, Indigenous Peoples, religious minorities and the LGBTQ community.
Table 1 shows the number of visible-minority candidates seeking office did again rise in 2025, no doubt reflecting the continued increase of diverse populations in urban Canada. On the other hand, there is an overall pattern of decline for two key groups: women (down 2.4 per cent) and Indigenous Peoples (down 0.9 per cent).
There also remain notable disparities in political participation among visible and religious minorities and immigrant groups. This reflects a variety of factors; for example, how they are concentrated in specific ridings, the proportion who become citizens, the influence of ethnic media, their historical voting patterns, degree of political participation and general political habits.
Table 2 looks at the number of candidates from major visible-minority groups along with the parties they ran for compared with the previous election in 2021. Group population percentages serve as benchmarks.
Between 2021 and 2025, participation of visible-minority candidates rose to 20.1 per cent from 18.2 per cent among all candidates from the six largest parties: the Liberals (LPC), Conservatives (CPC), New Democrats (NDP), Bloc Québécois (BQ), Greens (GPC) and the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). This increase was driven by significant increases in the Conservative and People’s parties. The majority of visible-minority candidates were men.
While there is a significant one-to-one relationship between visible minority and religious minority groups, there is nevertheless considerable religious diversity within South Asian, Black and Arab/West Asian groups. Table 3 breaks down candidate religious diversity by party. It also shows the overall participation of these groups in this election as compared with their share of the population in the 2021 federal census. Muslim candidates were over-represented among Liberals and the NDP, Sikhs among Conservatives and Hindus among Greens. Women formed the minority of all religious minority candidates.
Our analysis also shows that 33 candidates identified as Christian. These candidates were either faith leaders or stressed their Christian credentials. Thirteen were with the Conservatives, 11 with the People’s party, four with the NDP, three with the Greens and two for the Liberals.
Table 4 reveals that the decline in women candidates is reflected only slightly in the overall decrease in the number of women as MPs (down 0.2 per cent). This is not the case for Indigenous office-seekers, who had a lower percentage of candidates in 2025 (0.9 per cent) but increased their presence in the house slightly (by 0.2 per cent).
The continued increase in visible-minority candidates is seen in a larger number of visible minorities elected as MPs: 17.8 per cent in 2025 from 15.7 per cent in 2021. This was related to the efforts of the Conservative party to recruit more such candidates.
Table 5 compares visible-minority MPs by party and group. It shows, on balance, decreases among Liberals and increases among Conservatives across most groups. In general, Arab/West Asian representation increased the most, while the presence of Latin Americans and Filipinos decreased. There were no individuals of Korean or Japanese origin election. No visible-minority candidates running for the Bloc and Greens were elected. As for gender distinctions (not included in the table), women formed 35 per cent of all visible minorities elected compared with 30 per cent of all women who won seats.
Other analysis results not reflected in these tables show that only religious-minority candidates running for the Liberals and Conservatives were elected. Two-thirds were elected under the Liberal banner. Representation of women from religious minorities was slightly less overall than the percentage of successful women candidates.
The federal election campaign has pushed women to the sidelines
Minority representation in the House won’t improve without better data
More inclusive parliaments start with better workplace conditions
Eleven per cent of MPs elected were immigrants to Canada, a percentage that matches their share of all candidates.
There was a significant decline in LGBTQ candidates and MPs elected: 31 candidates and three elected in 2025 compared with 62 and six in 2021. The NDP had the largest number of candidates (6.8 per cent), followed by the Liberals and Greens (0.9 per cent) and the Conservatives (0.3 per cent.) No Bloc or PPC candidates self-identified as LGBTQ.
As noted earlier, women and Indigenous Peoples stalled out in their efforts to increase their representation in Parliament. There would appear to be a glass ceiling at around 30 per cent for women and four per cent for Indigenous Peoples. On the other hand, there does not appear to be a hard ceiling for visible minorities, whose elected numbers continue to reflect immigration and citizenship trends.
Visible-minority MPs at 17.8 per cent and Indigenous Peoples MPs at 3.4 per cent are relatively strongly represented when comparing Canada with the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. But that’s not true for women (30.3 per cent) when looking at Australia and the U.K.
In the U.S., women represent 28 per cent of Congress. Visible minorities make up 25 per cent and immigrants four per cent, even though they make up a much larger share of the general population. Less than one per cent of Congress members are Indigenous.
Mark Carney’s cabinet sends the wrong message on gender equality
We need to stop blaming women for their under-representation
In Australia’s 2022 election, 38 per cent of parliamentarians elected were women, 6.6 per cent were visible minorities, 4.8 per cent were Indigenous and 10 per cent were immigrants.
In the U.K., the 2024 election delivered 41 per cent women members to the House of Commons, 14 per cent visible minorities and about 10 per cent immigrants.
In summary, differences in political-party representation reflect dissimilarities in demographic trends (such as higher growth rates of visible minorities), overall election dynamics, political-party recruitment efforts, and the extent to which groups feel their concerns are reflected in political platforms and messaging.
Methodology: Candidate profiles and assessments are based upon candidate photos, names and bios, general web searches, and ethnic and other media that focused on particular groups (e.g., Indigenous, Muslim, South Asian etc.). In addition, ChatGPT name analysis was used for assessment of probable religious background as well as for historical election data for women and Indigenous Peoples along with previous election-diversity analysis by the authors and the Samara Centre for Democracy.
Donald Trump’s tariff threats took up much of Ontario residents’ attention during the federal election. But we shouldn’t lose sight of another problem where many challenges remain: health care.
The province faces severe understaffing that leads to longer wait times, while 2.5 million Ontarians are without a family physician and there is no clear direction in its fight against cancer.
Provinces release multi-year cancer plans to guide their work in prevention, treatment and care. A good plan is a roadmap. It talks about funding; describes what the province will emphasize and how it will measure changes; tells us who is responsible for keeping us on course; and describes how treatment and services can continue during a state of emergency.
However, the recently released and much-delayed Ontario cancer action plan 2024-28 is like reading a map without the big red YOU ARE HERE sticker.
The main problem is the lack of robust metrics, which means patients could be at risk and Ontarians don’t know if we are headed in the right direction in cancer care.
Scapegoating international medical students won’t solve Ontario’s health-care crisis
From boardrooms to beds: Can empty offices ease hospital overcrowding?
The government should prioritize the development of a comprehensive and transparent cancer action plan that includes specific, measurable goals and timelines. This plan should also establish clear accountability mechanisms to ensure that progress is tracked and reported regularly in a transparent manner.
For those of us who live with cancer, are caregivers, help patients, or do research and innovate for this disease, this plan should have given us clarity and confidence on the direction of cancer care in Ontario.
Instead, we have a 27-page document that is heavy on the successes of the last plan and light on outlining the specific commitments and measures that will define the next four years.
Structured with aspirational, nebulous goals, it lacks clear actions and performance metrics. It also leaves important questions: Where is the funding that will support these objectives? How will the government be held to account?
Yes, some mention is made of a robust measurement plan. Performance indicators are operating somewhere in the background, but no specific details are shared and it’s not made clear if they ever will be in a timely and transparent manner.
Instead, the plan commits to publicly reporting provincial results through Ontario Health’s annual report, through cancer screening performance reports and through the cancer system quality index. But some of the reports have not been updated since 2023 and feature even older data. This makes it challenging to determine even an appropriate baseline.
The current two-year Quebec cancer plan, constructed with input from health-care providers and patient groups, has key actions connected to goals – all of which rely on modernizing the data. This effort includes updating the Quebec cancer registry, which is crucial to monitoring progress on the plan and adjusting policy as that government moves forward.
Or consider British Columbia’s 10-year cancer plan released in February 2023. Little more than a year later, BC Cancer posted 20 metrics such as hiring 92 more cancer-care physicians and distributing almost 30,000 HPV self-screening kits for a first-in-Canada at-home program. These are clear metrics that track progress such as the number of new screenings, consultations and treatments.
Meanwhile, back in Ontario, the province’s plan lays out valuable, patient-centred goals but too often supports them with fuzzy commitments to “continue to build” and “work to strengthen” as key actions.
While still vague, the plan’s strategic objective to implement a streamlined approach for timely adoption of innovation and technology has our attention. This could help patients with faster access to innovative medicines.
Take the example of the biomarker test. It could take anywhere from 10 days to several weeks for the results. Delayed test results can delay diagnosis, which can then delay treatment, leading to a worse outcome.
The plan talks about access to diagnostics in its goal to create seamless and effective integration of cancer services. But it doesn’t go much deeper. It just says Ontario has made significant efforts to improve access to diagnostics and expedited follow-up. Where’s the metric? Much less the commitment?
Ontario has long been a leader in cancer care. It has the highest cancer-survival rate in the country. For the past two decades, multi-year provincial cancer plans have ably guided change in our system. Thousands more lives were saved each year by improving how we prevent, diagnose and treat cancer.
Cancer plans should be more than aspirational. They are the strategic framework that focuses our efforts. In a disease characterized by insidious uncertainty, a realistic cancer plan can provide Ontarians with a version of certainty, a sense that things can be better. Ontario should act now to fix the flaws in its current approach.
In response to Donald Trump’s trade war and annexation threats, Canadians are thirsty for new nation-building projects that can make us less economically reliant on the U.S.
One proposal that has been receiving attention is expanding interprovincial electricity transmission.
Proponents emphasize economic efficiencies from energy trade, and the technical benefits of coupling wind and solar production with “natural batteries” in large hydro reservoirs.
Taking lessons from history, past nation-building infrastructure projects of a similar sort came up short in many ways, notably by failing to develop diversified technology systems.
To better ensure success this time, complementary, regional renewable energy and energy demand innovations must be made a priority.
The transcontinental railway that linked east and west after Confederation protected Canada’s territorial integrity in reaction to American threats.
Yet, the project’s costs and the related national policy locked Canada into economic dependencies and failed to spur diversified industrial development.
Policymakers were more focused on building infrastructure than developing industrial research programs or education systems in new technologies and management techniques, as seen in Germany. Banks were more focused on financing resource extraction and large infrastructure than industrial development ventures.
Thus, Canada industrialized in a way that failed to foster domestic entrepreneurship and was dependent on American branch plants.
The pattern of big infrastructure pushes, in reaction to crises, failing to spur complementary development is recurrent in Canadian history.
Fast-forward more than a century and similar patterns continue to unfold.
In 2010, the provincial utilities in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador announced a plan to build an undersea transmission link connected to the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the political drive to build the dam and transmission project prevented an independent assessment of alternatives, such as energy efficiency. The dam project ran significant cost overruns. Customers faced potentially large rate increases.
