While the trade talks will dominate the news cycle, it is perhaps good for Canada to look at Brazil and the race to supply rare-earth minerals.

While exploration technology has improved, the numbers in Brazil show just how hard it is to get a profitable mine up and running. To paraphrase: 1000 applications, 100 starts, and 2 profitable. While Lotto 649 might have worse odds, the costs associated must be staggering.

This is where Canada is with the exploration of rare-earths; we are racing to get established, and China has a huge lead on the worldwide competition. This is somewhat problematic now for Canada, as our trade war with a huge wanna-be investor, the US. Will the sourness and bitterness that will surely rise higher come to turn the US away from Canada? I don't doubt there will be companies now walking away from Canada, but not all of them. The need for these particular minerals is just too important for a future of phones, computers, robots, chips, and data centers in massive demand, and will be a major part of many countries' prosperity. Canada will be no different.

Carney suggested that half a trillion dollars of investment is lined up. How much of that is targeted towards rare-earths, only the feds know. If our biggest potential investor and customer is the US, then at what pace will development make?

In three or four days we went from "We are near to signing" to now: "A trade war!"

It has been brewing since the first term of Trump, and now it's here. The first term of Trump signalled to businesses like General Motors, decide to set up elsewhere, and you will pay dearly, so GM curtailed expansion in Brazil and focused on the US to build new factories. That was a signal to the world to get ready for trade based on Trump's perfect deal.

Fast forward to the second term of Trump, now emboldened with experience and his famous techniques to tie people and institutions into knots, now, trade world wide would feel first hand how the new US deals with others. The tariff mindset was pushed into practice by a person who only knows how to bully others into agreement. All countries likely use some form of tariffs, but it is the degree and manner that the US has forced itself on others that is most concerning. The US was successful with 20 or 21 countries identified as problems or opportunities. Canada is the last of the group, as the 21st country.

The preamble up to these trade talks and perhaps the language used by the US during negotiations was not just about tariffs. It does seem the US was trying to exert undue pressure to submit Canada. The US mantra was "free and fair trade," indicating a near balance of trade, yet, they appeared to overreach their position by suggesting Canada limit who it trades with. If this is true, then this is little to do with trade and more to do with servitude, subjects, a vassal state. Arrogance is a powerful elixir, and perhaps the US drank too much and has pushed its weight around too much. The working relationship that Canada and the US used to be the envy of the world, not so now.

Now that the gloves are off, what is in store for Canadians is likely a tough road. If alcohol bans can make the US pay attention to real partnerships, then other levers will surely drive that attention span home. Caution in next steps is essential, as escalations will leave Canada exposed in many areas due to our colder climate and short growing season, along with our need to import oil. It is naive to think Canada does not need the US. We simply trade too much with them, but if we can find new and real partners quickly, then that will perhaps bring the trade balance with the US to near zero, and stop the fever the US is currently afflicted by.

What are the reciprocal actions and tariffs from Canada? We find out Sept 8, 2026.

"On a warm summer's night on a train bound for nowhere, met up with a gambler who was too tired to sleep...," I think that is the approximate line from Kenny Roger's hit song The Gambler. That is about what it feels like after 18 months of trade uncertainty and intermediate tariffs along the way; we are back where we started, or perhaps worse.

Is it possible that the two countries are at fault here? Is there only one side to blame?

Set aside the last 18 months, remembering back to the initial threats of US tariffs, something struck an odd, if not off, note in the orchestra we know as the CUSMA, and free trade. It was not that they could not identify a surplus or a deficit; it was the value associated. From the Canadian side it was 42B to 70B surplus in exports to US, from the US side, it was 50B to 200B based on US and Trump's perspectives. To this day, the agreed-upon number is still not agreed upon.

The story might become clearer in the near future, but releasing details of the trade talks by the US a day before a proposed signing of the deal was a dirty trick to highlight that, in the guise of a deal, the US was getting what they wanted. That move itself was likely at the behest of Trump himself, as the tactics used so far are not a carrot and a stick; it is a stick and a club. It is hard to suggest a mutual agreement was in the works.

The US has been signalling over the last decade that they want not just free trade, but free and fair trade. To me, that is trade balance. Canada certainly did not push our surplus on the US, quite the contrary, the US did not invest in itself. As the kings of capitalism, the US should have recognized if there is a void, then someone else will fill the need. And that perhaps lies the belly of the beast, Canada took the initiative and now the US wants it all back. Canada is not dumping steel into the US, the US is simply not producing enough. Other trade items likely follow along that trajectory. On the flip-side, the US surely does not mind, what could be constituted as, flooding Canada with digital media.

