Business
Carney’s new cabinet and media interviews fail to provide clarity
From the Fraser Institute
By Jason Clemens and Tegan Hill
Prime Minister Carney unveiled his new cabinet and did post-announcement media but failed to provide the clarity about his government’s actual views on resource development, particularly oil and natural gas. This uncertainty continues to impede private-sector investment, which our country badly needs.
Uncertainty is an investment killer because it makes it almost impossible for entrepreneurs, businesses and investors to reasonably weigh the risks, potential benefits and hurdles of a potential investment. A broadly recognized measure of uncertainty shows Canadian uncertainty at historic levels. The average monthly uncertainty measure between January 1985, when the data series began and December 2019 just before COVID was 135. The average for the first four months of 2025 was 1,300, almost 10 times higher.
An enormous part of that uncertainty relates to Trump’s tariffs, and the havoc they’re inflicting on entrepreneurs, investors and workers. But contradictions from the federal government in several key policy areas including government spending and borrowing, and energy policy are also creating uncertainty.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Carney’s recent cabinet appointments and his subsequent media interviews failed to provide clarity.
Consider Tim Hodgson, the new Minister of Energy and Resources. He has a strong background in finance—CEO of Goldman Sachs Canada, chair of Ontario’s electric utility company Hydro One and investment board chair of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. The latter is important because he oversaw and approved investments in traditional energy companies such as Suncor and Canadian Natural Resources. Hodgson also has ties with the Alberta business community through his board appointments on several Calgary-based companies. His appointment has been interpreted by some that the Carney government will pursue policies to develop our oil and gas sector.
But the appointment of Julie Dabrusin as the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change signals the exact opposite. Dabrusin was the Parliamentary Secretary to the two previous Environment Ministers, Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault. Both opposed several pipeline developments, were instrumental in the introduction of a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, and other measures specifically designed to limit—if not actually decrease growth—in Canada’s traditional energy sector. A number of high-profile people in the energy patch, including Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, have already raised concerns about her appointment and what it means for energy development.
The appointments of Hodgson and Dabrusin continue the Carney government’s contradictory approach to policy, seemingly trying to be all things to all Canadians.
In a recent interview with CTV News, Prime Minister Carney simultaneously stated his support for new pipelines to deliver oil and gas to new markets but would not clarify if that meant revising or removing legislation that is broadly seen as a barrier to such developments. More specifically, during the campaign Carney said he would not eliminate Bill C-69, which covers how large infrastructure projects including pipelines are reviewed and approved. It’s widely agreed that Bill C-69 and its evaluation criteria make it almost impossible to build new pipelines in Canada.
Moreover, he failed to clarify whether he would eliminate the government’s current cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, which is widely accepted as a cap on production. Indeed, according to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, the cap would result in less oil and gas production.
These glaring contradictions, which appear to be rooted in attempts to satisfy all Canadians and voting constituents, will need to be clarified at some point. There will come a time—whether it’s a budget (which apparently Canadians won’t see until next year), an application by a company to build a new pipeline, or perhaps just the continuing economic stagnation of the country—when the prime minister will be forced to make a clear choice. Until then, the cost of uncertainty will continue to impose real hardship on Canadians.
Jason Clemens
Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Trump Rips Into Obama and Trudeau at G7 for a “Very Big Mistake” on Russia
At the G7 in Canada, President Trump didn’t just speak—he delivered a headline-making indictment.
Standing alongside Canada’s Prime Minister, he directly blasted Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau, accusing them of committing a “very big mistake” by booting Russia out of the G8. He warned that this move didn’t deter conflict—it unleashed it, and he insists it paved the way for the war in Ukraine.
Before the working sessions began, the two leaders fielded questions. The first topic: the ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and Canada. Trump didn’t hesitate to point out that the issue wasn’t personal—it was philosophical.
“It’s not so much holding up. I think we have different concepts,” Trump said. “I have a tariff concept, Mark [Carney] has a different concept, which is something that some people like.”
He made it clear that he prefers a more straightforward approach. “I’ve always been a tariff person. It’s simple, it’s easy, it’s precise and it just goes very quickly.”
Carney, he added, favors a more intricate framework—“also very good,” Trump said. The goal now, according to Trump, is to examine both strategies and find a path forward. “We’re going to look at both and we’re going to come out with something hopefully.”
When asked whether a deal could be finalized in a matter of days or weeks, Trump didn’t overpromise, but he left the door open. “It’s achievable but both parties have to agree.”
Then the conversation took an unexpected turn.
Standing next to Canada’s Prime Minister, whose predecessor helped lead that push, Trump argued that isolating Moscow may have backfired. “The G7 used to be the G8,” he said, pointing to the moment Russia was kicked out.
He didn’t hold back. “Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn’t want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if you had Russia in.”
This wasn’t just a jab at past leaders. Trump was drawing a direct line from that decision to the war in Ukraine. According to him, expelling Russia took away any real chance at diplomacy before things spiraled.
“They threw Russia out, which I claimed was a very big mistake even though I wasn’t in politics then, I was loud about it.” For Trump, diplomacy doesn’t mean agreement—it means keeping adversaries close enough to negotiate.
“It was a mistake in that you spent so much time talking about Russia, but he’s no longer at the table. It makes life more complicated. You wouldn’t have had the war.”
Then he made it personal. Trump compared two timelines—one with him in office, and one without. “You wouldn’t have a war right now if Trump were president four years ago,” he said. “But it didn’t work out that way.”
Before reporters could even process Trump’s comments on Russia, he shifted gears again—this time turning to Iran.