Today, policymakers are so focused on managing rate increases that they are neglecting new development opportunities such as allowing utilities to reduce customer bills by switching from oil to electricity for heating and transportation.
How to mandate clean heat in our buildings
Canada needs to accelerate its transition to renewable energy
For a decade, Nova Scotia policymakers were over-dependent on the single megaproject to the detriment of domestic clean-energy solutions like energy efficiency and community-based renewables.
The Atlantic Loop, a proposed plan to bring hydroelectric power from Quebec to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, was eventually shelved. Only then was a greater focus placed on domestic energy demand management, storage, and renewables.
If the same policy dynamic is repeated, with cross-border megaprojects crowding out domestic clean-energy solutions for a decade, Canada will repeat its pattern of stifled technological development and fail to meet net-zero emission goals in time.
Transmission is only one component of a large technology system. To achieve a self-reliant and sustainable future it needs to be coupled with renewable energy and methods to shape demand and supply in real time.
Transition to sustainable energy introduces new technical challenges: electrifying home heating and vehicles could lead to spikes in demand during cold days or if everyone charges up their car at the same time.
Wind and solar energy generation rises and falls with the weather.
A flexible system that can ramp up and down would match renewable generation with demand and manage peaks. Transmission increases flexibility by connecting a wider diversity of energy resources across larger geographies.
Transmission needn’t work alone.
Adding solar generation can reduce the need to transmit electricity. Insulating buildings reduces electricity peaks.
In the same way, ratepayers and utilities can work together to pre-charge hot water tanks and pre-heat and pre-cool homes in advance of electricity peaks. Electric vehicles could charge when it makes the most sense for the grid.
Industrial operations can time large-scale energy demands to periods when renewables are plentiful and cheap.
Making energy demand more flexible and efficient means people and businesses that want to reduce their energy bills can even get compensated, improving both affordability and equity. In addition, homes and local communities can be protected from power outages.
(One example: Vermont is putting batteries in people’s homes instead of building transmission – the batteries balance supply and demand for the grid and can also be used by people if the power cuts out.)
Local renewable energy and demand-side flexibility resources can still face periods when they will generate more energy than they can use locally, or periods when local generators, energy efficiencies and storage can’t keep up with demand.
Concern about these demand-supply imbalances have led policymakers and utility managers to put the brakes on renewable-energy development or rely on non-renewable generators that use combustibles as back-up resources.
Interprovincial transmission and more local energy systems can complement one another. For instance, local grids could mostly balance hourly and daily ebbs and flows in demand and supply. Interprovincial transmission could manage seasonal differences by using wind and solar generation across the country to give time for hydroelectric reservoirs to fill up so they are ready for the winter heating season in a highly electrified future.
Policy choices will determine whether east-west-north electricity interconnections spur – or stifle – the development of multiple complementing clean technologies.
If transmission is given primacy as the favoured approach, it is more likely to crowd out other technologies and distract from solutions that are readily available. Conversely, policies that increase local renewable-energy development and electrification will show where transmission can be most effectively used to alleviate constraints that hold back local energy visions.
While building transmission takes years or decades, demand-side energy solutions can be deployed in months.
The creation of local, energy efficient “microgrids” across the country, capable of meeting their own energy needs most of the time is a national project to increase self-reliance that can start right now. Improving energy efficiency would better prepare for transmission by hedging against megaproject delays, easing peak demands that require electricity imports, and/or free up electricity for cross-border trading.
A national grid will be a successful accelerant for clean energy if it plugs into these microgrids with at-the-ready plans to use energy trade as a way to further accelerate local renewables and electrification.
If policymakers react to the current crisis by focusing solely on transmission megaprojects, they are likely to repeat a familiar Canadian pattern that will ultimately stifle technological development.
We don’t have to wait for transmission to improve energy self-reliance. A clean-energy superpower agenda should start by creating diverse local systems that will be complemented by a national grid.
We sure aren’t measuring car sales in the public service.
Growing up in Vancouver in the 1980s meant you knew at least one aspect of the reputation of Jim Pattison. Today, he is around the 200th richest person in the world with a net wealth of more than $9 billion. Back then, he was primarily a car dealer and his reputation was that he fired the lowest-performing salesperson on each of his lots every month.
Imagine even a smidgen of that managerial teeth in the federal public service.
Mel Cappe, a former clerk of the Privy Council, famously said it was “too hard to hire and too hard to fire in the public service.” He’s still right, but only on the latter count.
There are many reasons for that, including poor training for public-service managers, especially in dealing with problem employees; few incentives for employees to better their performance; few effective approaches to force underperforming employees to improve; and an overall lack of drive to reduce the size of the public service, though Mark Carney says he will cap it.
So, what to do?
Anybody can come up with ideas, but they have to be battle-tested in the real world of people and unions that properly protect their members. Sculpting is better than slashing to align priorities with labour allocation.
But more can be done across-the-board and it wouldn’t hurt the public service to take a one-per-cent employee haircut every four years, just based on performance. It would improve morale, increase productivity, lower the wage bill, increase public confidence in the public sector and underscore the importance of employees giving it day-in, day-out or facing real consequences.
Recently, I finished my Level 2 certification for coaching in the Ontario Basketball Association. It was more extensive than I anticipated, taking tens of hours of study to complete the many elements and volume of paperwork over a number of months. This also included an onsite evaluation of an extremely detailed practice plan – all to supervise a dozen 14-year-olds a few hours a week.
Earlier, I was an executive in the public service for more than 15 years, eventually overseeing a branch of about 90 people with an annual budget of $100 million. The leadership training I received was helpful, but it was more of a conceptual nature rather than the nuts and bolts of supervising employees, especially managing poor performers in a unionized environment.
Most public-service executives are familiar with the human-resource staff who help hire and reclassify as speedily as the process allows – and it has gotten speedier over the years.
However, it hasn’t changed much the other way. Even during the period of program review and the pressure to reduce the overall wage bill, the focus was on where the public service writ large was going and then making appropriate staffing adjustments. Smart thinking that, sculpting rather than everyone getting the same-percentage haircut.
The problem with taking action such as program sculpting only during cyclical times of restraint is that we don’t therefore undertake constant renewal by requiring good employee performance across-the-board on a permanent basis. Ongoing public-sector renewal should include regular pruning to address ongoing poor performance.
In all my federal government training, I was never given a course on how to demote or fire someone. It wasn’t easy, although I did it more than once. There is a general consensus about the importance of managing employee aspirations and performance. The whole point of a more directive managerial intervention is to get every employee to be a positive, contributing member of the team.
Many executives have never placed an employee on an “action plan” and often don’t want to deal with that. A public-service action plan is a serious step. Simply put, it’s a hassle, sometimes more than 15 pages with detailed expectations of the underperforming employee.
An action plan doesn’t cover only the work expectations of the position, but can include details such as when the employee shows up, when they leave and how long their breaks are. Then, the manager needs to supervise assiduously the expected work and behaviours in that plan.
This kind of micro daily oversight must go on for months and is oppressive for any manager who joined the public service to do something much different and more important. It’s not like you can just fire the lowest performer every month.
Could ‘mission government’ solve Ottawa’s delivery problems?
Who’s going to finally fix federal public service management?
Some public service executives ‘burned out’ by crisis management
It is also oppressive for the employee to be put under a microscope for months, especially since there is already a job description, a statement of merit criteria for their role and an annual performance assessment with midpoint check-ins.
The public service generally puts limits on how many employees achieve the highest level – “surpassed” – of performance on an annual basis. But there isn’t a similar quota for underperforming employees, although numerous such employees exist in many departments.
There are a plethora of reasons for managerial inaction. But in the end, they are only excuses for not taking action, which is an essential part of a manager’s job, unappealing as it may be.
There is no doubt that executives aren’t recognized sufficiently for employee management. That issue is glossed over and there’s an assumption that any group as a whole and the individuals in it are doing well if broader achievements are met. It’s hard to find a comparison between total and individual car sales and its counterpart in the public service.
Incentives for managerial action are lacking and that probably plays a role. However, managers know, too, that there are few things more undermining to a group than someone who isn’t pulling their weight, especially when it sets a poor example for newer members of the public service.
Poor performance can manifest itself in many ways, including someone who regularly arrives late, leaves early, takes breaks that are too long, is a constant negative presence, has others do their work, disappears for hours at a time or does not work at a level commensurate with their compensation level.
Think of all the opposites of a model employee and you will find them in both the private sector and the public service. But this behaviour isn’t tolerated in the private sector. There’s a bottom line to meet and others in the job market who could help achieve it if a given employee isn’t performing well.
The reasons why an employee isn’t performing well are innumerable: issues at home; with the group; with the manager; with mental health or burnout; disinterest in the work; not being the right fit, etc. Managers are supposed to be compassionate about these reasons and make appropriate accommodations within reason.
No one is suggesting an action plan for transitory issues of underperformance. We are talking about employees who haven’t sold a car in years and yet draw decent taxpayer-funded compensation and who undermine the productivity and morale of a whole team.
On the flip side, an employee should know the reason for their own poor productivity, when they are a poor fit for their current occupation and when they have the agency to change that.
If there’s one thing the federal government offers in plenty, it is the opportunity to work on so many different and interesting areas of public policy and programming. There just isn’t any comparison to the narrow job choices on a car lot.
The bottom line for public servants should be this: You’ve got to sell some cars or why are you there and why is the taxpayer paying you?
(Version française disponible ici)
The worrisome political developments in the United States should serve as a reminder to Canadians to be vigilant about the rule of law here and to care for the integrity of our own institutions.
The correctional system often escapes scrutiny because of its lack of openness and the unpopularity of incarcerated people. Prisoners are constantly reproached for not taking accountability for transgressions, yet the system itself is largely unaccountable.
In 2019, the federal government amended legislation to create a new accountability mechanism for the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) alongside other reforms. For the first time, there would be independent external decision-makers (IEDMs) with an oversight role for prisoners who are separated from others for safety and security reasons. The goal was to end solitary confinement.
Well-documented data shows this goal is far from having been met. Other issues with the implementation of IEDM oversight remain unknown to the public. There is a pressing need for a full and transparent review of this oversight structure – including the quality and impact of decisions and whether decision-makers have been able to do their job without undue obstacles or pressures.
At the same time as new oversight was introduced, what were formerly called “administrative segregation” units were rebranded “structured intervention units” (SIUs). The law now sets standards to ensure inmates in these units can spend time out of their cells and have meaningful human contact daily, including through programs and services.
IEDMs, appointed by the public safety minister, assess the adequacy of such opportunities in individual cases. They also examine whether prisoners can safely return to regular penitentiary populations. Apart from making recommendations, IEDMs are meant to have actual decision-making powers.
