Canada’s Pipeline Obstructionism: A Costly Mistake Finally Corrected?

 

In 2016, the Fraser Institute released a report titled The Costs of Pipeline Obstructionism, warning that Canada’s failure to approve and build new pipeline infrastructure would cost billions in lost revenue, weaken the country’s energy sector, and make Canada overly dependent on the U.S. market. Eight years later, the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) has finally been completed, increasing Canada’s oil pipeline capacity and significantly improving market access. 

However, the project is now under scrutiny due to its massive cost overruns and underpriced tolls, which could leave taxpayers with a multi-billion-dollar subsidy to the oil industry. This article evaluates how the 2024 reality aligns with the 2016 warnings, proving that pipeline obstructionism was one of the most economically damaging policy failures in modern Canadian history, but also exposing ongoing policy failures regarding cost recovery.

1. Market Access & Export Diversification

2016 Concern:

• Canadian crude oil lacked access to global markets, forcing producers to sell almost exclusively to the United States.
• The lack of pipelines to the east and west coasts prevented oil exports to higher-paying international customers.
• Western Canadian Select (WCS) crude suffered major price discounts due to limited transportation options.

2024 Reality:

✅ With the Trans Mountain Expansion operational, half of all shipments from the pipeline’s marine terminal are now heading to Pacific Rim nations.
✅ Non-U.S. oil exports doubled in the second half of 2024, proving that demand exists when infrastructure is available.
✅ Canada no longer has to accept deep price discounts when selling crude oil, significantly increasing revenue.

Lesson: Had Canada approved Trans Mountain, Energy East, or Northern Gateway sooner, billions in lost revenue could have been avoided.

 2. Economic Impact & Oil Price Differentials

2016 Concern:

• Lack of pipeline capacity forced Canadian oil to be sold at a discount, transferring wealth to the U.S.

• The price differential between WCS and WTI crude cost the industry and government billions annually.

• Without pipelines, rail transport became the default, increasing costs and environmental risks.

2024 Reality:

✅ The WCS-WTI price differential improved by $10 per barrel in Q4 2024 compared to Q4 2023.
✅ Analysts estimate $10 billion in additional oil revenue since the expanded Trans Mountain system began operating.
✅ Pipelines are now replacing costly rail transport, lowering expenses for producers and improving safety.

Lesson: Regulatory delays directly cost Canada billions—money that could have funded healthcare, infrastructure, or tax relief.

3. TMX Toll Underpricing & Taxpayer Subsidies

Ongoing Concern:

• The federal government charges oil companies less than half of the toll rates required to recover the $34 billion capital cost of TMX.
• The International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD) estimates this amounts to a subsidy of up to $18.8 billion, or $1,248 per Canadian household.
• The oil industry is now appealing to reduce these already insufficient toll rates even further.

Needed Action:

✅ To recover costs, toll rates would need to double from $11.37 to $24.53 per barrel.
✅ If this is not feasible, an alternative is to impose a levy on all Western Canadian crude exports—a precedent set in Alberta in 1986—to ensure taxpayers are repaid.
✅ Without immediate action, Canadian taxpayers will permanently subsidize the oil industry for a project that was supposed to be self-funding.

Lesson: Canada must ensure that major infrastructure investments do not become disguised public subsidies for profitable industries. TMX must be financially self-sufficient.

4. Refinery Capacity & Value-Added Production

Ongoing Concern:

• Canada continues to export crude oil rather than refining it domestically, missing out on higher-value refined product markets.
• Limited refinery capacity forces Canada to import refined fuels, creating a trade imbalance despite being a major crude oil producer.
• The lack of investment in refineries means Canada remains dependent on foreign refineries for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.

Needed Action:

✅ Building new refineries would allow Canada to capture more value from its own resources rather than exporting raw crude at lower prices.
✅ Domestic refining capacity would improve energy security, reducing reliance on imported fuel and stabilizing domestic prices.
✅ A fully integrated energy strategy—including pipelines and refineries—is necessary to maximize long-term economic benefits.

Lesson: Pipeline expansion was a necessary step, but Canada must now focus on building refineries to fully benefit from its energy resources

5. Regulatory Delays & Government Inaction

2016 Concern:

• Canada’s lengthy, unpredictable approval process discouraged private investment.
• Indigenous and environmental opposition caused delays and cancellations of key projects (Energy East, Northern Gateway, Keystone XL).
• Pipeline approvals took years or were outright blocked by political interference.

