Flow Beverage Corp. Announces Extension of the Maturity Date of the Term Loan with RI Flow LLC and RI Flow LLC Waives Events of Defaults of Term Loan and NFS Leasing Canada Ltd. Waives Events of Defaults Under Term Loan
TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 16, 2025--
Flow Beverage Corp. (TSX:FLOW; OTCQX:FLWBF) (' Flow ' or the ' Company ') announced today that RI Flow LLC (' RI Flow ') has extended the maturity date of the Term Loan ('the RI Flow Loan') to October 31, 2025. The Company also announced today that RI Flow LLC has irrevocably waived any rights and remedies in relation to certain breaches by the Company under the RI Flow Loan and Security Agreement dated October 31, 2024. Separately, NFS Leasing Canada Ltd. (' NFS ') has irrevocably waived any rights and remedies in relation to certain breaches by the Company under the Term Loan and Security Agreement dated December 30, 2022 (the ' NFS Loan ').
NFS and RI Flow are affiliated with Clifford L. Rucker, an insider of the Company, with RI Flow, NFS Canada and Clifford L. Rucker collectively owning, or having control or direction over, more than 10% of the voting rights attached to all of the Company's outstanding voting securities.
RI Flow Loan
On April 28, 2025, the Company obtained approval of the extension of the maturity date of the RI Flow Loan (the ' Maturity Date '), scheduled to mature on April 30, 2025. Effective April 30, 2025, the Maturity Date was extended until October 31, 2025.
On May 9, 2025, the Company also provided notice to RI Flow LLC (the ' RI Flow Notice '), that it had current trade accounts payable, under normal trade terms, and accrued expenses which were incurred in the ordinary course of business that were currently or may become overdue for a period greater than six months within the definition of Indebtedness as provided in the RI Flow Loan (the ' Aged Payables '). The Company also provided notice to RI Flow that it was currently subject to proceedings that had been instituted by certain vendors in respect of the Aged Payables and that it was aware of proceedings that had been threatened to be instituted by vendors in respect of Aged Payables (the ' Proceedings ') The Company notified RI Flow that, as a result of the incurrence of Aged Payables, it was not in compliance with each of the covenants to pay and discharge, in the ordinary course of business, all obligations and liabilities, to make any payment in respect of Material Indebtedness (defined in the NFS Term Loan as indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount exceeding $250,000.00) when due, to provide NFS promptly (and in any event within five business days after becoming aware of the occurrence of a default or vent of Default) a certificate of a officer of the Company specifying the nature thereof and the Company's proposed response thereto and to provide notice of the occurrence of any Default or Event of Default (each as defined in the NFS Loan) immediately upon knowledge thereof (each individually an ' RI Flow LoanAged Payables Events of Default ' and, collectively, ' RI Flow LoanAged Payables Events of Defaults '). The Company also notified RI Flow that, as a result of the occurrence of Proceedings, it was not in compliance with each of the covenants to promptly notify and, in any event within five business days after becoming aware, of any proceeding involving a sum, together with the sum involved in all other similar proceedings, in excess of $250,000.00 in the aggregate, to provide RI Flow promptly (and in any event within five business days after becoming aware of the occurrence of a default or vent of Default) a certificate of an officer of the Company specifying the nature thereof and the Company's proposed response thereto and to provide notice of the occurrence of any Default or Event of Default (each as defined in the RI Flow Loan) immediately upon knowledge thereof (each individually an ' RI Flow LoanProceedings Events of Default ' and, collectively, ' NFS LoanProceedings Events of Defaults ').
RI Flow has irrevocably waived the RI Flow Loan Aged Payables Event of Defaults for the period ending on May 31, 2025 and irrevocably waived the RI Flow Loan Proceedings Events of Defaults until June 9, 2025 in relation to the Proceedings.
As a result of the RI Flow Loan Aged Payables Events of Defaults and the RI Flow Loan Proceedings Events of Default, RI Flow would have had the right to declare the Term Loan to become due and payable immediately for cash, to enforce or foreclose the security interest created pursuant to the RI Term Loan or seek the appointment of a receiver, receiver-manager or keeper under applicable legislation to take possession of all or any portion of the Company's assets collateralized under the RI Flow Loan or to operate same. The current outstanding principal amount of the RI Flow Loan is $4,161,600.