The reforms were supposed to ensure the federal correctional system respects constitutional and international standards. Courts in British Columbia and Ontario concluded that administrative segregation violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because conditions amounted to solitary confinement. The courts recognized that prolonged isolation severely harms mental health. It risks causing permanent damage and significant behavioural impacts.
Despite judicial recognition of the importance of external oversight, the government seems to have had little appetite to inform the public about the work of independent external decision-makers.
I was among the 12 people initially appointed. We were told not to share the news until after an official announcement. It was never made.
After some time, Public Safety Canada created a web page presenting a muddled overview of the role. Public Safety did not publish a 2023 report by senior IEDMs, which included information on operations and challenges. The government web page does not include summaries or examples of the thousands of decisions that have been issued. I released a sampling of redacted decisions to stakeholders, but it is not on the government site.
The use of solitary confinement continues in Canada
Solitary confinement continues in Canada under a different name
Written decisions by IEDMs provide insight into criteria analyzed, issues with the legislation, correctional service compliance with legal obligations, data reliability, operational issues in institutions, differences between decision-makers’ approaches and outcomes, and prisoners’ views. Privacy and security considerations limit what can be shared, but it is possible to responsibly provide meaningful information to the public.
Even a ministerial panel with an official reporting mandate had limited access to IEDM decisions. This lack of transparency means independent external decision-makers have themselves been essentially unaccountable.
The panel’s reports document significant failings, including excessive prisoner isolation and overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous people, as well as those with known mental-health issues, in the units. Its mandate has ended and has not been renewed.
In January, then-public safety minister David McGuinty said oversight would continue through the Office of the Correctional Investigator and independent external decision-makers. He didn’t mention that previous minister Dominic LeBlanc did not renew the contracts of certain IEDMs last fall (including mine). At the time, there were already positions that had long been vacant and IEDMs were overloaded.
The recent appointment of new individuals is a positive development but does not resolve all issues.
Public Safety would not share the criteria for reappointments. This raises questions about IEDM independence and the minister’s exercise of discretion. If external oversight was meant to overcome documented problems with institutional rubber-stamping, removing IEDMs who push CSC to provide evidence and improve its practices would be contrary to the intent of the 2019 reforms.
A lack of operational independence from the correctional service is another concern. IEDMs are paid as CSC contractors, have no budget and must request CSC authorization for travel to sites or meetings. Their email accounts are on the CSC network. Their administrative assistants are CSC employees. Most IEDM training has been CSC-led rather than independent.
IEDMs are vulnerable to interference and reprisals arising from institutional resistance to external oversight. An objective inquiry is needed to examine former and current external decision-makers’ experiences, and to determine whether those whose decisions were less favourable to CSC have been pushed out.
The legislation put in place in 2019 is arguably too complex and has gaps, inconsistencies and ambiguity. For example, it paradoxically encourages SIU inmates who want their case externally reviewed to self-isolate in their cell so as to trigger IEDM jurisdiction. In some situations, it requires an IEDM to order an inmate be removed from a unit regardless of security risks. By establishing special oversight and standards for CSC-designated units, the law creates a perverse incentive for CSC to avoid placing inmates in structured intervention units, while isolation continues elsewhere.
Significantly, the legislation does not require public transparency and there are no enforcement provisions. If CSC illegally withholds information from an IEDM – or ignores a legally binding decision without seeking judicial review – the agency faces no repercussions. The prisoner concerned does not get an adequate remedy.
These are real problems. A better approach would holistically address systemic issues, be suited for the context and ensure meaningful remedies.
The 2019 reforms should also be looked at because it is legally required. To comply with a deadline set in law, a comprehensive parliamentary committee review should already have started. But the law is unclear as to who is responsible for starting such a review, and it has not been done.
With a new minister of public safety, Gary Anandasangaree, sworn in, and Parliament returning, the time is ripe for the government to show leadership and to ensure the transformative goals of the reforms are actually achieved.
Reducing solitary confinement contributes to protecting incarcerated people’s human dignity, mental health and constitutional rights. It is good for public safety and supports rehabilitation. After all, most prisoners will return to the community.
The criminal justice system should truly promote the rule of law by ensuring our institutions are accountable and law-abiding. I recall a prisoner’s angry declaration during an interview: “You know what we learn in here? We learn that when you have power, you can do whatever you want.” That message is not one the correctional system, nor any public institution, should be sending.
(Version française disponible ici)
The U.K. Supreme Court handed down an important decision April 16 following an appeal by the group For Women Scotland. The dispute concerned a 2018 Scottish law aimed at ensuring gender-balanced representation on the boards of some public authorities in Scotland. The Court was asked to determine whether, under U.K. equality law, the legal definition of “woman” includes trans women who have obtained a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
The court’s answer: no.
According to the ruling, the term “woman” in this context refers only to a person of female biological sex. It thus reduces the scope of the GRC, a legal document attesting to the gender identity of trans people based on their felt gender rather than their biological sex.
This legal decision will have important ramifications, not only in the Scottish government’s public boards, but also in several spheres of activity where the GRC could be challenged (in sports, for example).
This isn’t the first time Scotland has seen a setback before a federal body on the rights of trans people. In 2023, the Conservative British government invalidated Scotland’s gender reform bill, a law tabled in 2022 by the Scottish National Party (Scotland’s pro-independence political vehicle) and adopted by a majority in the Scottish Parliament, with full democratic legitimacy.
This bill proposed recognition of gender identity from the age of 16. To invalidate the bill, the British government invoked Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998. This clause, which it had never used before, gives it the right to intervene in certain exceptional cases to overturn legislation. Trans communities thus found themselves at the heart of a political power play between two levels of government, where the discussion quickly veered towards issues of sovereignty.
This conflict raises the spectre of trans issues being used to restrict the autonomy of minority nations. The Scottish National Party emerged extremely weakened, to the point where Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was forced to resign. In an interview in the summer of 2024, she said her attempt to give more rights to trans communities had earned her more political criticism than the issue of Scottish sovereignty itself. The Scottish government has since dropped the bill.
The Supreme Court’s latest unanimous ruling on the definition of a woman was, in fact, the second U.K. intervention on a Scottish bill aimed at offering greater rights and recognition to its trans communities.
Several parallels can be drawn between Scotland and Quebec, and also with the rest of Canada. Like Scotland, Quebec operates in a federative political space that is not appealing to its entire population. Both Quebec and Scotland have political vehicles that push for leaving the federation through independence.
Proud of its progressive approach to LGBTQ+ communities, Quebec has, at times, dissociated itself from the “rest of Canada” on this issue. Yet trans issues have become, in the words of Sturgeon, “a battering ram” in politics. It’s an evocative way to underline the fact that trans issues are now being used to knock down gates once thought closed in political debates.
What can we learn from the power play we’re witnessing on the other side of the Atlantic? Two lessons can be drawn from the Scottish experience on judicial composition and the political cost of manipulating LGBTQ+ issues.
The first lesson from the Scottish experience is that the composition of superior courts within federations is important for LGBTQ+ issues. Historically, communities have advanced legally because of decisions handed down by the superior or supreme courts.
Recently, the Quebec government put forward a resolution demanding that the federal government consult the province before selecting superior court judges – a potential change that could have unpredictable consequences for LGBTQ+ cases.
Depending on the perspective of the party in power, judges chosen with provincial input could act as a bulwark against the erosion of LGBTQ+ rights, or as a catalyst for it.
The Scottish case shows how cases can be treated differently, depending on court composition, in a federation made up of several nations.
Quebec’s demand for input on judicial appointments coincided with a Superior Court decision to recognize children can have multiple parents. The judgment will force the Quebec government to reform its civil code to reflect the decision. It is the kind of decision that might have had a different result if Quebec had a say in Superior Court appointments.
Overall, in Canada, recent years have shown governments tend to turn against trans issues while courts often act to protect their rights. Hence the importance of having judicial bodies that are representative not only of national pluralities, but also of different ideological perspectives.
The U.K. case illustrates the effects of a predominantly conservative composition of the judiciary.
The second lesson is to beware using trans community issues for political ends, because the price can be high. The case of New Brunswick is a good illustration of this cautionary tale.
In 2023, the Progressive Conservative government, then led by Blaine Higgs, was sued for wanting to revise its own law (Policy 713) passed in 2020. The original policy aimed to better recognize the rights of trans children in schools by allowing them to choose the pronoun or first name of their choice. Higgs then wanted to add parental consent to this right, which was contested by human rights groups. This shift to the right contributed to the party’s defeat in the 2024 election, according to some observers.
Two other provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, are currently before the courts on similar “parental rights” issues. In Saskatchewan, the government is being sued for passing a law requiring parental consent if a child asks to be called by a different pronoun or given name at school. In Alberta, three bills, one of which prohibits doctors from providing certain treatments to trans young people under the age of 16, are also being challenged by LGBTQ+ rights groups.
It remains to be seen whether these provinces will learn from the New Brunswick precedent. Will they continue down this path, risking the same political setback, or will they instead seek to avoid a potentially lengthy and costly legal process?
The increasing judicialization of these policies suggests that the gamble of politicizing trans people’s rights carries real risks, which provincial governments should not underestimate.
While Canada can learn lessons from the U.K. with its similar political system, the two countries are, in some respects, in opposite situations. While Scotland is trying to advance the rights of trans communities, in Canada, it is two provinces trying to legislate “setbacks” for these communities.
While New Brunswick has demonstrated that it is electorally unprofitable to attack minorities, the Scottish case shows the reverse can also be true: there can be a political cost to advancing the rights of trans people when the central state is conservative. Conversely, when the state adopts a progressive stance on LGBTQ+ issues (as was the case under Justin Trudeau), some provinces seem to want to move away from it.
In short, the institutional arrangements of federations like Canada and the U.K. have significant effects on social issues – and their political manipulation – when power is contested between different levels of government. This is particularly true in multinational states.
Fortunately, geographic proximity to the democratic backsliding in the United States has had the effect of reaffirming Canadians’ belief in democracy and the rule of law. Hopefully the nations within the Canadian federation will unite to protect minorities rather than make them the target of a power struggle.
Women’s health is under attack. Shifting political priorities in the United States have led to the dismissal of thousands of National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff and threats against billions in research grants and university funding. Women’s health research has borne the brunt of these changes. Staff at the agency – the world’s largest health-research funder – have been instructed to not approve funding applications that include “gender” and “women.”
It is astonishing that in 2025 anyone still has to justify why women’s health matters. But what’s happening to women’s health in the United States directly affects the health of women in Canada. As more countries adopt an “open science” approach, decisions about science policy in any one country will increasingly cause a ripple effect on global innovation and care for decades.
Funding for women’s health research is already precarious. It accounts for a mere five per cent of overall global health-research funding. In Alberta, the percentage was lower yet in 2022. An estimated 3.4 per cent of research funds were spent on women’s health. Yet, women represented 51 per cent of the population at the time.