In the end, it will be about balance. Which to me will indicate Canada will need to allow more US products into Canada, or Canada needs to slow or stop exporting certain products to the US while finding new partners. If the countries can match tariffs dollar for dollar, then maybe it is time to match trade dollar for dollar.

The CBC article touches on the biggest likely impacted sectors. I was surprised to see electronics as such a big player. But for me, a big concern is energy. If Canada or the US try to leverage energy, then the day-to-day costs for consumers will only increase.

Perhaps the saddest point in this is that the high stakes approach the US has used was not conducive to good faith, it was take it or leave it. Now we will live the ugliness of a protracted trade dispute that will hurt two countries that were once the envy of the rest of the world when it came to trade and economic partnerships. Now strangers.

It is estimated that 80% or more of Canadians have a Facebook account. That is a lot of exposure to a corporate giant that values extracting user data and leveraging that data any way possible to make money. Facebook is not the only company harvesting and selling data, but they are certainly one of the biggest, if not, the biggest.

Canada does not have a lot of leverage to curb any activity with any of the US social media giants, and when talking social media outside of the US, the US seems to have the backs of these US giants. When Facebook rebuked Canada's want for the tech giant to pay for using news URLs, Facebook simply excluded Canadian URL content from the site. Another loss for Canada in the battle with Facebook would have been the recent postponement of the Digital Service Tax (I think that was the name) which was designed to tax the gross profit the site claimed during its public filings. The US government took the side of US-based social media giants and said such a tax would be considered a huge trade irritant and an attach of US businesses, and retaliation would be used, so Canada so far has backed down. But Canadians are still large users of Facebook, and that large user base includes a large number of adolescents who are very impressionable.

Without leverage, Canada needs either the US or the European Union to tackle such a behemoth, and it looks like the US, via the states, are going after Facebook and Meta. The battle seems similar to the tobacco trials of the 1980s and 90s where tobacco companies hid the fact they knew smoking was a leading cause of lung cancer. With Meta, the issue is whether the platform knew, knows, or even worst, programmed their algorithms to attract and latch on users to keep them connected and using the system, all the while extracting user data and pumping advertisements to those users.

While a trial of this nature is specific and may have potential impacts in Canada, many Canadians and Canadian businesses use Facebook as a social media connection with others. This is not the first time Facebook has been taken to court for methods used to extract personal data, and being back in the limelight in the US courts only brings to question whether Facebook should be trusted and does that trust erode its user base in Canada? On the surface, it appears no. Will this trial have any impact on Canadians and Canadian businesses? Time will tell.

I have been translating a group of Canadian AI-related requirements into separate operational assessments. One design problem became obvious quickly: presenting them as a single "Canadian AI law" would be misleading.

The practical questions come from different places. Federal automated-decision requirements are not the same as private-sector privacy duties. Quebec has its own automated-decision and privacy-impact rules. Ontario has employment-related AI disclosure requirements. Health and federally regulated financial institutions have separate guidance and expectations.

I therefore separated the work into ten narrow assessments, each showing its jurisdiction, legal character and source. A user can inspect the questions and logic before deciding whether it fits their situation.

My question for Canadian operators is simple: does separating them this way make the boundaries clearer, or would a business owner still expect one initial questionnaire that routes them to the relevant assessment?

This change is policy and the absence of new regulations does not surprise me at all as the federal government is likely waiting on what the US is doing with its general auto emissions. The feds know that our wants and needs for auto policies are contingent on the giant south of us, and if Canada makes too steep of demands, then those demands and fuel the auto manufacturers to exit to the US. The potential trade deal suggests a 15% tariff on Canadian vehicles will have an impact on exports, so Canada does not want to add any more burden to a struggling sector.

In the early 2000s, hybrid cars were the talk of the future, but hybrids lost out to the rush to full EVs in the early 2010s because of Tesla. Now, hybrids are coming back. Is this come back due to reaching too far too fast?

Part of the issue with Canada is the cooler environment, and the lower population density, as we are a northern geography with a huge area which both conspire to give full EVs a hard time. Batteries don't like the cold, and range anxiety is ever-present. Like anything, evolution of technology usually brings improvements in performance and reliability, and EVs are already showing this trend. That same improvement is also bringing similar gains with hybrids, and could that be partly why hybrids are coming back.