2024 Reality:

✅ Trans Mountain Expansion overcame years of political resistance and was completed.
⛔ Future pipeline and refinery projects still face excessive regulatory hurdles, making investors cautious.
⛔ Trans Mountain’s operators warn that regulatory inefficiencies could slow further capacity increases.

Lesson: While TMEP’s success proves the value of pipelines, Canada’s regulatory system remains broken. Without streamlining, future energy investments will be jeopardized.

Conclusion: Canada Must Prevent TMX From Becoming a Permanent Taxpayer Burden

The 2024 success of the Trans Mountain Expansion validates nearly every warning issued in 2016:

• Canada lost billions due to pipeline delays and regulatory uncertainty.
• Overreliance on the U.S. hurt Canadian producers when trade tensions escalated.
• Regulatory barriers continue to slow investment, despite clear demand for more capacity.
• Market access immediately increased prices and revenue, proving that infrastructure investment pays off.
• Failure to set proper toll rates has created a massive, hidden subsidy to the oil industry at taxpayer expense.
• Failure to build refineries still limits Canada’s ability to fully capitalize on its energy resources.

Final Thought: Canada must learn from this experience and prioritize energy infrastructure—including proper cost recovery policies and refinery construction—as a strategic national interest. If pipelines and refining capacity had been developed alongside sound financial planning, the country would be in an even stronger economic position today.

Ukraine Aid Must Be Repayable: A Call for Financial Accountability in War Spending

The Problem: Aid Without Accountability

Since February 2022, Ukraine has become the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, surpassing even long-term allies. To date, the United States alone has committed over $175 billion, while European nations collectively have contributed a similar amount. Yet, almost none of this aid is structured as a repayable loan. Unlike previous wartime aid models, Ukraine’s military and financial assistance has been given with no obligation for repayment, placing an enormous burden on Western taxpayers.

Historical Context: A War That Could Have Been Avoided

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine was not inevitable. In 2015, the MINSK II agreement, brokered by France and Germany and signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE, provided a diplomatic framework for peace. The agreement aimed to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity (sans Crimea), protect ethnic Russians, reinstate the Russian language in schools, and ensure Ukrainian neutrality (no NATO membership).

However, instead of honouring this agreement, President Zelensky abrogated the deal under Western influence, and the war began. Russia’s long-standing fears of NATO expansion materialized, triggering what Moscow perceived as a preemptive strike to neutralize a U.S.-backed proxy on its border.

The Cold War-era mindset never truly ended for Washington. The U.S. and its Military-Industrial Complex saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by turning Ukraine into a proxy battlefield. U.S. generals, still bitter from Cold War conflicts where Russia supported U.S. adversaries in Korea, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia, seized the chance to cripple Russia militarily through Ukraine. The result? Millions of casualties, a devastated Ukraine, and a prolonged conflict with no clear end.

Missed Diplomatic Opportunities: The Failure of Minsk II

The 10th anniversary of the Minsk Accords serves as a stark reminder that a viable diplomatic solution existed but was ignored.

• Minsk II outlined a ceasefire, withdrawal of military forces, and special autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk—yet Ukraine failed to implement these terms.

• Zelensky campaigned on honouring Minsk II but abandoned it after pressure from the U.S. and UK.

• In early 2022, a peace deal was nearly reached in Istanbul, but UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson allegedly intervened to prolong the war.

Now, Ukraine has lost 20% of its territory, its economy is in ruins, and its young population is fleeing—leaving Western taxpayers to foot the bill.

Lessons from the Lend-Lease Act: Why Ukraine's Aid Should Be Repayable

During World War II, the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 allowed the U.S. to provide military aid to allies, but it was structured as a repayable loan or compensated through economic agreements. Key takeaways from Lend-Lease:

• Aid Was Not Free: Military equipment was loaned, leased, or sold under terms determined by the U.S. President.

• Repayment Obligations: Countries had to repay aid through direct funds, material contributions, or strategic agreements.

• Historical Precedent: The UK, for example, continued repaying its Lend-Lease debt until 2006.