Investing in women’s health research should be core to Canada’s innovation strategy. Such an investment will unlock new scientific insights, drive inclusive economic growth, and ensure a healthier future for all.
We all benefit when other countries have thriving health research programs.
The NIH funds international research consortiums, including in Canada, that bring together the most brilliant minds to tackle our most “wicked” problems. Just one year ago, the Biden administration committed the equivalent of $16.7 billion as part of the White House Initiative for Women’s Health Research.
The creation of oral contraception in the United States, for example, has benefitted millions of people around the world. Women directly benefit through effective pregnancy prevention (and therefore reduced pregnancy-related deaths), the regulation of menstrual cycles, increased labour-force participation, and agency over reproductive decisions. Men also benefit from improved family planning and reduced anxiety about potential pregnancies.
Canada’s chief medical officers put women’s leadership in spotlight
After USAID: Why Canada must lead on global health now
Proper funding for women’s health research could save lives during pandemic
In anticipation of gaps in collaborations with American colleagues, the Canadian Medical Association is already calling for more health research to be done in Canada.
Cutting research funds will likely contribute to brain drain in the United States and a potential “brain gain” in Canada. Some renowned American professors in other disciplines have already made the move to Canada and others will likely follow suit. Meanwhile, the globally recognized Canadian heart surgeon Marc Ruel made headlines in March when he opted to stay in Canada rather than pursue a career in the United States.
However, there are also concerns about the future of research given that program admission and training support in the U.S. have been revoked for many trainees and students. What advancements will be made in 20 or 30 years when there is no one to fill the spots of today’s scientists and researchers as they retire? Globalization means that defunding research in one country destabilizes global research training and partnerships. Progress is ultimately hindered everywhere.
The potential stagnation of women’s health research is alarming because there is so much we don’t know about women’s health.
Historically, biomedical research has primarily been conducted by male researchers on male subjects. In recent years, more research and education have been devoted to unpacking sex and gender-based health differences. Women’s heart health, for example, is the number-one cause of death in women worldwide. Yet physicians sometimes still mistake it as anxiety or panic attacks.
Social-science research is also in peril. This research is as important to understand some of the most pressing social challenges of our generation and how women experience them. This includes, for one, the impacts of unpaid caregiving, which in Canada is performed mostly by women. There is also the rise of gender-based violence (declared an epidemic by some experts). Investing in women’s health research can improve knowledge and care for all women.
The rapid devaluing of women’s health serves as a warning signal to Canadians on how quickly progress can be eroded.
Canada has reduced disparities in gender and health. For instance, the Institute of Gender and Health supports the advancement of sex and gender science in Canada through research, training and knowledge mobilization. The institute is one of 13 that make up Canada’s federal funding agency for health research, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the CIHR.
Progress has been made, but only six per cent of CIHR grants awarded between 2006 and 2020 were dedicated to women’s health research. Earlier this year, Canada introduced a national pharmacare framework that will cover the cost of contraceptives for nine million Canadians. It is expected that universal coverage of contraceptives will save taxpayers around $160 million a year when the cost of unintended pregnancies is factored in. Yet not all provinces have agreed to participate in the full program, creating geographic disparities in pharmaceutical coverage for women.
As Canadians, we cannot control decisions made by other nations, but decision makers can be vigilant and act in ways that reflect how we value women’s health in Canada. Canada has a window of opportunity to do what the United States will not: invest in women’s health and the talent behind it.
For example, the University Health Network has launched the Canada Leads 100 Challenge to attract 100 early-career scientists from the United States to Toronto, capitalizing on the shifting American research climate. The GROWW Program – Canada’s first pan-national training program on lifelong women’s health – is recruiting its fourth cohort of trainees. Elected officials, institutions, and other funders must continue investing in initiatives that support sex and gender-based research and care in Canada and create supportive training environments for the next generation of women’s health scholars and clinicians.
Now is not the time to take our foot off the pedal. When women’s health loses, we all lose.
The author is a trainee with the Women and Children’s Health Research Institute at the University of Alberta. She is also an alumna of the GROWW national training program and a member of its advisory committee.
Some history keeps repeating itself.
In 1926, J.S. Woodsworth was leader of the “Ginger Group,” a number of disgruntled MPs who would go on to help form the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), predecessor to the New Democratic Party. In exchange for long-term support to stay in power, the prime minister at the time, William Lyon Mackenzie King, offered Woodsworth a cabinet position and some progress towards creation of public pensions.
Woodsworth refused the offer. He preferred to negotiate whether to prop up King’s minority Liberal government on a case-by-case basis as bills came forward in the House of Commons. Using this strategy, Woodsworth was able to secure the introduction of public pensions as well as more generous unemployment insurance for workers.
The New Democrats who will sit in the next Parliament should heed the lessons of their party’s history. The NDP, reduced to a handful of seats in the April 28 federal election, must put some distance between itself and the Liberals to regain its identity in the minds of voters.
The best way to do that is to reject any offers to form a coalition government or enter into a second confidence-and-supply agreement. Supporting the Liberals on a case-by-case basis, as Woodsworth did, is the most prudent course of action.
The federal NDP has been here many times since Woodsworth’s day. Liberal prime ministers have sought support to keep their minority governments afloat many times in Canadian history. To secure the votes of CCF-NDP MPs, there have been offers of cabinet positions and promises to improve social programs dear to every New Democrat’s heart. Until recently, CCF-NDP leaders always refused to enter into long-term arrangements with a minority government.
The thinking was that the party would lose its identity as a political movement, which could encourage its supporters to vote Liberal in the next election.
Jagmeet Singh and his team were, no doubt, aware of this history when he met with then-prime minister Justin Trudeau not long after the 2021 federal election that ended in a second minority government for Trudeau. The prime minister held most of the cards, but Singh had some room to manoeuvre.
Singh made a bold and unconventional move. He agreed to a supply-and-confidence agreement in exchange for the Liberals agreeing to policies relating to social democratic priorities such as pharmacare, dental care and child care.
The results of the most recent election indicate that the instinct of former CCF-NDP leaders to be wary of Liberal prime ministers bearing gifts may be the right one. Singh’s criticism of the Liberals during the recent election campaign rang hollow given that he had held to the agreement for 2.5 years before backing out. That implicitly gave NDP supporters permission to vote Liberal. Voters’ thinking may have been that the Liberals could not be that scary if the NDP had supported them.
The pact may have indeed turbocharged strategic voting that hurt Singh’s NDP so badly on election night. Additionally, it appears the NDP received little credit from voters for successfully forcing the Liberals to move ahead on pharmacare, dental care and child-care programs.
The agreement meant that the NDP also shouldered some blame for the Trudeau government’s unpopular policies such as carbon pricing. When Trudeau stepped down, the Liberals were able to make a fresh start by selecting a new leader and reversing themselves on several issues. In a political paradox, the agreement Singh had had with the Liberals led him to be more associated in the minds of voters with Trudeau and his government than new Liberal Leader Mark Carney.
Did Singh play his cards right in the lead-up to the federal election? There is no simple answer. Average Canadians are now benefiting from better child care, dental care and pharmacare because of the supply-and-confidence deal.
None of the programs went as far as New Democrats wanted them to, but we should not underestimate the positive effect they are having on the lives of many. On the other hand, the NDP’s worst election showing in party history can almost certainly be attributed, at least in part, to its decision to enter into the agreement.
The NDP now faces a familiar dilemma: how to interact with a Liberal minority government. The players have changed, but the card game stays the same. Prime Minister Carney has said that he does not want to enter into another agreement with the NDP.
But there is nothing stopping him from reversing this position in the future. Liberal prime ministers facing defeat of their minority governments have made all sorts of offers to opposition MPs to get their support. For example, former prime minister Paul Martin enticed Conservative MP Belinda Stronach to cross the floor in 2005 by giving her a cabinet post.
How Carney can use policy to unite the country
The lesson from the recent election and the history of the CCF-NDP over the last 100 years is that New Democrats must clearly differentiate themselves from Liberals. Should the NDP support the Liberals in some arrangement during the next Parliament, the party risks losing its identity and relevance entirely in the minds of voters.
It could fare even worse in the next federal election if it is no longer considered a viable electoral choice. Its remnants would then almost certainly be subsumed into the Liberal party, and the political force that has always pressured the Liberals from the left to adopt public social programs could be lost forever.
Remaining NDP MPs should maximize their influence in Canadian politics by making the Liberals work to get the party’s support on every single bill they want passed. The NDP must maintain the freedom to vote against the government at any time. This will show voters that New Democrats have their own political identity and will oppose the Liberals on issues that could hurt average Canadians.
This is the safest way for the NDP, fighting for its very existence, to ensure its survival.
The U.S. government’s decision to impose 25-per-cent tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum and automotive exports is more than a blow to bilateral trade. It’s an economic tremor likely to stun the heartbeat of Canada’s manufacturing sector, which depends heavily on immigrant labour.
Between 2010 and 2021, that manufacturing sector lost 159,000 Canadian-born workers, a gap that was partially filled by 46,000 new and recent immigrants. But as the 2025 edition of U.S. tariffs take effect, or hang like a threat over Canada’s economy, thousands of newcomers who rely on stable factory jobs will feel the shock waves most acutely. Yet the disproportionate risks they face often go untold.
Contrary to the notion that most newcomers gravitate toward service industry work in large urban centres, Statistics Canada shows that a sizeable share of immigrant workers fill critical gaps in the manufacturing sector.
Over the past decade, immigrants accounted for 84 per cent of the growth in Canada’s labour force. From automotive assembly lines in Windsor to steel mills in Hamilton, immigrants often provide the workforce flexibility that is crucial for industries that must constantly respond to fluctuating market conditions.
While these manufacturing jobs generally offer moderate wages that provide newcomers with a foothold in their new country, existing and impending tariffs on steel and aluminum threaten to undercut manufacturers’ competitiveness by driving up production costs. When companies lose sales or need to reduce their output, the first layoffs usually impact the most recent hires: immigrants who, despite their contributions, lack seniority, substantial savings, and comprehensive safety nets.
Newcomers to Canada are, on average, more educated than ever before. But a persistent issue over credential recognition often prevents many from securing positions that match their skill levels. The outcome? A substantial number end up in low-skill or labour-intensive factory jobs — roles that are particularly vulnerable during economic shocks.
When tariffs start to squeeze manufacturers, knee-jerk responses often include layoffs or reduced hours. Many newcomers have limited social capital to fall back on. They might not immediately qualify for Employment Insurance, and they have less access to support networks that help people find new work. For visible-minority immigrants who already have lower employment incomes, a sudden loss in wages can quickly spiral into financial freefall, forcing entire families into precarious living conditions.