NFS Term Loan
On April 28, 2025, the Company notified NFS that, as at April 30, 2025, it would not comply with the financial covenants requiring that, as of the last day of each fiscal quarter, the Company shall not permit the cash ratio (defined in the NFS Loan as the ratio of (a) the sum of (i) cash, plus (ii) cash equivalents (together, 'Total Cash'), to (b) all current liabilities due over the next ninety (90) days following such period) for the fiscal quarter period then ending to be less than 0.25 to 1.00 and total cash shall be at least $4,000,000.00 at all times (the ' Financial Covenants ').
On May 9, 2025, the Company also provided notice to NFS (the ' NFS Notice '), that it had current trade accounts payable, under normal trade terms, and accrued expenses which were incurred in the ordinary course of business that were currently or may become overdue for a period greater than six months within the definition of Indebtedness as provided in the NFS Loan (the ' Aged Payables '). The Company also provided notice to NFS that it was currently subject to proceedings that had been instituted by certain vendors in respect of the Aged Payables and that it was aware of proceedings that had been threatened to be instituted by vendors in respect of Aged Payables (the ' Proceedings '). In the NFS Notice, the Company notified NFS that, as a result of the incurrence of Aged Payables, it was not in compliance with each of the covenants to pay and discharge, in the ordinary course of business, all obligations and liabilities, to make any payment in respect of Material Indebtedness (defined in the NFS Term Loan as indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount exceeding $500,000.00) when due, to provide NFS promptly (and in any event within five business days after becoming aware of the occurrence of a default or event of default) a certificate of an officer of the Company specifying the nature thereof and the Company's proposed response thereto and to provide notice of the occurrence of any Default or Event of Default (each as defined in the NFS Loan) immediately upon knowledge thereof (each individually an ' NFS LoanAged Payables Events of Default ' and, collectively, ' NFS LoanAged Payables Events of Defaults '). The Company also notified NFS that, as a result of the occurrence of the Proceedings, it was not in compliance with each of the covenants to promptly notify (and in any event within five business days after becoming aware) of any actual or threatened proceeding involving a sum, together with the sum involved in all other similar proceedings, in excess of $250,000.00 in the aggregate, to provide NFS promptly, and in any event within five business days after becoming aware of the occurrence of a default or event of default, a certificate of an officer of the Company specifying the nature thereof and the Company's proposed response thereto and to provide notice of the occurrence of any default or event of Default (each as defined in the NFS Loan) immediately upon knowledge thereof (each individually an ' NFS LoanProceedings Events of Default ' and, collectively, ' NFS LoanProceedings Events of Defaults ').
NFS has irrevocably waived, strictly for the Company's fiscal quarter ending April 30, 2025, its rights and remedies due to non-compliance of the Company with the Financial Covenants. NFS has also irrevocably waived the NFS Loan Aged Payables Event of Defaults for the period ending on May 31, 2025 and irrevocably waived the NFS Loan Proceedings Events of Defaults until June 9, 2025 in relation to the Proceedings.
As a result of the NFS Loan Aged Payables Events of Defaults and the NFS Loan Proceedings Events of Default, NFS would have had, amongst other rights and remedies, the right to declare the NFS Loan or any portion of it to become due and payable immediately for cash, enforce or foreclose the security interest created pursuant to the NFS Loan or seek the appointment of a receiver, receiver-manager or keeper under applicable legislation to take possession of all or any portion of the Company's assets collateralized under the NFS Loan or to operate same. The current outstanding principal amount of the NFS Loan is $17,131,601.
Withdrawal of Financial Guidance
The Company previously introduced financial targets for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2025 (' FY 2025 '), having announced it expected to earn net revenue between $72 million and $82 million, gross margin between 38% and 48%, and Adjusted EBITDA between $6 million to $11 million (the ' Financial Targets '). In light of a number of developments, circumstances and considerations, including, among others, deteriorating market and macro-economic conditions, and despite the Company's comprehensive review of its existing organizational and business strategy with the continuing objectives of becoming EBITDA and cash flow positive, the Company now believes that it will not achieve the synergies and incremental cash flow increases to the level estimated in its previous guidance and it expects such figures and measures to be lower than previously guided. Consequently, the Company announces that it is entirely withdrawing its previously issued guidance on financial targets for FY 2025, and there can be no assurance that the Company will in the future decide to provide any guidance whatsoever with respect to any operational, financial or other measure.