Alternative Models: How Aid Should Be Structured

1. Military & Financial Aid as Loans

• Past and future military aid should be converted into long-term, low-interest loans.

• Repayment schedules could be tied to Ukraine’s post-war economic recovery, ensuring fair burden-sharing.

2. Resource-Backed Repayments

• Ukraine possesses vast reserves of lithium, rare earth minerals, and agricultural commodities.

• Aid repayment could be structured through resource export agreements, where donor nations receive preferential access to Ukrainian resources in exchange for debt reduction.

3. Economic Development Partnerships

• The post-war reconstruction of Ukraine should prioritize donor nations’ companies in rebuilding contracts.

• Public-private partnerships (PPPs) should be established to ensure economic returns flow back to nations that provided aid.

Who Pays? The Long-Term Consequences of Ignoring Accountability

Ukraine’s infrastructure, economy, and morale have been devastated. With 20% of its territory under Russian control, a declining population due to mass migration, and a bleak economic future, the real question is: Who will pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction?

• Western taxpayers should not bear the cost of rebuilding a country that ignored peace agreements and fueled its own destruction.

• Ukraine’s young population has fled—will they return? If not, the country faces demographic collapse and economic oblivion.

• Without clear repayment mechanisms, Ukraine could become an economic black hole, dependent on indefinite Western subsidies.

Conclusion: A Fair Deal for All

While supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression is a strategic interest, financial responsibility cannot be ignored. Aid should not be a blank check—it must come with repayment mechanisms to ensure accountability. Without such conditions, Western taxpayers will continue shouldering a massive financial burden with no return on investment.

Ukraine must take responsibility for its own future. If it expects continued Western support, it must be prepared to share the financial burden through structured repayments, resource-backed agreements, and economic partnerships.

 

No more free aid—it's time for accountability.

The Flawed Proceeds of Crime Act: Canada Must Amend It to Protect Innocent Citizens

Canada's Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act was designed to combat illicit financial activities, but in practice, it has become a deeply flawed instrument of government overreach, financial surveillance, and constitutional violations. Innocent Canadians—law-abiding individuals and businesses—are being swept up in an overly broad system that prioritizes suspicion over evidence, surveillance over privacy, and foreign influence over national sovereignty. This Act must be immediately amended to restore financial privacy, prevent political weaponization, and ensure real due process protections under the Canadian Constitution.

This is the Canadian law designed to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

While it is necessary but a flawed tool in the fight against financial crime. While it strengthens Canada’s defences it raises questions about financial privacy, regulatory overreach, and international influence.

The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act has gone far beyond its intended purpose, turning into a tool for mass surveillance, financial blacklisting, and government overreach. If left unchanged, it will continue to violate the rights of Canadians, damage businesses, and compromise financial privacy.

To ensure financial privacy while maintaining an effective anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing framework, Canada's Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act must be amended.  

Judicial Oversight: A Three-Judge Panel Must Approve Financial Restrictions

One of the most egregious flaws in the Act is that it allows financial institutions and regulatory bodies to freeze assets, block transactions, and report individuals based on suspicion alone—without requiring any substantial evidence of a crime. This creates an environment ripe for abuse, where citizens can be financially blacklisted without due process.

Proposed Amendment:

✅ Mandatory three-judge panel approval before any financial restriction (account freeze, transaction block, asset seizure) is imposed under the Act.
✅ Requirement for clear evidence of wrongdoing, not just suspicion.
✅ Exception: Immediate action is allowed only in an active terrorist financing case, but must undergo judicial review within 48 hours.
✅ Result: This prevents political abuse, mass financial surveillance, and wrongful persecution of innocent Canadians.

Strengthening Financial Privacy for Citizens & Corporations

The Act's current structure treats all Canadians as potential criminals, forcing banks to report even perfectly legal financial transactions. This is an outright violation of privacy and the presumption of innocence. The law must be reformed to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens and businesses.

Key Amendments:

✅ Limit “Suspicious Activity Reports” (SARs) to High-Risk Cases Only

• Banks should only be required to flag transactions linked to actual criminal activity, not just any transaction over $10,000.

✅ Transparency for Affected Individuals & Businesses

• Canadians must be notified within six months if their transactions were flagged but found innocent. No more secret blacklisting.