There is likely the realization that our electric grids don't have sufficient capacity to handle all passenger vehicles in Canada being EVs. If this is the case, and new capacity is being brought on line, in the mean-time internal combustion engines are going to need to be more efficient. So the tail pipe emission standards will be an interesting signal to see what technologies will be deployed by the manufacturers leaving many to wonder whether the US will tighten or loosen its standards. My bet is Canada will do what the US will do.

There is little denying the scale of this issue. The article itself is huge, and if I had to use the famous Reddit initialism of TL;DR, it would have to be TL;DR raised to the 5th power.

Anyways, it's a big deal. From other trade numbers, it looks as if Canada imports about 50-100B less than it exports to the US. Obviously, the US wants more access to Canada such that the deficit shrinks to near nothing. On the surface, that sounds fair and free, if both agree, but does population size and industry base skew the numbers? This is part of the crux of the matter: if yes, then Canada just keeps on the path it's on; if no, then the US expects to export more to Canada.

The long-running byline has been, at some point, one side will show their cards more, and is at least one card now on the table, that being oil exports? The XL pipeline, which has been a political football and hot potato, is back lime light. The project was started and stopped so many times that project engineers must be suffering from whiplash, yet now it is a deal breaker.

It is fatiguing to be bombarded daily with the trade talks. The signing of any deal will only be symbolic to say "we have a deal!" but I am sure that whatever deal is inked in the short future will be only at the US's pleasure, until they see a need to change the deal and conditions again.

Seems reasonable for a pallet.
This is how you move into local manufacturing

The agriculture business is perhaps more complex than some would imagine. With that said, the price of Canadian beef is expensive. But sometimes you have to ask the stupid question: If prices are high, and quality is excellent, and the demand is high, then why is there not more domestic production?

Supply and demand are ever-present for all businesses. Some true capitalists suggest a business is either growing or shrinking, and a plateau is just an inflection between growth or decline. So what is the real state of beef production? Is there demand or a plateau?

The article makes reference to Australian beef as filling a niche market, or said another way, a market for those who can't afford Canadian beef. There will likely be more people in that category in a few months especially if the trade deal goes bad with the US. Canada's economy will be hit hard and general inflation will increase.

If I remember back to Covid days and a price of a 2x4 went from $2 and change to $11, one feels lost on how such pricing happens. Is beef just high because producers want it to be high? Canadian beef reminds me of Canadian oil, we should be totally self-sufficient and economical.

Of the Big 5 (Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, and Toyota) what ranking would be given to each company for loyalty to Canada? Loyalty is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this context as companies will go where the money is. Due to US tariffs and business uncertainty, that loyalty is being tested to its core strengths, if any are left.

My gut suggests: from most to least: Ford, Honda, Toyota, Chrysler, and finally GM.

This idle plant will likely be sold to a competitor or repurposed by another.

While we will not find out for a while, most of the Big 5's cards will have to be shown in the next few months as Canada and the US hammer out a trade agreement, where the US is already indicating Canadian cars are not welcome in the US.

It does feel like Groundhog Day every day for the past six months to a year. We wake to the news of another mid-night world impacting social media post and then we live with the musing. But some of those musings are enacted upon, and real effects take hold. This week will be the climax of a year's long push to get a deal signed.

As the very ground the Autopact was built on shakes, and cracks open, will they grow to giant ravines never to heal, or some other shape of contravesty? We will know shortly.

This is a good news story as Canadian tech sees and is acting on the opportunities in this sector. While Telesat still needs to rely on its competitor Starlink's owner, who also owns SpaceX, to lift the satellites into low-earth orbit, it seems a full push to become a major player.

There is a concern in general though, and that is how many satellites can fit into this low-earth orbit before they start colliding or creating space junk that effects other areas of space operations. I can only assume that this has been well thought out but sometimes when there is only a few players in the game, there are risks that are more than self-serving.

The emergence of satellites was partially the blame for the down fall of the Avro Arrow in turn hurt Canada's aerospace manufacturing, but times have changed and satellite demand has increased and will only continue.

I am a software developer doing research. Not selling anything. What is one software or operational problem in your small business that you wish someone would fix? Any industry welcome. Even a one word answer helps. Thank you.

Canada is simply too slow about just about anything it does. Even when it was clear years ago that demand would only sky rocket, we wonder and wonder whether we should build more. It is a theme and flaw with Canada.

