What kind of Canada do we want to build?
As wildfires forced tens of thousands to evacuate in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, the first ministers gathered to discuss the nation-building projects Canada needs.
Driving into town through the smoke, they passed our billboards: a wildfire fighter facing a smoke-filled sky with the message 'Don't Let Canada Burn. Connect Canada's Clean Power. Build the East-West Electricity Grid. '
Crisis has a way of sharpening choices between falling back on what you know and evolving into what you can be.
Canada must retool our economy to withstand US economic pressure and the escalating fossil-fuel-driven climate disasters.
There are loud voices calling for us to react by building new pipelines, trampling Indigenous rights and deluding ourselves about climate pollution.
Instead, we must build to last. We can strengthen our communities with clean, affordable energy. We can steward some of the world's vast remaining forests. We can cut pollution, grow good jobs that can't be offshored and build our economy on security, not volatility.
The economic future will belong to countries that can supply affordable, clean power for their economies, writes Jamie Biggar
In doing so, we'll position ourselves to be leaders in the clean electricity transition that's building momentum.
Despite political backsliding in the US, demand for clean electricity technology is booming because it's cheaper, faster to deploy and safer for communities.
In China, EV car sales grew 40 per cent in 2024 alone, and now 1 in 4 cars sold worldwide in 2025 will be electric. Global oil demand will peak this decade.
According to the International Energy Association, annual global investment in clean energy and electricity infrastructure is now fully double the global investment in fossil fuels.
In 2026, the $26T European Union market will introduce a carbon tariff, putting real costs on any carbon-intensive imports from countries that fall behind.
The economic future will belong to countries that can supply affordable, clean power for their economies.
We have a choice: invest in infrastructure that sets Canada up to thrive for the next fifty years, or double down on costly projects designed for a world that is slipping away.
Clean, reliable electric power is the future because it cuts risks, costs and pollution alike. Since clean electricity is where the world is going, we are fortunate to have incredible resources and leaders across the country.
Canada's largest operating battery storage facility opened in Ontario just before the first ministers' meeting — a project conceived by the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corp, with a 70 per cent Indigenous workforce.
One of the most powerful nation-building, Trump-proofing projects is an East-West electricity grid that moves clean power when it's needed.
Since the 1960s, we have built our electricity grids North-South to export power to the US. We've neglected East-West connections that would unite our country and boost our economy. It's time to change that.
Consider Alberta and BC. Alberta has world-class wind and solar potential. BC has massive hydroelectric capacity. Connecting their grids means clean Alberta power will flow to BC when the wind blows and the sun shines. When the wind dies down and day turns to night, then BC's power will flow back to Alberta. That's a system built to last.
Nova Scotia is another case in point. The province has vast offshore wind potential — enough to send power across Eastern Canada, including the markets and manufacturing centres of Quebec. But without links between the provinces, that energy won't reach the places it's needed.
This isn't just about megawatts. It's about the country we want to build. Do we want short-term projects that lock us into pollution and geopolitical risk, or long-term infrastructure that strengthens Canada's independence and economic staying power?
It also means meaningful partnership with Indigenous communities whose lands and rights are too often trampled when governments rush major projects. True partnership, based on consent, is moral, constitutional and smart. It leads to better designed projects, fewer delays and shared prosperity.
At its best, Canada is a country built on evolving agreements between nations — Indigenous and non-Indigenous. We can live up to that vision by ensuring Indigenous peoples are full partners in building a clean energy future — indeed, they have been leading in the field in Canada for years.
Prime Minister Carney is right that we are making decisions in a 'hinge' moment for the country. We're deciding what kind of projects we will fund and fast-track. We can keep pouring public money into unneeded pipelines. Or, we can build the infrastructure to connect our clean power and secure our long-term prosperity.