Canada’s cost-of-living crunch adds another layer of difficulty. Inflation has surged in recent years, driving up food and housing costs. For immigrants existing on modest wages, even a small dip in pay can trigger a debt cycle, especially if layoffs persist.
Meanwhile, as tariffs make Canadian steel and aluminum exports more expensive for U.S. buyers, manufacturers have to either raise prices or take steps to reduce operating costs. Neither option bodes well for wage stability or new hiring. Again, the bulk of this burden lands disproportionately on newcomers, particularly those still struggling to build a financial foothold in Canada.
We saw a similar pattern of impact disparity during COVID-19. When the pandemic shuttered factories, immigrants and racialized workers were frequently the first to lose their paycheques and the last to benefit from an economic rebound, further illustrating how external shocks expose inequalities in Canada’s labour market.
During his first term in 2018, President Donald Trump imposed tariffs of 25 per cent on Canadian steel products and 10 per cent on aluminum, prompting Ottawa to respond with reciprocal measures. Although both governments eventually lifted their respective duties, the initial penalties caused lingering damage in reversing the previous growth in Canada’s exports.
And now Trump’s 2025 version of tariffs, or threats of them, introduces fresh uncertainty for industries still emerging from pandemic-related disruptions. According to survey findings released by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, nearly 90 per cent of Canadian manufacturers could face significant or severe repercussions if the U.S. goes ahead with announced tariffs on imports from Canada. Such a scenario could be devastating to a sector that accounts for 10 per cent of Canada’s GDP, employs 1.8 million people, and produces more than 60 per cent of the country’s exported goods.
It’s tempting to see the U.S. import charges as yet another trade dispute, but the America First Trade Policy philosophy that drives them ignores the significance of just how integrated North American supply chains truly are.
Canada and the U.S are each other’s largest trading partners, and their respective manufacturing of exports — particularly in autos and metals — underpins tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border. Even a modest drop in output, or “minor” layoffs, will trickle down to bring pain for local businesses, housing markets, and community services.
Visible minorities have difficulty accessing the labour market
Work skills must be central to Canadian immigration efforts
The startling impact of COVID-19 on immigrant women in the workforce
There is also an ethical dimension: Immigrants who arrived seeking stable, dignified work now risk becoming collateral damage of a policy they had no hand in shaping. Reducing this issue to a mere geopolitical quarrel demeans the plight of workers whose very livelihoods are at stake, especially those already struggling to navigate through social and economic barriers.
Addressing these challenges requires a co-ordinated response from federal and provincial governments, industry leaders and community stakeholders. There are immediate and long-term strategies that can protect the livelihoods of immigrant workers while also strengthening Canada’s manufacturing resilience. The following steps merit urgent consideration:
Even as Canada adopts retaliatory measures to counter the Trump administration’s protectionism and works to remove internal barriers that hinder interprovincial commerce, trade volatility still threatens to overwhelm those with the fewest resources. As Washington’s tariffs undercut manufacturing stability, policymakers, industry leaders and community advocates must ensure that the immigrant workers powering our factories remain protected.
This issue goes beyond preserving trade. It’s about safeguarding the very people who have kept Canada’s manufacturing sector competitive and dynamic. By confronting these vulnerabilities head-on, we can create a more resilient labour force and guarantee that Canada’s economic recovery leaves no one behind.
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are rapidly transforming our world, but the critical issues of the sovereignty of Indigenous data and Indigenous digital self-determination remain under-addressed.
For Indigenous communities around the world, AI is not merely a technological development. It is a potential new form of colonization – one that risks marginalizing their languages, cultures and agency unless meaningful safeguards are established. Indigenous communities must be seen not as mere beneficiaries of digital policy, but also as rightful leaders in shaping it.
With Taiwan and Canada expanding their partnerships in science, technology and democratic exchange, these two nations are in a unique position to co-create models of Indigenous-centred innovation to address this problem.
By integrating Indigenous knowledge systems into AI governance, developing ethical data practices and jointly investing in Indigenous-led research, the two countries can move toward shared leadership in global digital justice.
Such collaboration would not only safeguard cultural diversity in the age of AI. It would also redefine what a meaningful, future-oriented partnership looks like between democratic societies committed to equity, Indigenous sovereignty and global collaboration.
In April 2024, the two countries signed a bilateral Science, Technology and Innovation Agreement that established new channels for collaboration in AI, semiconductors and biotechnology. These efforts were further strengthened by Taiwan’s launch of the “chip-based industrial innovation program,” which promotes generative AI and emerging technologies. It also invites Canadian AI and semiconductor firms to become partners.
As the two countries strengthen ties across strategic and technological domains, it is also time to ask: Can this partnership also include the Indigenous perspective? Can it advance not only innovation but also a future led by, and connected with, Indigenous voices?
Canada’s leadership in Indigenous data sovereignty has long served as a reference point for Indigenous advocacy in Taiwan where Indigenous Peoples make up roughly 2.5 per cent of the population. Both countries are wrestling with similar questions: How can Indigenous communities assert control over their data, shape AI development and preserve cultural integrity in the face of digital transformation?
Canada has made important strides, such as requiring researchers and AI professionals affiliated with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) to complete training in Indigenous perspectives, signalling a serious effort to embed cultural awareness into the national AI agenda.
In Taiwan, early steps are also under way with the release of generative AI guidelines for the public sector and a draft of a Basic Law on Artificial Intelligence that focuses on both innovation and human rights.
AI systems are built on data and increasingly this includes Indigenous languages, traditional knowledge, and oral histories. These data are sometimes collected without consent, stored in centralized databases and used to train commercial algorithms that offer little or no benefit to the Indigenous communities. That practice echoes historic patterns of dispossession and exploitation.
The First Nations Information Governance Centre in Canada has long advocated the OCAP principles – ownership, control, access and possession – as the cornerstone of Indigenous data sovereignty. While OCAP has been widely cited in health and demographic research, its integration into national AI policy frameworks remains limited.
As the federal government moves forward with its national AI strategy and legislation such as the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, the question is this: Will Indigenous data governance be meaningfully embedded or merely acknowledged in principle?
As AI systems increasingly influence language preservation, health-care access and digital identity, applying OCAP rigorously is no longer optional. It is essential to avoid repeating digital versions of extractive colonialism. Canada has the opportunity to lead globally by showing how OCAP principles can guide not just ethical AI use but also Indigenous-led AI development. The challenge is in implementation and accountability.
AI technologies often misinterpret or ignore Indigenous cultures, languages and contexts. This failure is symptomatic of a deeper issue: Indigenous cultures are frequently excluded from the datasets that train AI systems.
Some Indigenous communities are pushing back. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, Te Hiku Media partnered with NVIDIA to develop a speech recognition model for te reo Māori (the Māori language), achieving more than 90 per cent accuracy. The project succeeded because it was Indigenous-led and grounded in the values of the community. Efforts such as Mozilla’s common voice, which allows speakers of underrepresented languages to donate voice data to open-source models, offers another path forward.
The Canadian Indigenous languages technology project is another initiative that’s particularly important. I recently had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Patrick Littell and his team, whose work centres on leveraging technologies such as AI and natural language processing in collaboration with Indigenous communities in Canada.
Given that many Indigenous communities in Taiwan are exploring similar approaches, I was especially struck by Dr. Littell’s emphasis on developing technologies that can be sustainably maintained and meaningfully used by the communities themselves. The key lies not just in access to tools, but in Indigenous leadership in the design and deployment of these technologies.
AI policies are largely shaped by governments, corporations and academic institutions, with Indigenous perspectives often missing. Yet the consequences of AI technologies are deeply felt by Indigenous communities, from surveillance and biometric data collection to health-care algorithms and digital language tools.
There are signs of hope. The Indigenous languages technology project of the National Research Council is exploring collaborative approaches to language preservation in Canada through AI.
Canada must ensure its digital sovereignty in the face of U.S. threats
In Taiwan, where 16 Indigenous groups are recognized by the government, AI policies remain largely silent on Indigenous rights. But there is an opportunity. By incorporating Indigenous-led frameworks into its digital policy agenda, Taiwan can take meaningful steps toward cultural preservation, ethical innovation and reconciliation.
True leadership in AI governance requires more than occasional consultation or symbolic inclusion of Indigenous Peoples. It demands structural shifts that place Indigenous communities at the centre of design, decision-making and accountability. Indigenous Peoples must move from being subjects of technology to co-creators of its governance. This is not only a question of justice, but one of building resilient, culturally grounded systems that benefit everyone.
To ensure that AI serves the interests of all communities, not just those with the most resources, several key steps are necessary:
AI can either widen the digital divide or help bridge it. It can erase cultures or help revitalize them. The difference lies in who has control and whose values shape the systems we build. For Indigenous Peoples, sovereignty in AI is not a fringe issue. It is central to their rights, futures and survival in a digital world.
The Ontario government says it is a “world-class leader in road safety” and will continue to support municipalities in their efforts to make roads safe. It funds a program to address aggressive driving, pedestrian safety and cycling safety. Thirteen Ontario municipalities, including Toronto, have adopted a strategy called Vision Zero, which helped Sweden cut its traffic deaths in half over two decades by increasing safe, healthy, accessible and affordable mobility options for all road users.
But recent Ontario legislation aimed at easing worsening traffic congestion seems to disregard the province’s stated goal of road safety. The Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act clearly favours automobility and suggests bicycles and related infrastructure are obstacles to traffic.
The social impacts and economic cost of traffic congestion in the province total more than $56 billion, a 2024 study says. The new law recognizes that “accidents and lane closures can worsen traffic congestion and impact the quality of life of Ontarians.” It says the solution is to speed up construction of priority highway projects and rip up some bike lanes.
But cyclists are not the problem and the solution is not more roads. Protected cycling infrastructure is crucial if Ontario is indeed to become a world-class leader in road-safety.
Treating cyclists as a problem grows out of two simultaneous phenomena. The first is motonormativity, which is a bias whereby people judge motor vehicles differently than other modes of transportation.
It suggests our brains have been wired to prefer motor travel and downplay the negative consequences. This doesn’t just apply to transportation but also land use. Minimum-parking requirements, for instance, tend to be associated with higher rates of car ownership.
Second is the phenomenon of “bikelash.” This is an organized opposition to bike-lane development and has been observed in cities around the world, for example, in New York, Sydney and Melbourne. Bikelash has also been evident in Canada, including in Vancouver and Montreal, and more recently in Ontario, where the provincial government wants to remove existing bike lanes on major Toronto streets like Bloor and Yonge.
But bike lanes are an efficient use of space, with a greater density of use than lone drivers on roads. Parked cars take up far more space than bikes.