✅ Reduce Data Retention Periods to Prevent Financial Surveillance

• The Act mandates that financial institutions store data for over 5 years, enabling mass surveillance.

• Amendment: Limit data retention to 3 years maximum, unless linked to an active investigation.

✅ Protect Cryptocurrency Users from Overregulation

• The law treats all crypto transactions as high-risk, even though many Canadians use crypto legally.

• Amendment: Ensure that only high-risk transactions are flagged while respecting law-abiding crypto users' financial privacy.

Eliminating Regulatory Overreach & Government Abuse

The Act gives the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) broad powers with little oversight. There have been multiple instances where laws like this have been weaponized against political opponents, peaceful protestors, and businesses. This must stop.

Key Safeguards Needed:

✅ Prevent Mass Surveillance of Financial Transactions

• Require a warrant before any mass data collection on transactions.

✅ Rein in FINTRAC’s Expansive Powers

• Establish independent oversight of FINTRAC to prevent overreach.

• Require annual third-party audits to ensure compliance with privacy laws.

✅ Ban Political Weaponization of Banking

• Freeze assets only with a court order—politicians and bureaucrats should not be able to target individuals or groups.

• Parliamentary approval should be required before the Act can be used against peaceful political activists or businesses.

✅ Enforce Criminal Penalties for Wrongful Freezing of Assets

• If a bank or government agency wrongfully freezes an account, they should face criminal liability and financial penalties.

Restoring Canada’s Financial Sovereignty

The Act is heavily influenced by foreign bodies like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the United Nations, and the U.S. financial system. This has led to Canadian financial laws being dictated by international actors, rather than serving the best interests of Canadian citizens and businesses.

Key Reforms:

✅ Limit Foreign Influence in Canada’s AML Laws

• No automatic adoption of FATF, U.S., or UN financial restrictions without independent Canadian review.

✅ Prohibit Canadian Banks from Enforcing Foreign Sanctions Without Canadian Approval

• Right now, foreign governments can pressure Canadian banks to freeze assets or deny financial services based on political disputes abroad.

• Amendment: Canadian banks should only enforce sanctions approved by Canadian law.

✅ Strengthen Protections for Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs)

• Ensure PEP monitoring does not become political harassment.

• Limit monitoring to current officials, not past ones.

• Require concrete risk factors before flagging a transaction.

Conclusion: Canada Must Fix This Law Now

The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act has gone far beyond its intended purpose, turning into a tool for mass surveillance, financial blacklisting, and government overreach. If left unchanged, it will continue to violate the rights of Canadians, damage businesses, and compromise financial privacy.

Immediate legislative reforms are needed: 

✅ Require a three-judge panel to approve any financial restrictions.
✅ Limit mass transaction monitoring and financial surveillance.
✅ Ensure financial transparency and prevent wrongful blacklisting.
✅ End foreign influence over Canadian financial laws.
✅ Protect law-abiding Canadians from unjust suspicion and government abuse.

Canada must act now to restore financial freedom, constitutional protections, and sovereignty. It’s time to reform this law before more innocent Canadians become collateral damage in the government’s failed approach to financial crime prevention.

SOURCE:

https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-24.501/

NOTE:

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada

Government agency

The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada is the national financial intelligence agency of Canada.

FINTRAC was established in 2000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act to facilitate the detection and investigation of money laundering.

Parent organization: Department of Finance Canada

Founded: 2000

Agency executive: : Sarah Paquet, Director and Chief Executive Officer;

Employees: 556 (2024)

Headquarters: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Minister responsible: Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Finance

 

  

The European Union: A Constitution of Control, Not Democracy

Published

May 7, 2012

Supporters of a new world order—including media institutions, political elites, and globalist advocates—often portray the European Union’s constitutional framework as a triumph of democracy, human rights, and minority protections. However, the stark reality is that the EU’s constitutional foundation was imposed in direct defiance of its own citizens, overriding democratic referendums and national self-determination within its member states.

A fundamental distinction exists between the constitutional principles of the European Union and those of the United States. The U.S. Constitution begins with the powerful declaration, “We the People,” affirming that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. In contrast, the EU’s constitution, as shaped by successive treaties, begins with “His Majesty the King of the Belgians,” symbolizing its aristocratic, top-down origins rather than a foundation built on popular sovereignty.