Don't let Canada burn. Canada needs energy that's built to last: clean, reliable and built in partnership with the communities that host it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
15 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
LILLEY: Trump and Putin come close but don't strike deal
Leaders leave meeting citing progress but no deal yet. Get the latest from Brian Lilley straight to your inbox U.S. President Donald Trump (right) and Russian President Vladimir Putin attend a joint press conference after concluding their talks in Anchorage, Alaska on Aug. 15, 2025. Photo by Wu Xiaoling / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Donald Trump stood on the red carpet in Anchorage, Alaska after leaving Air Force One and clapped as Vladimir Putin walked towards him. The two leaders then stood for a photo-op on a stage that said Alaska 2025 as F-22 fighter jets and a B-2 bomber flew over them in a show of American strength. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account From there, Putin and Trump got into The Beast, the presidential limousine, to head to their meeting. It may have been the only time that the two leaders had alone together. It was supposed to be a one-on-one meeting and gradually turned into a standard summit overtaken with staff and cabinet members. Trump's warm greeting for the Russian leader was a public display ahead of tough talks where Trump was expected to explain to Putin his options. In the meeting, Trump was expected to explain to Putin that he can end the war against Ukraine and reap economic benefits or continue fighting and face consequences. As they emerged after roughly three hours of discussions, Trump gestured to Putin to speak first. The fact that they spoke at all was a sign that some progress was made. The fact that there were no questions taken by either leader was a sign that they did not arrive at an agreement. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'The situation in Ukraine has to do with fundamental threats to our security,' Putin said, making excuses for his decision to invade. For years Putin has tried to claim that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was due to NATO's expansion, but the reality is that NATO's expansion has been driven by Russian aggression as countries such as Sweden and Finland applied for membership. Putin tried during his remarks to play up ties between the United States and Russia, including their ties via Alaska and cooperation during the Second World War. Still, it was clear that while some progress was made, no deal was made. 'T here's no deal until there's a deal,' Trump said after Putin's remarks. Trump said that he would be calling NATO leaders shortly after the meeting and Putin asked that European leaders not try to stop the progress that Putin and Trump were making. Neither leader, though, was willing to share what progress has been made in the meeting. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I'll of course, call up President Zelenskyy and tell them about today's meeting,' Trump said. 'We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left, some are not that significant, one is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.' Prior to the meeting, Trump had spoken of land swaps in any negotiated settlement. That was something Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had opposed. 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier,' Zelenskyy said last week. He may not be able to keep up that tough talk if a real deal for peace is on the table. The most recent Gallup Poll in Ukraine shows that the majority of Ukrainians want a negotiated resolution to this war. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In 2022, 73% of Ukrainians said that their country ' should continue fighting until it wins the war.' Now that number sits at 24% while those saying that 'Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible' has risen from 22% at the start of the war to 69% now. Read More The population of Ukraine, and likely the population of Russia, are war weary and ready for this to end. 'We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there,' Trump said of the meeting. 'Next time in Moscow,' Putin said to Trump as they wrapped up their statements to the media. Trump acknowledged that meeting in Moscow may come with some heat and some problems but didn't say no. The two leaders, who clearly still have issues between them, shook hands and walked off stage before boarding their respective planes to head home. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Toronto & GTA Columnists Ontario Other Sports Celebrity
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Worried about market turmoil, do Estelle, 62, and Blake, 54, need to work longer than planned?
Estelle is planning to retire from her management job in December, 2026, when she will turn 63. Blake, her husband, is 54 and plans to continue working for a few more years at his small business. Estelle is earning $108,000 a year plus a bonus of $16,500, bringing her total pre-tax income to $124,500. Blake earns about $60,000 a year working remotely. While Estelle participates in some group savings plans at work, neither she nor Blake has a defined benefit pension plan. So with all her savings tied to financial market performance, she is worried about potential market turmoil fuelled by U.S. tariff policies. 'Should I delay my retirement so as not to have to risk withdrawing funds at a loss?' she writes in an e-mail. Now with $4-million, what's the best way for Mike and Miriam to deal with their capital gains? How can Seth, 53, and Maeve, 54, reach their goal of spending $120,000 a year in retirement? Their retirement spending goal is $100,000 a year after tax. 'Is it feasible?' she asks. We asked Barbara Knoblach, a certified financial planner at Money Coaches Canada in Edmonton, to look at Blake and Estelle's situation. Blake and Estelle live in Toronto, where they own a small, mortgage-free house, Ms. Knoblach says. They have no children and no plans to leave an inheritance. After she retires, they plan to stay in their home and spend about six months each year living abroad. 