Valorizing cars and villainizing bicycles is a double whammy that works against making cities safer, healthier and more livable.
Building more roads has been shown to result in an increase in cars on them, that is, it induces demand. It’s a self-defeating cycle: More roads result in more cars, which result in even more congestion. Comments from public consultation on the bill that became Ontario’s new gridlock act supported that view.
Another factor to consider is the number of road accidents that can lead to injury or death. Police data show that in 2024 alone, 69,141 automobile accidents were reported in Toronto, of which 1,436 involved pedestrians.
Achieving Toronto’s Vision Zero road-safety plan requires that policies and infrastructure protect the most vulnerable road users. Tearing down protected bike lanes does the opposite by making cyclists more prone to accidents involving vehicles. This is especially concerning as several studies have shown that some drivers see cyclists, especially those with safety gear, as somehow less “human” and are more aggressive toward them.
The Ontario government is aware of these negative consequences. Internal government documents estimated that removing protected bike lanes would increase collisions by more than 54 per cent and put all road users, not only cyclists, at risk.
Active mobility (cycling and walking) is a no-brainer if the aim is healthy, attractive, livable cities.
Biking is a cost-effective solution to curb traffic congestion. Cities like Paris recognize this and have made permanent cycling paths that were introduced as temporary to reduce reliance on public transport and promote social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The city has since added more bike lanes. A study in the spring of 2024 found that 11.2 per cent of trips in central Paris were made on two wheels compared with 4.3 per cent on four.
Removing bike lanes in favour of motorized traffic is not how to become a world-class leader in road-safety. The Norwegian capital of Oslo reported zero pedestrian deaths in 2019 after curbing car traffic by removing regular street parking in the city core, converting parking lanes into bike lanes and closing through streets.
Cities can speed up climate action by slowing down traffic
Doug Ford’s multibillion-dollar highway is not about solving Toronto traffic jams
Can new investments put a dent in Canadians’ car dependence?
Investing in cycling infrastructure makes transportation more accessible to potential users. Toronto’s cycling network plan — wherein the city is giving greater priority to underserved neighbourhoods — is a step in the right direction. The city is also expanding the area covered by its bike-sharing program and is reducing bike-sharing fares for low-income residents in an effort to make cycling more accessible and affordable.
Similar efforts in Vancouver have led to increased use of bike-sharing in populations with limited financial means, which contributes to more equitable mobility. Ontario’s new law could worsen mobility inequities by depriving underserved communities of an affordable and accessible means of transport.
Ultimately, livable cities are designed for people irrespective of their preferred mode of transport. It is not so much about a war on cars or war on bikes. It’s making sure that cities are safe, healthy and inclusive for all residents. Bicycles tend to do a much better job of this than cars.
A people-centred transportation policy for Ontario must value bicycles as much as — if not more than — cars if transportation in cities is to be safer, more accessible and more equitable as urban populations continue to increase.
As re-elected Prime Minister Mark Carney and his new cabinet take the reins in Ottawa at a time of rising global instability, his government must urgently rethink how it defends Canada’s sovereignty, deepens its alliances and projects its influence in a world increasingly being shaped by authoritarian aggression and technological disruption.
The foundations of our country’s security, prosperity and global standing are under threat. To navigate this turbulent era, the new government must act decisively and ambitiously.
Now is not the time for half-measures. Canada must lead with purpose and invest boldly in its national security architecture, international partnerships and soft power tools.
There are five strategic imperatives the Carney government must act on immediately to achieve this goal.
We need a foreign policy that is not only values-based but also power-aware. The lesson from the war in Ukraine is clear: wars are no longer just about firepower but are also about data, drones and battlefield innovation. Ukraine has shown the world what a nimble, tech-enabled military can achieve against a larger aggressor. Canada must take note.
Our armed forces need immediate investment to replace aging equipment. But they also require a national strategy to develop and deploy drones, battlefield AI and real-time surveillance systems.
We should treat drone warfare as a core military capacity, developed through partnerships with Canadian industry and allied nations. The next wars will be fought with algorithms and autonomous weapons systems, not just tanks and conventional military equipment. Our security depends on leveraging these new technologies.
Canada’s influence abroad has eroded in part because our presence has shrunk. We must reverse this decline. New embassies, more diplomats and more regional experts must be deployed, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America – regions where the geopolitical future is being written.
We also need a new generation of envoys who are as comfortable navigating TikTok and AI forums as they are negotiating trade and security agreements. We need more people on the ground to engage with allies, counter disinformation and build coalitions that advance democratic norms and economic co-operation. Canada’s diplomacy must match the scale and complexity of today’s challenges.
Soft power and strategic influence are built on ideas. Canada must become a magnet for them. Yet Canada’s think tanks – especially those working on security, democracy, human rights and digital threats – are chronically underfunded. The federal government should create a dedicated fund to support their work and offer incentives for top-tier allied think tanks to set up shop in Canada.
A robust intellectual ecosystem is essential for building influence and crafting foreign policy rooted in long-term democratic values, not short-term tactics. A thriving ecosystem of public policy expertise will not only bolster our capacity to respond to threats but also help shape the global narrative around the values we share with our democratic partners.
This would position Canada as a hub for strategic dialogue, innovation and alliance building at a time when democratic ideas are under siege.
Canada has long been seen as a quiet force for good. But in a time of global instability, democratic backsliding and technological disruption, quiet isn’t good enough. Canada is being out-communicated by authoritarian regimes, which are exploiting national and international media to shape global opinion and weaken democracies.
We need a national broadcaster with a global voice. The CBC, and especially Radio-Canada International, should be given a new mission: to report on global struggles for democracy, counter disinformation and elevate the voices of human rights defenders.
Germany’s Deutsche Welle provides a strong model, with its Global Media Forum and multilingual outreach. The CBC should be empowered to do the same – inform, engage and protect the truth in an era of information warfare.
Strategic alliances are not forged only at summits. They are built through long-lasting relationships between people. Canada’s most enduring alliances are often created and sustained not by governments, but through human connection. Ottawa should dramatically expand its support for educational exchanges, leadership programs and civil society partnerships that tie emerging global leaders to Canada.
These networks will be our greatest asset when crises erupt and decisions must be made quickly. They are the connective tissue of global influence. These people-to-people ties will be crucial in times of crisis. They will help us advance democratic values, build economic bridges and respond with agility when the global order is tested.
The re-elected Carney government has a narrow window to chart a bold and visionary course. It must rise to meet this moment – not with incrementalism, but with ambition. These five pillars offer a blueprint to secure our future and restore Canada’s role as a principled, connected and influential global power.
The world has entered a new phase – one marked by volatility, fragmentation and democratic backsliding. Canada must respond with clarity, purpose and scale.
Carney’s government has an opportunity to chart a bold course and redefine how this country engages with the world. It should seize it.
(Version française disponible ici)
A recent study in the United Kingdom shares a chilling picture for parents everywhere.
It found that, on average, children first see pornography at 13. To some, that may not sound particularly surprising given the ubiquitous and unbridled access some young adolescents have to the internet.
But the story doesn’t end there. Ten per cent of children in the U.K. had seen pornography by the age of 9, and more than one in four by 11. By 18, nearly four out of five said they had viewed not only pornographic content but violent pornography. Thirty-eight per cent reported coming across pornography accidentally.
Already, pornography has severe adverse effects on society. Today’s online version is not only more easily accessible but more extreme and, in many cases, violent than ever before.
Looking at pornography changes the brain. It impacts attitudes and behaviours, harms relationships and promotes destructive and degrading views about sex.
Another recent report by the U.K. Children’s Commissioner noted a link between exposure to pornography and sexual abuse perpetrated by children.
In Canada, age verification legislation, Bill S-210 (Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act) was passed by the Senate in April 2023. The legislation was on the verge of becoming law when the bill died on the order paper when the election was called in March 2025.
Other countries are tackling this issue with innovations that address technological change.
In France, a new law empowering communications regulator Arcom to create and adopt a standard for age verification requirements recently came into effect. Under this standard, pornography platforms must block access to users who fail to verify their age.
Likewise, the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, includes age verification to protect children from harmful content online. This includes a requirement for online platforms that share pornography to have effective age verification measures in place by July 2025.
Australia has not mandated age verification but continues to test age assurance technologies to help regulators determine the best approach. In the meantime, a law did pass requiring social media companies to prevent children in Australia under 16 from using their sites which is scheduled to come into effect by December 2025.
In the United States, the 2025 SCREEN Act, if passed, will mandate age verification measures across the country. Twenty-one states have already passed their own age verification laws and 17 of those states have recognized pornography as a public health hazard.
There are practical challenges with enforcing meaningful age verification. Policy approaches vary, and there appears to be no one-size-fits-all solution.
But there are meaningful measures that can reduce rates of childhood exposure to online porn.
Depending on the jurisdiction, age verification may apply only to pornographic websites, to sites where at least one third of their content is pornography, or more broadly to companies that make or host any pornographic content.
Likewise, age verification methods differ. Generally, laws require more than self-declaration of age and exclude the use of online payments that do not require the cardholder to be 18 or older.
France’s data protection authority notes that the collection of government-issued IDs, analyzing browsing history, or using biometrics to verify age would be contrary to data protection rules. Otherwise, permitted methods to verify age may include government ID, digital identity services, facial age estimation, or methods based on transaction data such as mortgage, education or employment documents.
There are also so-called dual anonymous options whereby the site does not know the user’s identity and a third-party verification service does not know which site the user is visiting.
Ultimately, whatever methods are applied, no law can entirely prevent children from seeing porn online. Underage users will find workarounds. But the bottom line is that using age verification measures makes it more difficult for children to access online porn, so fewer will be exposed to it.
After Louisiana passed age verification legislation in 2023, for example, traffic to Pornhub dropped by 80 per cent. In other states, Pornhub has cut off access to its site entirely, rather than implementing age verification processes.
Some may argue that children will continue to access pornography using virtual private networks (VPNs). But even that introduces an extra step and potentially a meaningful barrier.
There are ways to counter the use of VPNs. The Age Verification Providers Association notes that “requiring adult websites to “use robust location verification methods similar to those in online gambling, lawmakers can close this loophole and better enforce age verification laws in their states.”
This already happens in other instances. Netflix, for example, blocks VPNs with common IP addresses.
Others argue that age verification laws are unnecessary, since parents can install filters on devices. Indeed, parents should do what they can to protect children.
But a study in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking notes that between 17 and 77 households (depending on the type of content) in a child’s network would need to be filtered to prevent children from seeing pornography in a 12-month period. Most devices lack such filters. Many parents don’t know how to install or maintain them or don’t know the importance of doing so.
Most Canadians agree on the need to protect children from pornography, even if they disagree on the means of doing so.