The EU’s Contempt for Democratic Mandates

From its inception, the EU demonstrated a blatant disregard for the will of its people. National referendums rejecting various EU constitutional frameworks were either ignored or rebranded under different treaty names to circumvent public opposition. Rather than respecting democratic mandates, European elites imposed a supranational structure designed by aristocrats, technocrats, and lifelong bureaucrats—individuals whose interests are inherently tied to centralizing power and eliminating national autonomy.

This governance model is not an evolution of democracy but a direct inversion of it. Much like authoritarian regimes of Europe’s past, the EU is built upon the premise that power should reside with an insulated ruling class, not the electorate. The European Union’s formation was not a product of democratic consensus but a strategic political reorganization from above, using legislative loopholes to subvert national self-determination.

A System Designed to Bypass the People

The EU’s legislative power is concentrated in the hands of an appointed European Commission, an unelected body of career bureaucrats who wield supreme authority over European legislation. Unlike traditional democratic systems, where laws are debated and enacted by elected representatives, the EU grants its executive branch a monopoly on legislative proposals, ensuring that critical policies originate not from the people but from entrenched elites.

In any truly democratic society, such unchecked, unelected power would be unacceptable, yet the EU’s constitutional framework was deliberately crafted to make these officials untouchable by national elections. By shielding its ruling class from electoral consequences, the EU has institutionalized a permanent bureaucratic aristocracy, unaccountable to the very people it governs.

Supranationalism as a Means of Control

This forced Europeanization of formerly sovereign states is not about unity—it is about control. The EU's governing structure has eroded national identities and democratic institutions, replacing them with a centralized, unaccountable power structure that resembles historical regimes where bureaucratic elites ruled without public consent.

The European Union is, in essence, a fanatical experiment in supranationalism, where the ruling class is detached from the citizens they claim to represent. The project is less about cooperation and more about ensuring that the levers of power remain firmly in the hands of unelected, lifelong bureaucrats at the taxpayers’ expense.

Democracy vs. Technocratic Dictatorship

When given the choice between democracy and autocratic bureaucratic rule, the EU has consistently sided with the latter. The European Union is not a governing body that exists to serve its citizens; rather, it is a political mechanism that exists to perpetuate itself, concentrating authority while stripping power from national governments and individuals alike.

In essence, the EU is not a union of democratic nations but an authoritarian construct, designed to subjugate sovereign states under a ruling class that answers only to itself. Its policies, constitutional structure, and governance mechanisms serve as a continuation of the centralist, bureaucratic governance that has plagued Europe for centuries.

A Stark Contrast: The EU vs. the United States

The fundamental difference between the constitutional models of the United States and the European Union is not simply one of wording—it is a defining factor like freedom and governance:

• The U.S. Constitution was designed to empower the people and restrain the government.
• The EU’s constitutional framework was designed to empower the government and control the people.

This distinction is not just theoretical—it is a reflection of two entirely different visions of governance: one rooted in individual liberty and one entrenched in bureaucratic dominance.

The citizens of Europe, like those in any free society, must ask themselves: Who truly governs us? A government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Or a government by elites, for elites, at the expense of its citizens?

The answer is clear. The European Union, under its current framework, is nothing more than an autocratic governing entity, continuing the long and unfortunate European tradition of centralized, elite-driven rule—a system that history has repeatedly shown to be a threat to liberty, prosperity, and national self-determination.

Readings @

http://www.proyectos.cchs.csic.es/euroconstitution/

http://eu.um.dk/en/about-us/representatives/

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/

http://www.eunow.eu/eublog/?p=4

http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/index_en.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/culturaldiplomacynews/participant-papers/eu/Maria-Eremenko-Political-participation-Model-by-Verba-in-the-EU-and-Russia.pdf

Canada’s Missed Opportunity: Why More Refineries and Pipelines Were Essential for Energy Security

For decades, Canada has been a global leader in oil production, yet it remains heavily dependent on the United States for refining and export infrastructure. Instead of maximizing its energy independence, Canada has allowed political and regulatory roadblocks to stall vital projects, limiting economic growth and making the country reliant on foreign refining capacity. Building more domestic refineries and east-west pipeline infrastructure should have been a national priority.