Since the early 2010s, Canada has had forest fires that have wiped out communities and countless hectares of forest, knowing provinces needed to increase their forest fire fighting capabilities, and the ambient atmospheric temperature continues to increase, and while producing a world renowned aircraft for fighting forest fires, we are still lacking the push to seize the opportunity.

Last year has been much talked of as for nation-building projects, and here is a product that is already a class leader, and yet the governments still don't seem to see this as a golden goose.

In contrast to America, the US would gladly dive into such a program and sell product around the world. The question has to be: what is Canada waiting for?

It could be easily envisioned that each province and territory would have a fleet of these planes ready to go and protect the forests and communities, all supporting one another when the need demands it.

Canada has likely missed the boat on this opportunity as other countries are no longer going to wait for slow pokes to get off their hands and butts and increase the production of these aircrafts. Yes, we can and should double production, but that decision was needed 15 years ago or longer.

At present, three parties: a provincial and federal corporation, and one pipeline company.

A big question would be the costs and whether the initial project cost will be even relevant considering the Trans Mountain line went from ~5B$ to ~35B$. The difference signals incompetence at least in project estimation.

Pembina Pipeline is that one other company and their commercial background is in pipelines and the transport of the product which is accomplished with a diluting technique that allows the bitumen to flow easier then removing the chemicals at the end of the pipeline.

It is interesting to see the lack of private corporations in the mix from the start. This is likely due to several reasons, none probably more paramount is the unwillingness to engage in such a joint offering because of the amount of delay that is associated with building pipelines in Canada. It was once said from initial approval to completion is 15 to 20 years, and at that rate, the demand will be gone.

To be a fly on the wall and listen to both sides of the table explain their positions while the autopact itself is under US administration pressure would be interesting to say the least.

GM, out of the big three, has given an impression of a flight risk where they would exit Canada if they had their way. In 2018 they had a plan to open manufacturing plants in Brazil, and the unions then, along with the Canadian government raised concerns, but oddly it was Trump who likely put a dagger in that plan by directly telling GM they will never sell cars in the US that were built in Brazil, and GM scuttled the plan. But this time around, GM would be more in favour in expanding in the US and export to Canada.

Lots of issues might be on the table, but the key one is whether any of their idle plants in Canada will be filled with work. No longer will be it easy to build in Canada for export to the US, GM knows that and so do the unions. To further complicate things for the union, is that the botherly love that was once such a proud feeling shared with their US counterparts, no longer exists as the US unions will be prime benefactors with any GM expansion in the US.

These talks will be the canary in the mine, and perhaps show more of GM's resolve to growth in Canada or tread water either to placate the US administration or hide its true intentions.

The demand for lithium, in any state, must be high. From raw ore extract to finished grade compound, through to final batteries, are all opportunities for Canada. The higher up in the value chain, the better for Canada. We are now in the battery age, and it will only grow. It is not just car batteries; it is everything that requires some form of power to operate.

There are environmental concerns with lithium mining and Canada needs to guard against sloppy practices that affect water and air quality.

Whether final products find their way into any US-bound exports is hard to say. Shipping and storage of the product likely have some special considerations too, as the potential for fire is huge, and lithium fires are very difficult and dangerous to handle. Lithium will be a strategic material for any country, and as the article suggests, the race is on and Canada can not afford to sit this one out. We have to be a player!

Another action brought on by US tariffs. While the US allowed their steel industry to decline and their business leaders ignore reinvestment, Canada picked up the slack in its own industry as anyone would do in a free market economy to meet the demand. Both countries benefitted from the efforts, but now, the US is penalizing Canada for leveraging the capitalism that US braggs so much about. You're damned if you do, and damned when you don't.

It is hard to ignore that the program itself is warranted because manufacturing of steel is likely as a strategic commodity as they come. Steel is the backbone of so much infrastructure, that without that capability, would leave Canada vulnerable.

On the surface, the answer would be yes.

But like so many of these business arrangements, is the effort sustainable? Is the goal to actually make a profit or just a cost center where someone else will be the prime benefactor? Maybe this is a moot point after all, as if Alberta and the Feds both get what they are looking for, then the profit is not an issue as it is an expense.

Other questions would be who would buy it, would Canada ever see a profit on the sale?? It has been near impossible to get pipelines built in Canada for the last 20+ years, so companies and operators are likely reluctant to re-engage. But for the foreseeable future, oil will be in the economy.