Parents and teachers cannot combat the problems of pornography for children on their own.
Governments must support them in their efforts to protect Canadian children. Age verification laws are an important means to protect as many children as possible from viewing porn and experiencing its negative effects.
Since U.S. President Donald Trump started his repeated musings about militarily or economically compelling Canada to become the 51st state, I have had an alarming number of students and colleagues consult me on the feasibility and advisability of Canada acquiring nuclear weapons to deter him.
Having taught a recurring course for more than 25 years at Concordia University on nuclear weapons, I should not have been surprised by the lack of common and strategic sense raised by this idea.
Our country certainly has the foundational facilities and human technical skills to develop thermonuclear weapons, delivery aircraft, satellites, redundant command bunkers and exo-atmospheric missile-delivery systems.
However, there is no possible way from a political, strategic or technical perspective to develop a successful Canadian nuclear deterrent without creating other serious domestic and international problems. In fact, such a move would almost certainly backfire.
Canada has an abundance of the necessary inputs, including 15 per cent of global production of uranium-238, as well as lithium, beryllium, lead, graphite and 19 CANDU reactors at three sites (which uniquely can be refuelled without shutting off the fission process, thus facilitating the measured production of plutonium-239).
Most of the required mining, refining, milling and waste management take place in northern Saskatchewan, while there are research facilities in six of the 10 provinces.
Marc Garneau, the former transport minister and technology champion, once gave a presentation to my class on Canada’s endo- and exo-atmospheric rocketry, which is mostly designed for meteorological research but which also demonstrates engineering competence.
However, there is no chance of hiding a nuclear weapons program.
Manufacturing the infrastructure to produce plutonium or to enrich uranium would be immediately noticeable to the U.S., as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Isotope decay products leading to plutonium create easily detectable Krypton-85 gas. Enrichment centrifuges emit radiofrequency waves that are difficult to shield. All other enrichment methods either consume noticeably large quantities of energy or rely on specialized equipment, such as calutrons.
Although South Africa employed fewer than 20 engineers to manufacture its six warheads within a large dual-use infrastructure, its attempted test was immediately detected by satellites of the U.S.S.R. In addition, Pretoria’s purchase of Israeli intermediate-range ballistic missiles was quickly known by U.S. intelligence.
There are some other important truths to consider.
First, second-strike nuclear arsenals are the basis of military and national power, and the U.S. wields great influence through the provision of its nuclear umbrella to its allies.
While nuclear weapons cannot occupy territory like an army can, they can shatter the economy of the great powers sufficiently to expose them to conquest by their neighbours.
A United States de-urbanized and de-industrialized by a major city-busting Russian or Chinese nuclear strike would be unable to replace or maintain its navy, which is so vital to assert its sphere of influence over North America. Conventional forces permit more fine-grained applications of deterrence and force, but integration with tactical nuclear forces is doctrinal and theoretical, never having been tested in battle.
Second, U.S. nuclear power does not depend solely on retaliatory capability, which is termed immediate deterrence, but also on having an arsenal so large that potential adversaries do not even try to start a nuclear program, which is called general deterrence.
If Canada were to seek nuclear weapons capability, it would undermine the psychological deterrent effect of a large U.S. arsenal and could even lead to nuclear programs in Brazil, Argentina or Mexico, or a purchased Venezuelan or Cuban arsenal.
Trump’s 51st state threats reveal that Canada has an immature national security culture. Much like the Liberal government’s bewildered response to the Quebec referendum in 1995, Canadian political leaders lack a clearly articulated survival strategy for the nation when under stress.
Much recent anti-Americanism in Canada is driven most by economic concerns related to tariff negotiations, highlighting the lack of a sense of proportion of many Canadians.
It is because of centuries of harsh historical experience that Russian, Chinese, French and Polish citizens, for all their jingoism, are more confidently calm when confronting security threats and war.
Grade school history texts celebrate how stalwart Canadians resisted the U.S. invasion in the War of 1812, but Canada was mainly lucky that the U.S. was divided over the issue of war. Alfred Thayer Mahan’s regarded account shows how anglophile New England critically sabotaged the U.S. war effort, with Boston grain merchants clandestinely feeding the Royal Navy ships blockading the port of Boston.
A formal Canadian nuclear program, designed to assure its citizens, would instead excite anti-Americanism to new heights and would likely provoke a physical and irreversible U.S. intervention.
The manifest lack of political will in Ottawa means that politicians could not credibly threaten retaliation against a U.S. incursion, defeating the purpose of a nuclear arsenal in the first place.
Any weaponized nuclear program would also require a dramatically militarized security regime that would disproportionately undermine Canadian freedoms.
Even possession of a latent pre-assembly capability would make Canada an easy target of nuclear espionage and fillip to nuclear proliferation.
It was low confidence in Canada’s ability to protect from espionage the design plans of the infamous CF-105 Avro Arrow that led to its shredding.
The foreign relations implications of a Canadian nuclear weapons program raise other important questions.
Would Canadian armed forces that are deployed abroad extend our nuclear umbrella to host nations, such as Latvia?
Where would Canada deploy nuclear weapons? Hudson Bay provides a vast and easily secured ballistic missile submarine bastion. But at only 100 metres deep, submarines would be vulnerable to detection by wake-analyzing satellites and air drones equipped with magnetic anomaly detectors (MAD).
Washington would not appreciate nuclear-armed submarines patrolling in collision-prone Lake Ontario. Harsh winters might cause missile-carrying TEL trucks to slide into ditches along an inadequately extensive highway system.
Would CN and CPKC railway unions demand protocols to minimize the exposure of their employees if Canada adopted a rail-mobile option, especially because much of the rail network goes through inhabited areas?
Deploying first-generation ballistic missile submarines into the deep oceans would require a protective surface flotilla, exposing its location.
Lastly, in the event of Quebec sovereignty, would Ottawa share a proportional number of nuclear warheads and missiles, or only those portions manufactured in Quebec, such as rocket components and krytron switches?
The approach of purchasing an off-the-shelf readily deployable system, such as acquiring one of France’s four ballistic missile submarines, is improbable. As Mao Zedong once advised Libya, states don’t sell nuclear weapons.
Besides which, France’s ducking of any suggestion that it would use a battalion of parachute troops, supported by its nuclear arsenal, to back Denmark’s defence of Greenland against Trump’s threats to the island means that Paris does not want to involve itself in any U.S.-North American altercation.
The U.S. has historically been unusually respectful of Canadian sovereignty, given that the borders were settled by treaty, rather than through war.
Canada’s freedom of manoeuvre in North America depends on its continued close relationship with its European allies, particularly France, which it uses to counterbalance unilateralism in Washington.
Crucially, America’s goodwill depends on Canada acquiescing to Washington’s security redlines, which includes remaining nuclear-free. Most importantly, it is in Canada’s national interest for the United States to remain the preeminent nuclear power.
In March, the federal government announced a $6-billion contract to acquire an Arctic over-the-horizon radar (A-OTHR) system from a consortium in Australia. Actors in Canada’s homegrown defense and tech sectors were left wondering if that decision was grounded in rigorous due diligence.
While the dollar figure is significant, the real issue runs deeper than the price tag.
The real bottom line is about yet another lost opportunity to invest in Canadian innovation.
Since 2011, Canadian firms like D-TA Systems, recognized leaders in radar and electronic defence systems, have received government support to develop world-class over-the-horizon radar systems. Those investments paid off.
D-TA System’s technology is in use in the Canadian Arctic and has been deployed by major global defense contractors working with the U.S. air force.
Yet, when the time came for full-scale implementation, the Government of Canada chose instead to hand the baton to an offshore consortium.
As global investment in domestic manufacturing and reshoring hits record highs, Canada’s policy stands in stark contrast.
Billions of dollars in public funding are flowing offshore — subsidizing foreign labour, strengthening non-Canadian intellectual property portfolios and raising questions of value for money.
At a time when economic nationalism and the issue of supply-chain risk have risen to the top of the agenda, this approach risks putting Canada at a long-term strategic disadvantage.
A robust procurement strategy creates domestic capabilities, fosters intellectual property ownership and supports long-term economic value.
G7 nations have long embedded domestic content requirements in core technology in major procurements, using them as a lever to grow national champions. These countries align funding, procurement and policy in a coherent strategy.
Canada, meanwhile, continues to assemble fragmented policies that prioritize quick fixes over systemic growth.
Michael Wernick, former clerk of the Privy Council and Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management at the University of Ottawa, has noted: “Government procurement has always been asked to carry a heavy load of policy objectives, including driving sectoral industrial policies, redressing regional economic disparities, encouraging startups, greening government operations and fostering the growth of businesses by a range of equity seeking groups. Trump is forcing us to rethink these priorities with a greater weight to Canadian autonomy and to find a way to procure faster.”
This approach has repeatedly produced the same costly snag in the IT sector. It happens when commercial “off-the-shelf” systems are purchased and then customized and modified to meet requirements.
The result is ballooning costs and repeated project failures.
What is needed is a principle-based procurement framework that emphasizes life-cycle costs, technical excellence and domestic intellectual-property development.
As Jack Mintz, one of Canada’s leading economists, observed: “Almost a tenth of research spending is spending on defense and aerospace. We do poorly at commercialization of R&D in part because the federal government fails to put some priority on local innovation that could be just as good as foreign supply.”
He’s right. These aren’t new issues. They’re just becoming more expensive — and more urgent.
Dipak Roy, founder of D-TA Systems, described the recent $6-billion procurement for an Arctic radar system being awarded to an Australian consortium as akin to wearing flip-flops in a blizzard.
Saving our textile industry starts with a resolve to Buy Canadian
Do away with the maze of government procurement
Indigenizing procurement policies must move beyond token gestures
To counter Trump’s tariff threats, we need to make ‘Buy Canada’ count
This is more than a bad deal — it’s a systemic failure that contributes to reducing world-class Canadian firms to subcontractors in sectors they helped pioneer. If this continues, Canada risks cementing its role as a junior partner in the global high-tech economy.
To be clear, the Government of Canada does have sound due diligence policies — especially within the Treasury Board.
But as long as critical decisions are made without business or technical expertise at the table, we’ll keep spending public money while foregoing the opportunity to fulsomely develop our own domestic industries.
In short, the issue is not the size of our bureaucracy — it’s about having the right experts who can perform due diligence, assess value for money and offer ministers reliable, constructive advice.
The world is transforming as AI continues to transform the landscape, global supply chains remain volatile, and new tariffs and other geopolitical pressures grow.
The new government has a prime opportunity to drive real reform. That means rethinking procurement from the ground up — not as a bureaucratic process but as an engine of national strategy. One that grows jobs, builds intellectual property, strengthens industry and supports Canada’s place in the global economy.