Canada’s failure to develop refining and pipeline capacity has been a self-inflicted wound, limiting the country’s economic potential and increasing dependence on foreign markets. By reversing course and adopting pro-energy policies, Canada can secure its economic future and maximize the value of its vast natural resources.

The Case for More Refineries

1. Energy Independence and Security

Canada exports millions of barrels of crude oil daily to the U.S., only to import back refined fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel at a higher cost. A stronger domestic refining sector would have reduced reliance on foreign supply chains and insulated Canadians from external price shocks.

2. Economic Growth and Jobs

Refineries are major job creators, providing employment in construction, operations, and maintenance. By expanding refining capacity, Canada could have added thousands of high-paying jobs while increasing the value of its exports.

3. Strengthening Trade Position

Instead of exporting raw crude at lower prices, Canada could have exported finished petroleum products, generating higher revenues and reducing trade imbalances. With global energy demand rising, particularly in Asia and Europe, a stronger refining sector would have positioned Canada as a key player in international energy markets.

The Need for More Pipelines to the East and West

1. Market Diversification

Currently, over 98% of Canada’s crude exports go to the United States, making Canada heavily reliant on a single buyer. The cancellation of the Energy East pipeline in 2017 meant that Eastern Canada continued importing oil from foreign producers instead of using domestic resources. Similarly, restrictions on Western pipeline expansion have prevented access to the booming Asian markets.

2. Reducing Foreign Dependence

Despite being one of the world’s top oil producers, Eastern Canada still imports oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and the U.S. due to the lack of pipeline infrastructure linking Alberta’s oil sands to the region. This reliance on foreign oil is unnecessary and exposes Canada to geopolitical risks.

3. Boosting Canadian Competitiveness

By failing to build critical pipeline infrastructure, Canada has ceded energy market advantages to the United States. While American refiners process Canadian crude and profit from it, Canada lags in developing its own refining and export capacity.

Policy Barriers and the Trudeau Government’s Role

Several policy decisions have significantly hindered Canada’s energy sector:

• Bill C-69 (2019) introduced subjective criteria such as social and gender impacts into energy project approvals, creating uncertainty for investors. The Supreme Court later ruled it unconstitutional, but the damage was already done.

• Bill C-48 effectively banned oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast, blocking access to Asian markets.

• Federal policies have disproportionately targeted the oil and gas sector with greenhouse gas (GHG) emission caps and restrictive clean fuel standards, discouraging investment.

As a result, energy investment in Canada plummeted from $76 billion in 2014 to $35 billion in 2023, while U.S. states such as Wyoming and North Dakota surged ahead in investment attractiveness.

The Path Forward: Rebuilding Canada’s Energy Strength

If Canada wants to reclaim its position as a global energy leader, it must:

1. Encourage new refinery construction to reduce dependence on U.S. refining capacity.

2. Revive east-west pipeline projects to connect Canadian crude to domestic and international markets.

3. Streamline regulatory processes to attract investment and eliminate unnecessary barriers.

4. Balance environmental goals with economic growth to ensure Canada remains competitive in global energy markets.

1. Energy Independence & Security 🔥

• Canada exports crude oil to the U.S., but then imports refined fuel back at higher prices.
• If Canada had more refining capacity, it could produce its own gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel instead of depending on U.S. refineries.
• The Energy East pipeline would have connected Alberta’s oil to Eastern Canada, reducing reliance on foreign imports.

2. Market Diversification 🌍

• With pipelines to the West Coast, Canada could sell directly to Asia, taking advantage of growing demand in China and India.
• Eastern pipelines would have allowed exports to Europe, reducing dependence on the U.S. as the primary buyer.

3. Economic Growth & Jobs 💰

• Building new pipelines and refineries would have created thousands of high-paying jobs in construction, engineering, and operations.
• More refining capacity means higher-value exports rather than just shipping raw crude.

4. Lost Opportunity Due to Policy & Regulation 🏛️

• The Trudeau government killed Energy East in 2017 with excessive regulatory demands.
• Bill C-48 banned crude oil exports from B.C.'s northern coast, limiting access to Asia.
• Bill C-69 created uncertainty for investors, stalling projects.