About Flow
Flow is one of the fastest-growing premium water companies in North America. Founded in 2014, Flow's mission since day one has been to reduce environmental impacts by providing sustainably sourced natural mineral spring water in the most sustainable product formats. Today, the brand is B-Corp Certified with a best-in-class score of 114.5, offering a diversified line of health and wellness-oriented beverage products: original mineral spring water, award-winning organic flavours and sparkling mineral spring water in sizes ranging from 300-ml to 1-litre. All products contain naturally occurring electrolytes and essential minerals and support Flow's overarching purpose to 'bring wellness to the world through the positive power of water.' Flow beverage products are available at retailers in Canada and the United States, and online at flowhydration.com.
For more information on Flow, please visit Flow's investor relations site at: investors.flowhydration.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking information and forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws (' Forward-Looking Statements '). The Forward-Looking Statements contained in this press release relate to future events or Flow's future plans, operations, strategy, performance or financial position and are based on Flow's current expectations, estimates, projections, beliefs and assumptions, including, among other things, in respect of the Company's ability to maintain compliance with covenants under the NFS Term Loan and the RI Flow Loan and NFS' and RI Flow's willingness to waive any future non-compliance by the Company of its covenanted obligations under the NFS Loan and RI Flow Loan respectively. In particular, there is no assurance that the Company will maintain compliance with covenants under the NFS Term Loan and the RI Flow Loan nor that NFS or RI Flow will waive any future non-compliance by the Company of its covenanted obligations under the NFS Loan and RI Flow Loan respectively. Such Forward-Looking Statements have been made by Flow in light of the information available to it at the time the statements were made and reflect its experience and perception of historical trends. All statements and information other than historical fact may be forward‐looking statements. Such Forward‐Looking Statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as 'may', 'would', 'should', 'could', 'expect', 'intend', 'estimate', 'anticipate', 'plan', 'foresee', 'believe', 'continue', 'expect', 'believe', 'anticipate', 'estimate', 'will', 'potential', 'proposed' and other similar words and expressions.
Forward-Looking Statements are based on certain expectations and assumptions and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond Flow's control, that could cause actual events, results, performance and achievements to differ materially from those anticipated in these Forward-Looking Statements. Forward-Looking Statements are provided for the purpose of assisting the reader in understanding Flow and its business, operations, prospects, and risks at a point in time in the context of historical and possible future developments, and the reader is therefore cautioned that such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. Forward-Looking Statements should not be read as guarantees of future performance or results. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these Forward-Looking Statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release. Unless otherwise noted or the context otherwise indicates, the Forward-Looking Statements contained herein are provided as of the date hereof, and the Company disclaims any intention or obligation, except to the extent required by law, to update or revise any Forward-Looking Statements as a result of new information or future events, or for any other reason.
The following press release should be read in conjunction with the management's discussion and analysis and unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements and notes thereto as at and for the three months ended January 31, 2025. Additional information about Flow is available on the Company's profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedar.com, including the Company's Annual Information Form for the year ended October 31, 2024 dated January 29, 2025.
View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250516991932/en/
CONTACT: Trent MacDonald, Chief Financial Officer
1-844-356-9426
[email protected]:
Marc Charbin
[email protected]:
Natasha Koifman
[email protected]
KEYWORD: NORTH AMERICA CANADA
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: ENERGY OTHER ENERGY UTILITIES ENVIRONMENT
SOURCE: Flow Beverage Corp.
Copyright Business Wire 2025.
PUB: 05/16/2025 11:19 PM/DISC: 05/16/2025 11:18 PM
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250516991932/en
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Energy Transfer the All-American Dividend Stock for You? Consider This High-Yielder Instead.