Sign up for A Stronger Canada for The Trump Era. A temporary newsletter with the latest Canada-U.S. analyses from Policy Options.
(Version française disponible ici)
OTTAWA—Jocelyne Bourgon, a key player in Canada’s historic 1990s fiscal turnaround, says reforming the public service is critical to the success of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s economic agenda — but this time, it doesn’t have to mean deep cuts and mass layoffs.
Bourgon, the former clerk of the Privy Council Office during the Chretien government’s massive downsizing, said Carney’s ambitious economic plans must ‘converge’ with a fundamental rethinking of how government works. That means not just new policy, but a public service equipped to deliver it.
“The government agenda and the public service reform agenda must converge and reinforce each other,” she said at this year’s Manion Lecture. “A technologically and digitally advanced public sector is necessary to support a modern technologically and digitally advanced economy and society.”
Bourgon has written extensively on program review and advised governments around the world on modernization — in areas where Canada’s public service now faces major challenges. Her lecture comes amid questions over whether the public service can even deliver on Carney’s agenda. He has pledged to cap its size, cut internal spending, and launch a program review – but details are thin.
In the 1990s, Canada faced a full-blown fiscal crisis — the country was dubbed “an honorary member of the Third World” by the Wall Street Journal — and launched a sweeping program review that balanced the books by slashing programs and cutting 50,000 public service jobs. Bourgon was at the heart of that overhaul, helping the country regain what she calls its “fiscal sovereignty.”
Sign up to The Functionary, Kathryn May’s newletter covering the public service
Now, she says, the country needs a similarly ambitious overhaul to regain its economic sovereignty. But this time is different. What worked in the 1990s – or even the 1980s, when the public service endured 22 rounds of across-the-board cuts – won’t work today. But there are lessons to be learned.
This time, government must grow and shrink simultaneously. Some departments – such as defence, border management, Arctic security, and trade – will expand, potentially “easing the transition” for workers in areas facing reductions or closure, she said.
That’s more about realigning government – reallocating people and money – than shrinking it.
“The solution you are looking for is not a death by 1,000 cuts like in the 1980s, or a drastic contraction on the scale of what was done in the mid-1990s. Your challenge is to do more in some areas, less in others, reallocate resources, and reinvest to modernize government and society,” she told a mostly public-service audience.
Reallocating means learning how to adapt to change and will help “break from the boom-and-bust approach that has characterized budgeting in Canada,” she said.
Today, technology – including AI and digital tools – has the potential to modernize government in ways and at a speed not possible decades ago. Also, in the 1990s, Canada was embracing free trade, globalization, and deepening ties with the U.S. – a world order now being upended by Trump.
But budget cuts don’t improve service, productivity, or modernize government and often push government into making wrong decisions like cutting training, travel and conferences, says Bourgon.
Bourgon argues the 1990s program review, a rethinking of the role of government, worked because programs were privatized, transferred to provinces, or scrapped. But the fact that such a sweeping review was needed at all, she says, reveals the consequences of failing to regularly reallocate people and resources with shifting priorities. Instead, governments wait for a crisis – disrupting thousands of jobs and dominating the Chrétien government’s early years.
Bourgon’s biggest concern is the decline in service delivery. She’s calling for a “Service to Canadians Review” – not to decide what to cut, but what must be preserved. As she put it, “knowing what to protect brings clarity to what may be stopped.”
“Modernizing government, improving services, and reducing its footprint doesn’t start with cuts. It starts by asking what needs to be protected,” she said. “That means preserving the knowledge and public assets needed to make decisions in the public interest.”
That includes research and institutional knowledge, like meteorology, oceanography, technology, and early-warning systems – foundational tools for tackling climate change, instability, and whatever crisis comes next.
The public service has expanded rapidly in the last decade, with executive ranks more than doubling. Yet Canadians wonder what they’re getting in return. Wait times grow, backlogs persist, systems fail, and corruption cases emerge. Since 2015, Canada has dropped from a top-10 ranking in e-government to 47th, just behind Mongolia. Canada is also the only G7 country without a single login system for government services – which would make services easier to use and cheaper to deliver.
Of the $500-billion federal budget, most goes to transfers and benefits for people and provinces. What’s left – about $225 billion – covers everything else. The $123-billion operating budget is where cuts could come. The rest funds the programs departments run, the slice Bourgon would put under the microscope to assess whether resources still match government priorities. (Departments have two jobs – deliver frontline services and support government decisions with research and advice.)
Before turning to departments and programs, Bourgon urged public servants to first explore a “better way” — smart, strategic options that could “make room,” generating savings, reduce complexity, and rebuild a financial cushion.
“A whole host of avenues are open to you,” she said. “Your search for a better way begins by expanding the space of possibilities to make room to replenish government’s war chest and to build contingency reserves, to simplify in every way you can, and to explore avenues that were not explored before.”
Among areas to start with:
Previous promises: Governments should take a hard look at pre-election and election commitments. If they no longer fit the fiscal or policy needs, restructure, postpone – or drop them. Finding cheaper ways to deliver them should also be on the table, too.
Review temporary funding: Governments have long relied on “temporary funding” for short-term initiatives, which can be up to 30 per cent of some departments’ budgets. This distorts the true deficit picture, encourages governments to focus on “announceables,” and leaves others to manage expiring funds. Review them to ensure these initiatives align with government priorities, such as reducing dependency on the U.S., or to phase them out altogether.
Tax Expenditures: Canada’s tax system hasn’t been reassessed since the 1960s, and most tax credits and exemptions haven’t been reviewed since the ’80s. Bourgon says revisiting them could yield more savings than any program review could.
Simplify, simplify, simplify: A key step is to simplify – everything. From regulations, legislation, to forms to internal processes, simplification is its own type of reform, and one that could make government more effective and less costly.
Agencies and Structures: When Bourgon was clerk, there were 109 departments, agencies, and Crown corporations. Today, there may be 250 – or more. That growth has brought over 2,000 senior executives, each with internal supports. Has it improved results? She suggests full portfolio-level reviews to cut, consolidate, or integrate agencies.
Central agencies: Since 2000, the budgets of the Privy Council Office, Treasury Board, and Finance have soared — up 250 per cent, 540 per cent and 220 per cent respectively. Bourgon says it’s time to review them. When central agencies get too operational, she warns, they lose the big picture. Bogged down in transactions, they stop thinking strategically – and when excellence slips, the public service falls behind its global peers.
Start at the top: Look at political staff. Their ranks have swelled to 765, up 60 per cent since 2011 and six times more than the U.K., a country with nearly double our population. Shrink the number and refocus their roles on building political alliances, maintaining party unity, and managing Parliament. The savings might be small, but the message is powerful.
And, she notes, a smaller cabinet also performs better – and costs less.
Sign up for A Stronger Canada for The Trump Era. A temporary newsletter with the latest Canada-U.S. analyses from Policy Options.
The Trump 2.0 administration’s assault on the rules of world trade and its disruption of other key global elements of the post-Second World War era have made it essential to reset Canada’s economic strategy.
The U.S. tariffs already imposed and the threats of more to come are unprecedented since the 1930s. They have strained alliances and created huge uncertainty for the re-elected federal Liberal government, the provinces, business and consumers.
Amid this extraordinary volatility, Canada’s natural capital is a largely overlooked competitive advantage, critical to supporting economic independence, resilience and productivity.
This natural capital – forests, wetlands, grasslands and other ecosystems – is more than an environmental treasure. These are powerful economic assets hidden in plain sight.
Canada urgently needs to use its natural capital as a foundation of its long-term economic strategy, investing in restoring and sustaining green infrastructure, and disclosing in government financial statements the value, condition and trends of natural capital.
Natural assets underpin our economic well-being. They provide protection from floods and heatwaves. They supply clean water and air, and contribute billions in services to public health.
Canada’s policy reset needs to go much further than trade to address Trump shock effects
Nature-based solutions are critical to dealing with climate change
The value of natural assets must be measured for truly sustainable development
What can help save nature and increase climate resilience? Better accounting
Unlike traditional infrastructure, natural assets do not depreciate unless they are degraded directly by pollution or overuse, or indirectly from climate change or the introduction of invasive species. The financial value of preserved assets often increases as more of our population depends on them.
Natural capital offers multiple services simultaneously. For example, a forest sequesters carbon, filters water, cools surrounding areas and provides crucial habitat for biodiversity. No human-made structure can compete with this array of benefits.
Yet, natural capital remains drastically undervalued and largely invisible in our public accounts.
Canada’s wetlands alone are estimated to provide $225 billion in ecosystem services annually (roughly eight per cent of GDP). But we do not even have a complete national inventory. This is unintended fiscal negligence in an era of intense budgetary pressures when every dollar of public spending should deliver resilience and long-term value.
What is worse, most governments in Canada – federal, provincial and local – fail to track or disclose the condition and value of their natural assets. This blind spot leads to short-sighted decisions, degradation of existing assets and underinvestment in nature-based solutions that could save us money, foster more economic growth and strengthen our communities.
Encouragingly, the re-elected Liberal government’s campaign platform explicitly pledged to protect more of Canada’s natural heritage, given the threats of “climate change and unsustainable development practices.” Its key promises in this area include prioritizing natural infrastructure, mapping Canada’s carbon and biodiversity-rich landscapes, and mitigating environmental and species-at-risk impacts in areas facing substantial infrastructure development.
Yet, serious risks remain from the absence of federal valuation and accounting for natural assets, beginning with the ever-present difficulties of implementing programs versus making campaign pledges. The challenge of meshing the Liberal housing and natural resource development goals with the party’s biodiversity, conservation and natural infrastructure pledges also bears watching.
At the provincial level, the risks to, and inadequate valuation of, environmental lands and biodiversity have been evident in Ontario and Quebec in recent years.
In their efforts to boost housing supply, a range of provincial (and federal) policies still facilitate building in areas at high risk of major flood and wildfire damage. With rising pressures in 2025 to accelerate resource and other development, protections for species at risk are being scaled back in Ontario and other jurisdictions.
At a minimum, the following elements should be part of a new natural capital strategy:
Canada has already fallen behind in investing in climate adaptation. While spending far more on climate mitigation – but not nearly enough – current Canadian efforts will not shield us from the existing costs of climate change and biodiversity loss. Our response must be to build systems-level resilience, and that means protecting and valuing the very foundation on which our economy rests.
It is time for governments to embed natural capital into budgets, policies and financial reporting. It is time for Canada to create a national inventory of natural assets and time for the federal government, working with the provinces and territories, to lead a natural capital investment strategy that aligns fiscal responsibility with ecological sustainability.
Natural capital is Canada’s quiet and underappreciated strength. It is time we sustained and treated it like the decisive economic advantage it truly is.