'Since Blake's work is remote, he can operate as a digital nomad,' the planner says. Around the time Estelle retires, they plan to take a dream vacation expected to cost $60,000 to $65,000. Estelle participates in three employer-sponsored group plans, a defined contribution pension plan, a non-registered employee savings plan and an employee profit-sharing plan. She contributes 7.8 per cent of her base salary to the pension plan, with a matching 11.7-per-cent employer contribution. She contributes 5.8 per cent of her base salary to the employee savings plan. And her employer contributes 2.9 per cent to the profit-sharing plan. In total, around $30,500 is set aside each year across these plans. Both Estelle and Blake make long-term personal investments. They maximize their tax-free savings accounts annually. She contributes about $10,000 annually to a spousal RRSP for Blake, while he contributes $3,300 per year to his own RRSP and occasionally tops it up with surplus funds. Are they on track if she retires as planned and he works until age 60? If not, how much longer does he need to work? Does she need to work part-time? Ms. Knoblach modelled several potential retirement scenarios. They assume a 2.1-per-cent inflation rate, a 5.5-per-cent rate of return on their investments and that their funds last till he reaches age 95, after which they would still have the equity in their house. Scenario 1: Estelle retires at the end of 2026; Blake retires at age 60 in 2032. Assuming registered account contributions have already been made for 2025, they will add $13,300 to RRSPs and $14,000 to their TFSAs in 2026. From 2027 onward, their household income will drop, and no further registered contributions will be made. Blake's business income will cover household cash flow. The projection shows that they could support an after-tax, inflation-adjusted spending level of $96,500 per year, just under their $100,000 goal. 'This scenario therefore projects slight underfunding and feels financially tight,' Ms. Knoblach says. Regarding the upcoming dream trip, their travel account holds about $34,500 but isn't being consistently funded and has been used for smaller trips. To fully fund the trip, they'll likely need to dip into retirement investments such as Estelle's non-registered savings plan, which would further reduce their retirement income potential, the planner says. Scenario 2: Blake works to the traditional retirement age of 65 and retires in 2037. With Estelle retired and Blake working until the end of the year in which he turns 65, they could reach an annual retirement income of $104,000 starting in 2027 – even without further contributions to registered accounts after 2026. Scenario 3: Estelle retires in 2026 but does part-time freelance work. If she earns about $20,000 a year in freelance income for two years starting in 2027, their annual spending power would reach $98,200. 'This is still slightly underfunded,' the planner says. Scenario 4: Estelle delays retirement until the end of 2028. By staying in her career job until then, she could continue earning and contributing roughly $30,000 annually to her group plans, Ms. Knoblach says. The couple could also continue contributing to their own registered accounts through 2028. In this scenario, they would achieve retirement income of $104,000 per year – even if Blake retires at 60. This approach would also allow them to retire around the same time, rather than several years apart. 'Estelle and Blake have not yet fully secured their desired retirement income,' the planner says. 'To meet their goal comfortably – and to leave room for unexpected expenses like home repairs or vehicle replacement – they should look for ways to extend their income-generating years.' Estelle expressed concern about retiring during a period of volatile financial markets, fearing she might have to sell investments at a loss, Ms. Knoblach says. 'This is a valid concern: Sequence of returns risk arises when markets decline early in retirement, forcing early withdrawals and reducing long-term portfolio growth,' she says. 'This risk is particularly relevant for portfolios heavily weighted toward equities, which is the case for Estelle and Blake. Her concern is therefore justified.' Although Estelle and Blake may want to avoid drawing down their investments in the next year or two, they should prepare for doing so regardless of market conditions. 'Before retiring, they should undergo a drawdown analysis to determine the optimal order of fund withdrawals,' the planner says. The accounts they plan to draw from (e.g., RRSPs) should hold several years' worth of required income in secure, low-volatility securities such as guaranteed investment certificates or short-term deposits. 'This will protect them from having to sell equities during market downturns.' Another way to reduce market exposure is to ensure their essential expenses (e.g., housing, groceries) are covered by reliable income streams. Although they don't have defined benefit pensions, they could consider converting Estelle's defined contribution pension into a life annuity, Ms. Knoblach says. 'Combined with government benefits, this would allow them to ride out market turbulence without having to touch their equities.' Lowering portfolio risk and maintaining liquid, or easily cashable, reserves should be done regardless of how the markets are behaving around the time of retirement, Ms. Knoblach says. Retiring during a market high can be riskier than retiring in a down market because pullbacks are more likely. 'Estelle and Blake should avoid being swayed by emotion or geopolitical events and instead focus on building a robust, resilient plan.' The people: Estelle, 62 going on 63, and Blake, 54. The problem: Will Estelle's retirement plan be derailed by volatile financial markets? How much longer should she and Blake work? The plan: Scenario 4, in which Estelle works another couple of years, offers the best financial security. Make sure they have cash holdings in the accounts they plan to draw from. Consider buying an annuity. Monthly net income: $10,755. Assets: Cash $10,385; other $49,090; her TFSA $124,770; his TFSA $151,845; her RRSP $357,700; his RRSP $295,230; her employer savings and DC pension plan $164,140; residence $1,200,000. Total: $2.35-million. Monthly outlays: Property tax $500; water, sewer, garbage $90; home insurance $110; electricity $140; heating $80; security $35; maintenance, garden $325; transportation $605; groceries $740; clothing $300; gifts, charity $150; vacation, travel $2,500; dining, drinks, entertainment $1,000; personal care $200; gym, club membership $600; sports, hobbies $300; subscriptions $70; health care $480; phones, TV, internet $255; monthly RRSPs $960; TFSAs $1,250. Total: $10,690 Liabilities: None. Want a free financial facelift? E-mail finfacelift@ Some details may be changed to protect the privacy of the persons profiled.