Energy Transfer has a lofty 7.4% yield backed by an inherently domestic business. The midstream giant has made some decisions that should leave conservative investors with trust issues. Enterprise Products Partners' 6.9% yield will likely be a better fit for most investors. 10 stocks we like better than Energy Transfer › Dividend investors are always trying to maximize yield, but that requires extra consideration on the risk front. A high yield that isn't backed by a reliable company could leave you in the lurch and, likely, at the worst possible time. This is why investors looking at Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET) and its lofty 7.5% distribution yield will probably be better off taking a little less yield and choosing Enterprise Products Partners (NYSE: EPD) instead. Here's why. Energy Transfer and Enterprise are two of the largest midstream companies in North America. They both hail from the United States and generate most of their business from the country. The truth is, owning energy infrastructure assets like pipelines essentially forces these two businesses to be American at heart. After all, you can't move oil around the United States on a pipeline that gets built in Europe. That pipeline has to get built on U.S. soil. The midstream is actually the most boring segment of the overall energy sector. That's because businesses like Energy Transfer and Enterprise charge fees for the use of their assets. Although the oil, natural gas, and other products that flow through the system may have volatile prices, midstream companies don't really care about the price of what they move. They just care about the volume of product they move. The higher the volume, the higher the toll-like revenues they generate. Given the importance of energy to the global economy, demand for oil and natural gas tends to remain fairly robust even when commodity prices are weak. Even recessions don't materially diminish demand, since the world would, literally, stop in its tracks without oil and natural gas. From this perspective, Energy Transfer and Enterprise Products Partners are on equal footing. Here's the thing: Energy Transfer doesn't have the same history of treating its investors well as Enterprise does. That difference is why conservative income investors should be happy to trade down to Enterprise's 6.9% yield. The first big issue happened in 2016, during a time when oil prices were weak. At that point, Energy Transfer agreed to buy peer Williams. It got cold feet, warning that completing the deal would require taking on too much debt and could also force a dividend cut. It was the right decision to scuttle the deal. The problem was the way in which it achieved that end. The company sold convertible securities, with a huge portion going to the then-CEO. It appears that the convertible securities would have protected the CEO from the effect of a dividend cut, had a dividend cut been needed. In the end, Energy Transfer got out of the Williams deal, but that convertible decision should leave a bad taste in investors' mouths. Then, in 2020, when the energy industry was hit hard by demand declines around the coronavirus pandemic, Energy Transfer cut its distribution. Again, the decision was probably the right one for the business, which used the freed-up cash to strengthen its balance sheet. But income investors took it on the chin, and that's the key takeaway here. During the last two big energy industry downturns, when income investors were likely hoping for consistency, they had to worry about, and actually experience, income declines if they owned Energy Transfer. Enterprise Products Partners didn't cut its distribution in 2016 or in 2020. It didn't put out any warnings that such an event was possible. It just operated its reliable cash flow generating business. Along the way, it delivered distribution increases. At this point, the U.S. midstream giant has increased its distribution for 26 consecutive years. While trust might be a troubling issue with Energy Transfer, it isn't with Enterprise Products Partners. The long streak of putting unitholders first is a core reason to like Enterprise Products Partners, but it isn't the only reason. Other good reasons to like this midstream giant are its investment grade rated balance sheet, and the 1.7x over that its distributable cash flow covered its distribution in 2024. These are both signs of management's commitment, since they mean there's a lot of leeway before a distribution cut would be in the cards at Enterprise Products Partners. Put it all together, and most investors will probably be better off with all-American Enterprise over all-American Energy Transfer. Before you buy stock in Energy Transfer, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Energy Transfer wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Enterprise Products Partners. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Is Energy Transfer the All-American Dividend Stock for You? Consider This High-Yielder Instead. was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight
Amid the fallout of the messy public feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, it is instructive to think back to Dec. 26, 2024. That day marked the start of another intra-GOP skirmish that nearly fractured the elite core of the MAGA coalition. The December brawl — which, like the latest one, unfolded primarily online — pitted two high-profile factions of the Trumpian right against one another over the issue of high-skilled immigration. The nationalist-populist right, led by MAGA strategist Steve Bannon, urged the incoming administration to end the H-1B visa program as part of a broader crackdown on immigration. The so-called tech right, led by Musk, wanted Trump to defend the program on the grounds that high-skilled immigration is integral to spurring economic growth and fueling 'American dynamism.' Ultimately, the tech right carried the day, with Trump intervening in the online spat to defend the H-1B program. After the feud, the two sides struck a tentative peace, and the contretemps quieted down as Trump reentered office. But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved. And despite all the current bluster about the 'big, beautiful' spending bill, the Epstein files, the ballooning national debt and Musk and Trump's overlarge egos, that divide still runs straight through the same issue that carved up the factions back in December: immigration. That may seem counterintuitive, given that the latest blow-up between Trump and Musk is ostensibly over the fiscal consequences of Trump's megabill — and specifically Musk's contention, supported by independent analyses but rejected by the Trump administration, that the bill would add significantly to the federal debt. But when you strip away all the salacious controversies swirling around the 'BBB,' the fight over the legislation ultimately boils down to the question of whether cracking down on immigration should stand alone as the Trump administration's guiding priority. In the eyes of the MAGA populists, the $155 billion that the BBB appropriates for immigration enforcement and Trump's mass deportation efforts more than justify its passage, whatever its fiscal shortcomings might be. As Stephen Miller, the populist right's go-to immigration hawk, recently put it, the bill includes 'the most significant border security and deportation effort in history' — a fact which 'alone makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' That immigration is at the center of the administration's pitch for the bill should come as no surprise. Since 2016, the issue has been the ideological keystone around which Trump has built his protean and sometimes unwieldy coalition. During the 2024 campaign, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, proposed solving practically every issue that was thrown their way — from the housing shortage to inflation to 'wokeness' — by tying it back to their promised immigration crackdown. Once in office, the president's first acts included claiming unprecedented emergency authority to carry out his plan for mass deportations. But the centrality of immigration created tension as Musk and his fellow travelers on the tech right began to enter MAGA fold in the leadup to the 2024 election. The tech right threw its weight behind Trump's proposed agenda on immigration, but it was never the group's top priority. Much more important for MAGA's tech faction was taming the federal deficit, which Musk and others moguls — notably Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel — continue to view as an existential threat to the country's future. Their anxiety about the federal debt is rooted as much in their libertarianism as it is in their self-interest: every dollar the federal government spends servicing the federal debt is a dollar that it does not invest in the supposedly revolutionary technologies — backed by their firms — that they believe will lead to true 'American dynamism.' The misalignment between the priorities of the populist right and the tech right was clear from the start. It was apparent to Miller, who just this week raged that 'you will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.' It was also apparent to Vance — a perceptive observer of the coalitional dynamics within the MAGA movement — who dedicated an entire speech earlier this spring to arguing that immigration restriction and technological innovation could be mutually-reinforcing goals. 'This idea that tech-forward people and the populists are somehow inevitably going to come to a loggerhead is wrong,' said Vance, identifying himself as 'a proud member of both tribes.' Vance, it turns out, was wrong. To the contrary, the Trump-Musk schism is proof that MAGA loyalists can't have their cake and eat it too. They must choose — a maximalist immigration crackdown, or something else. The vengeance with which the populist right has turned on Musk since his spat with Trump is proof of what happens when a Trump ally — even the richest man on Planet Earth — chooses something else. That the fight really hinged on immigration became clear from the commentary coming out of the populist right. 'Debt is BAD. The migrant crisis is orders of magnitude worse,' posted the activist Charlie Kirk in the midst of the blowup. 'I've never seen debt hold an apartment building hostage,' added another conservative commentator, referring to reports of gang-occupied apartment buildings in Colorado. Then there was Bannon himself, who responded to the feud by suggesting — what else? — that Trump should deport Musk. The near-term consequences of the Trump-Musk schism remain to be seen. Whispers of peace talks between Trump and Musk flitted around Washington on Friday, and Trump has publicly downplayed the significance of the skirmish. At this point, no other big names on the tech right have followed Musk in breaking from Trump. And even if Musk were to actively challenge Trump's GOP — by funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents or even trying to start his own party, as he hinted at on Thursday — the consequences would likely be less dire for the future of the MAGA movement than he might think. Vance, the presumptive heir to the MAGA throne, has been building his own independent fundraising network since 2022, which could insulate him from any Musk-related financial aftershocks. Vance 2028 would certainly like to have access to Musk's campaign dollars, but it's not reliant on them. In the long run, though, the Trump-Musk feud will cement immigration as the critical litmus test for membership in Trump's GOP. The critical ideological fault line within the MAGA movement runs between people who view immigration restriction as a means to an end and those who see it as an end in themselves. The thrashing of Elon Musk is a warning to anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of that divide.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