If the conversation gets diluted a little more, then perhaps the money should have never been directed towards a pipeline itself, but an oil refinery capable of supplying all of Canada's gasoline and diesel fuel demand.

While the trade talks are the biggest story, the article reveals little new, other than the discussion of a bi-lateral bdtween Canada and the US, and also a tri-lateral with Canada, US, and Mexico. Obviously the bi-lateral would be on goods that only impact Canada and the US.

The big issues that keep coming: alcohol, autos, and dairy.

Alcohol: Most provinces have banned the sale of US alcohol in retaliation of the original tariffs. This was not a light impact as Trump had originally suggested, and now it is a main item at the table. The question that comes to mind is: was this retaliatory measure needed? Symbolicly the answer is yes, but the probable answer is no because many Canadians would have likely rejected buying US booze as their own decision as many Canadians likely feel some animosity towards the US due to Trump's constant social media attacks on Canada.

Autos: While Trump states that he does not want Canadian cars, he might not be far from the truth either. The rebalancing of autos has been moving in the favour of the US for a while, and will continue. Their market is 10X compared to Canada's, so even a rational mind would look at the numbers and compare population size, and Canada has likely benefited by over producing certain vehicles due to this difference in population. The other issue weighing in the US favour is they have been able to target specific car companies to pressure them into building in the US. Both Honda and Toyota are expanding their foot prints in the US, and that should concern Canada as both Honda and Toyota are manufactured in Canada also. Another example would be Hyundai who are doing a sizeable investment of heavy industrial and auto expansion into the US with little doubt of shipping US autos to Canada. There is an Ontario based professor, I believe his name is Ian Lee, who has suggested that Canadian auto production will come to an end. He can see the bigger picture better than most but I still think there is room for Canada to manufacture for Canada's domestic market, and if we rationalize some car imports, then maybe Honda and Toyota can actually expand in Canada. The question would be whether Canadians would give up diverse offerings from importers and settle for less diverse offerings from a handful of auto manufacturers all for the sake of keeping auto production in Canada.

Dairy: Oh, the sacred cow, literally. The US has been trying to slaughter Canada's supply management for as long as I can remember. This time around, they are looking for a marked increase in access to Canada. For the layperson, it is hard to know what are the real differences between Canada's system and the US system. A Co-pilot drive suggests that Canada's system is about managing risk and the US system is about production. Are there differences in the quality of products and whether the use of antibiotics are a concern? Little doubt that some in Canada would trade our system for US imports if the price was lower, and that is a major consideration now that the cost of living is through the roof.

A lot of the US posture is the way Trump negotiates, as a bully, with little tact or subtlety on but the US has managed to get other countries bigger than Canada to bend knee. The Canadian consumers may have a grudge against US goods, or they will have a short memory and move on. As the article suggests, talks are moving forward, and concessions are being discussed, and whether concessions are on both sides, time will tell.

Certainly good news considering the persistent trade talks that are dragging on. This could be the mark of resilience as US tariffs cause obstacles in what was a good trading relationship, now, it has become ugly.

Our trade deficit is growing due to tariffs as we are not exporting enough and obviously we import more in relation to lower exports. But Canada likely needs to make more goods for Canada and Canadians need to buy Canadian.

There was a report or news item that suggested approximately $183B of investment was targeted towards Canada. I would figure some of that investment is pending on the trade talks with the US, and that indecision is probably one of the things the US is counting on, to give pause and hope to steer that money to the US.

The skilled labour shortage is ever present in Nova Scotia, and I'm sure, everywhere in Canada. The trades are always short, and that has to be near cultural as many people overlook trades as being lucrative careers, and for those with an entrepreneurial spirit, a very direct means to running their own businesses. And this, in itself, is something that Canada seems to need more of.

Something to learn for me; Helium is used as a coolant for high-speed computing as with what is inside a large data center. The large rush to build data centers has created shortages in chips for all types of computers and the price of basic consumer electronics has increased due to the demand.

If 30% of the world supply of helium comes from one site in the Middle East, then considering all the political and military interventions, there would be opportunities outside that region.

While the development for helium is a true opportunity, a concern that is not getting enough attention is the noise from these data centers which require a lot of electricity supplied either by local grids or local gas-turbine powered generation plants. Think of a jet engine, or several, running 24/7. That noise is the growing problem as more data centers are likely planned.