🧑‍🏭 Hundreds of thousands of jobs are hanging in the balance due to the trade war. 0⃣ We have no clue what our government is doing. 🚫 No plan, no comms, no progress reports (Advisory Committee?), what tariff rates would be acceptable, nothing. Just a vague "good deal" promised. 🙈 The most important issue facing our country & we're in the dark. 🦗 🇨🇦 media isn't holding the Liberals to account. News items on small & medium sized business impacts have dried up. Deflection articles rule. The Jobs report is out on Oct 9. ✅ @KatlynHarrison "We need to have an adult conversation (in the media)..." 🙄 Perhaps a 🇺🇸 media outlet will fill us in. Thx @cbcwatcher

Stelco Steel out of Hamilton just announced they are shutting down indefinitely on October 9th due to tariffs. 500 workers will be out of work across their two locations in Ontario. They also noted that Canadian sales of their steel is down 10%. The longer Carney delays any trade negotiations with the U.S. the more Canadians will continue to lose their livelihoods and jobs.

Carney’s invasion talk has jumped the shark Prime Minister Mark Carney’s decision to publicly elevate the possibility of a U.S. military invasion of Canada may be the moment his “elbows up” politics finally jumped the shark. The United States is not simply Canada’s neighbour. It is our largest trading partner, principal security partner, NATO ally and NORAD counterpart. Canada and the United States operate the world’s most integrated bilateral economic relationship and share its longest undefended border. To publicly elevate the possibility of an American military attack is not strategic clarity. It is the political exploitation of public anxiety. Canadians have every reason to be unsettled by the direction of the United States. Washington is changing structurally. It is more protectionist, more transactional and more willing to use tariffs, industrial policy and national-security powers to advance its interests. It is demanding more from allies while pulling investment, supply chains and strategic capacity toward its own market. The postwar rules-based order, underwritten by American power, open trade and dependable alliances, is fading. Canada cannot wish that reality away. Canada should respond by diversifying trade, rebuilding its productive base and reducing needless dependence on a single customer. But there is a vast difference between recognizing a tougher world and publicly entertaining an American invasion. Carney’s political brand is hard-headed realism, take the world as it is, not as we want it to be. Fine. But realism requires distinguishing genuine strategic risks from political fantasy. Washington can impose tariffs, lure investment south and pursue its national interest without American troops preparing to cross the world’s longest undefended border. Carney has called military action an “extreme tail risk.” Governments should assess even remote contingencies. But transforming an internal planning exercise into public political messaging is alarmism, not leadership. It also ignores the practical reality of continental defence. Canada and the United States are NATO allies and NORAD partners, jointly responsible for aerospace and maritime warning. Canada’s security is deeply intertwined with America’s, not because Canada is subordinate, but because geography and mutual interest make continental defence inseparable. Gordon Sinclair understood that relationship. In his 1973 editorial, The Americans, the Toronto broadcaster pushed back against reflexive anti-Americanism, praising Americans as generous and underappreciated even amid the bitterness of the Vietnam era. The commentary became an unexpected U.S. hit because it came from a Canadian willing to acknowledge both the complexity and value of the relationship. The irony is sharper in Carney’s case. While chair of Brookfield Asset Management, he sat on the board that approved moving the firm’s head office from Toronto to New York. His government has also elevated Maia Johnson, an American Democratic political operative, to a critical PMO role, including chief operating officer and adviser on U.S. stakeholder strategy. There may have been legitimate reasons for both choices. But it is a strange sovereignty message, warn of an American military threat while your corporate record includes moving a Canadian head office south and your inner circle relies on an American partisan strategist. Canada’s real weakness is not an imagined invasion. It is our inability to build, pipelines, LNG facilities, mines, power plants, ports, homes and export infrastructure. The answer to a more self-interested America is not anti-American theatre. It is capacity, freer internal trade, faster approvals, reliable power, larger export infrastructure and credible military readiness. Canada does not need fear to rediscover sovereignty. It needs to build. Let’s revisit 1973. 👇 youtu.be/z4i3LmR0K74