5. The U.S. Wins While Canada Stalls 🇨🇦➡️🇺🇸

• The U.S. refined 2.8 million barrels per day of Canadian oil in 2023 while Canada still imports gasoline and diesel from the U.S.
• The lack of pipelines and refineries has artificially constrained Canadian energy growth while benefiting American refiners.

The Bottom Line

Canada should have built more refineries and pipelines to diversify its energy exports, create jobs, and achieve energy security. Instead, political decisions and overregulation have blocked progress, leaving the country dependent on U.S. refineries and limiting economic potential.

Canada Consistently Underfunds Its Defense

 

Canada has consistently underfunded its defence while benefiting from U.S. military protection, and it’s fair to argue that it should pay its fair share, both going forward and retroactively. 

Canada should pay its fair share—both retroactively and moving forward. The U.S. taxpayer shouldn’t be subsidizing a wealthy country like Canada when it can afford to defend itself.

Canada's Chronic Underfunding of Defense

• NATO requires members to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence, but Canada has never met this target in modern history.
• Canada currently spends around 1.38% of GDP on defence (2023)—well below what’s expected.
• The U.S. often makes up the shortfall, ensuring North America’s security at great financial cost.

The U.S. Bears the Burden

• The U.S. spent 3.49% of GDP on defence in 2023, well above NATO’s 2% target.
• The NORAD alliance (which protects Canadian airspace) is overwhelmingly funded by the U.S.
• The U.S. has military bases, personnel, and missile defence systems that indirectly protect Canada at no direct cost to Canadian taxpayers.

 Decades of Free-Riding – Should Canada Pay Retroactively?

Canada should have met NATO's 2% target for the past 50 years, here’s a rough estimate of what it “owes” in back defence spending:

• Since 1973, Canada has spent an average of 1.2% of GDP on defence, far below NATO’s 2% guideline.
• If Canada had met the 2% target, it would have spent hundreds of billions more over the years.
• Some estimates suggest that Canada has “underpaid” by $250 billion to $300 billion in military spending compared to its NATO commitments.

What Could Canada Do to Pay Its Fair Share?

• Increase defence spending immediately to at least 2% of GDP (about $20-30 billion more per year).
• Compensate the U.S. for past shortfalls—even a one-time repayment (e.g., $50-$100 billion) would acknowledge the U.S. burden.
• Take on more responsibility in NORAD and NATO, including Arctic security and missile defence.

The Political Reality

• Trudeau has refused to commit to 2% GDP defence spending, despite repeated U.S. pressure.
• Canada’s military is underfunded and aging, with outdated ships, aircraft, and limited troop numbers.
• The U.S. is growing impatient—Trump openly criticized Canada’s defence spending, and Biden has pushed for stronger NATO commitments.

Instead of outright demanding a lump-sum repayment, the U.S. should strategically adjust trade agreements to recover the costs while keeping relations smooth. Here’s how that could work:

1. "Trade Corrections" as Repayment

Since Canada has benefited from U.S. defence spending, the U.S. could:

• Impose higher tariffs on Canadian exports until the defence debt is balanced.
• Adjust USMCA (NAFTA 2.0) terms to favor U.S. industries, reducing Canadian economic advantages.
• Require mandatory U.S. defence contracts—forcing Canada to purchase more military equipment from American manufacturers (benefiting the U.S. economy).

2. Specific Trade Adjustments That Make Sense

A. Tariffs on Key Canadian Exports

• The U.S. buys 75% of Canada’s total exports, giving it major leverage.
• The U.S. could impose a defence surcharge on high-value Canadian goods like:
  • Oil & Gas (Canada’s biggest export)
  • Lumber & Forestry Products
  • Automobiles & Parts
  • Agricultural Products (wheat, beef, dairy)

B. Exclusive Defense Contracts

• Require all Canadian military purchases to be U.S.-made (fighter jets, warships, defence systems).
• Make Canada fund more NORAD operations directly by paying for U.S. military infrastructure in the Arctic.

C. Adjustments to USMCA (NAFTA 2.0)

• Canada gets trade advantages in USMCA, which could be revised to favour U.S. businesses until Canada offsets its defence debt.
• For example:
  • Reduce Canadian dairy protections (which currently hurt U.S. farmers).
  • Increase U.S. energy exports to Canada while restricting some Canadian energy sales to the U.S.
  • Strengthen “Buy American” provisions for U.S. infrastructure projects.