GOLDSTEIN: Carney can't fix Canada's underperforming economy on his own
Prime Minister Mark Carney's pledge to make the Canadian economy the strongest in the G7 is the equivalent of attempting to turn around the Titanic before it hits the iceberg. An indication of the enormity of this task is to look at the performance of the G7 countries in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, which measures economic output per person, adjusted for inflation, and is a widely accepted metric of a nation's prosperity and standard of living. Low economic growth as measured by real GDP per capita has been a longstanding problem in Canada. Under Carney's predecessor, Justin Trudeau (who appointed Carney to chair his economic growth task force in September 2024), Canada recorded the worst record of economic growth since the government of R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression. According to Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies for the Fraser Institute writing in The Hub last year, Canada's real GDP per capita grew by 1.9% in the Trudeau years. That was lowest in the G7, which includes the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Japan and, most alarmingly, the U.S., our largest trading partner, where real GDP per capita grew by 14.7% during the same period. University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, also writing in The Hub last year, noted real GDP per capita in the U.S. is now almost 50% higher than in Canada – unprecedented in modern history. LILLEY: Mark Carney offers words – Pierre Poilievre's words – but we need action EDITORIAL: Carney defies calls for a spring budget GOLDSTEIN: Carney's hocus-pocus plan to increase debt and balance the budget In the Liberals' 2022 budget, then-finance minister Chrystia Freehand warned that unless this trend is reversed, 'the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development projects that Canada will have the lowest per-capita GDP growth rate among its (38) member countries' from 2020 to 2060. Carney's announcement of proposed legislation on Friday – which he wants passed before Parliament adjourns from the summer – to reduce federal barriers to interprovincial trade, increase labour mobility and streamline government approvals for nation building infrastructure projects, are all aimed at increasing economic growth. But they all depend on co-operation by and among the provinces. And the reality is that decades of inaction on these issues has cost the Canadian economy an estimated $200 billion annually, increased the cost of goods and services to Canadians by up to 14.5% and reduced GDP growth by up to 8% annually. At the meeting between Carney and Canada's premiers and territorial leaders last week in Saskatoon to address these issues in the face of the threat posed to the Canadian economy by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs, all the participants paid lip service to working together on these issues. But the one premier not present – B.C.'s David Eby, who was on a trade mission to Asia – promptly rejected any new pipeline crossing his province's territory, as did many Quebec politicians when it comes to their province. Any new pipelines will also be opposed by environmental organizations and some (although not all) Indigenous groups who, while they do not have veto power over such projects, must be meaningfully consulted under Canadian law. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has cited the enormous economic damage caused by Canada's failure to build pipelines. Had the Northern Gateway, Energy East and Keystone pipelines been built (Keystone was killed by then-U.S. president Barack Obama), she said, Canada would be producing 2.5 million more barrels of oil per day. 'That's $55 billion a year worth of GDP value, which is worth $17 billion to my government alone and about an equal amount to the federal government.' The Carney government does have more direct control of some issues it can move on to boost Canada's economic growth. For example, it can introduce taxation policies that encourage businesses to invest in new technologies that boost productivity, as well as increase competition. It can lower Canada's immigration levels so that increases in population do not exceed the rate of economic growth, which reduces GDP per capita. It can reduce government spending. On that issue, Carney says he intends to reduce the growth rate in the operational costs of the federal government under Trudeau from 9% annually to less than 2%. But Carney's election campaign platform also outlined $130 billion in new spending over four years with total deficits of $224.8 billion. While Carney says most of that will be spent on infrastructure, it's 71% higher than the $131.4 billion in deficit spending the Trudeau government predicted during the same period in its fall economic statement in December 2024. Finally, of course, Carney needs to negotiate a deal on tariffs with Trump. lgoldstein@