3. Why This Approach Works

✔ Avoids direct confrontation—Canada wouldn’t see it as a military “bill,” just a trade adjustment.
✔ Benefits the U.S. economy while recovering costs.
✔ Encourages Canada to increase defence spending voluntarily to avoid further trade penalties.

Bottom Line

If Canada won’t pay back directly, the U.S. should recoup the money through trade corrections—a fair, strategic, and diplomatic way to ensure Canada stops freeloading on defence.

The Nuclear-Powered AI Revolution

 

Act Now or Get Left Behind

The AI energy war has already begun, and nuclear power is the new battlefield. The question is not whether AI will be powered by nuclear—but who will own and control that power. If we don’t act now, we risk a future where the world’s most powerful technology is fueled by energy controlled by a few trillion-dollar corporations.

Governments, investors, and innovators must wake up and act now—or risk losing control of the next era of human advancement.

Time is running out.

A Problem We Can’t Ignore

Artificial intelligence is on the brink of reshaping every industry, from medicine to finance to national security. But there’s a problem no one is talking about loudly enough: AI is hungry. Very hungry. The demand for electricity to power AI systems is soaring, and our current energy infrastructure is nowhere near prepared to handle it.

Tech giants like Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have realized this, and they’re not waiting around for governments or utilities to catch up. Instead, they’re making massive bets on nuclear energy to power their AI-driven future. This isn’t just about keeping data centers running—it’s about securing a strategic advantage in the next industrial revolution.

Big Tech’s Nuclear Land Grab: What’s Happening?

1. Amazon: Bought a data center next to a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania and tried to grab an additional 180 MW of power. Regulators shut it down, but they’ll be back.

2. Microsoft: Struck a deal with Constellation Energy to restart a shuttered nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island. Yes, that Three Mile Island—the site of America’s worst nuclear disaster.

3. Google & Amazon: Both announced investments in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)—next-gen nuclear tech that’s smaller, safer, and scalable.

4. Meta: Just put out a request for proposals to secure up to 4 gigawatts of nuclear power.

Why Nuclear?

• 24/7 Reliable Power: Unlike solar and wind, nuclear is a constant energy source—critical for AI’s high-compute demands.

• Carbon-Free: AI companies need to stay “green” while still consuming massive amounts of power.

• Scalability: Next-gen TRISO-fueled SMRs promise to shrink costs, improve safety, and deploy faster.

• Energy Independence: Owning or securing nuclear supply means freedom from volatile energy markets.

The Hidden Risk: Big Tech Controlling the Future of Energy

The move to nuclear is necessary—but who controls it matters. Right now, the world’s biggest tech companies are buying up nuclear energy before the rest of the market even wakes up. Here’s why that’s dangerous:

1. AI-Driven Energy Monopolies: If Big Tech owns the reactors, they own the power—and they decide who gets access.

2. National Security Risks: AI is already influencing global conflicts. What happens when nuclear-powered AI is in the hands of private companies?

3. Public Utility vs. Private Profit: Should AI-driven energy be treated like a public infrastructure project, or will it become another profit machine for trillion-dollar corporations?

4. Regulatory Catch-Up: Governments are miles behind on energy regulation. By the time policies are set, Big Tech could already own the market.

What Needs to Happen—Now

This isn’t just a conversation for energy experts—it’s a call to action for policymakers, investors, and the public to get ahead of the curve.

1. National AI Energy Strategy

Governments must step in immediately to ensure AI’s energy needs are met without allowing corporate monopolization.

• Public-private partnerships should be formed to ensure fair access to nuclear power.

• Funding for SMR development must be expanded beyond private tech investments.

2. Open Access to AI-Powered Nuclear Energy

• Nuclear energy for AI must not be hoarded by a few dominant players.

• Policymakers should mandate competitive access to nuclear-powered AI infrastructure.

3. Decentralized AI Power Grids

• Instead of letting Big Tech dominate, a decentralized network of nuclear-powered AI hubs should be developed.

• Regional AI energy hubs could prevent the concentration of control in Silicon Valley.

4. Acceleration of Next-Gen Nuclear Investment

• Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) must be fast-tracked—waiting five years is too long.

• Public funding & tax incentives should go toward nuclear innovation beyond Big Tech’s investments.