Asked whether there had been any signs that Tehran wanted to step back from confrontation, Trump didn’t hesitate. “Yeah,” he said. “They’d like to talk.”
The admission was short but revealing. For the first time publicly, Trump confirmed that Iran had signaled interest in easing tensions. But he made it clear they may have waited too long.
“They should have done that before,” he said, referencing a missed 60-day negotiation window. “On the 61st day I said we don’t have a deal.”
Even so, he acknowledged that both sides remain under pressure. “They have to make a deal and it’s painful for both parties but I would say Iran is not winning this war.”
Then came the warning, delivered with unmistakable urgency. “They should talk and they should talk IMMEDIATELY before it’s too late.”
Eventually, the conversation turned back to domestic issues: specifically, immigration and crime.
He confirmed he’s directing ICE to focus its efforts on sanctuary cities, which he accused of protecting violent criminals for political purposes.
He pointed directly at major Democrat-led cities, saying the worst problems are concentrated in deep blue urban centers. “I look at New York, I look at Chicago. I mean you got a really bad governor in Chicago and a bad mayor, but the governor is probably the worst in the country, Pritzker.”
And he didn’t stop there. “I look at how that city has been overrun by criminals and New York and L.A., look at L.A. Those people weren’t from L.A. They weren’t from California most of those people. Many of those people.”
According to Trump, the crime surge isn’t just a local failure—it’s a direct consequence of what he called a border catastrophe under President Biden. “Biden allowed 21 million people to come into our country. Of that, vast numbers of those people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails. They emptied their jails into the U.S. Most of those people are in the cities.”
“All blue cities. All Democrat-run cities.”
He closed with a vow—one aimed squarely at the ballot box. Trump said he’ll do everything in his power to stop Democrats from using illegal immigration to influence elections.
“They think they’re going to use them to vote. It’s not going to happen.”
Just as the press corps seemed ready for more, Prime Minister Carney stepped in.
The momentum had clearly shifted toward Trump, and Carney recognized it. With a calm smile and hands slightly raised, he moved to wrap things up.
“If you don’t mind, I’m going to exercise my role, if you will, as the G7 Chair,” he said. “Since we have a few more minutes with the president and his team. And then we actually have to start the meeting to address these big issues, so…”
Trump didn’t object. He didn’t have to.
By then, the damage (or the impact) had already been done. He had steered the conversation, dropped one headline after another, and reshaped the narrative before the summit even began.
By the time Carney tried to regain control, it was already too late.
Wherever Trump goes, he doesn’t just attend the event—he becomes the event.
Thanks for reading! This post took time and care to put together, and we did our best to give this story the coverage it deserved.
If you like my work and want to support me and my team and help keep this page going strong, the most powerful thing you can do is sign up for the email list and become a paid subscriber.
Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.
This story was made possible with the help of Overton —I couldn’t have done it without him.
If you’d like to support his growing network, consider subscribing for the month or the year. Your support helps him expand his team and cover more stories like this one.
We both truly appreciate your support!
This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Kris Sims
The CBC is draining taxpayer money while Canadians tune out. It’s time to stop funding a media giant that’s become a political pawn
The CBC is a taxpayer-funded failure, and it’s time to pull the plug. Yet during the election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged to pump another $150 million into the broadcaster, even as the CBC was covering his campaign. That’s a blatant conflict of interest, and it underlines why government-funded journalism must end.
The CBC even reported on that announcement, running a headline calling itself “underfunded.” Think about that. Imagine being a CBC employee asking Carney questions at a campaign news conference, while knowing that if he wins, your employer gets a bigger cheque. Meanwhile, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has pledged to defund the CBC. The broadcaster is literally covering a story that determines its future funding—and pretending there’s no conflict.
This kind of entanglement isn’t journalism. It’s political theatre. When reporters’ paycheques depend on who wins the election, public trust is shattered.
And the rot goes even deeper. In the Throne Speech, the Carney government vowed to “protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/RadioCanada.” Before the election, a federal report recommended nearly doubling the CBC’s annual funding. Former heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said Canada should match the G7 average of $62 per person per year—a move that would balloon the CBC’s budget to $2.5 billion annually. That would nearly double the CBC’s current public funding, which already exceeds $1.2 billion per year.
To put that in perspective, $2.5 billion could cover the annual grocery bill for more than 150,000 Canadian families. But Ottawa wants to shovel more cash at an organization most Canadians don’t even watch.
St-Onge also proposed expanding the CBC’s mandate to “fight disinformation,” suggesting it should play a formal role in “helping the Canadian population understand fact-based information.” The federal government says this is about countering false or misleading information online—so-called “disinformation.” But the Carney platform took it further, pledging to “fully equip” the CBC to combat disinformation so Canadians “have a news source
they know they can trust.”
That raises troubling questions. Will the CBC become an official state fact-checker? Who decides what qualifies as “disinformation”? This isn’t about journalism anymore—it’s about control.
Meanwhile, accountability is nonexistent. Despite years of public backlash over lavish executive compensation, the CBC hasn’t cleaned up its act. Former CEO Catherine Tait earned nearly half a million dollars annually. Her successor, Marie Philippe Bouchard, will rake in up to $562,700. Bonuses were scrapped after criticism—but base salaries were quietly hiked instead. Canadians struggling with inflation and rising costs are footing the bill for bloated executive pay at a broadcaster few of them even watch.
The CBC’s flagship English-language prime-time news show draws just 1.8 per cent of available viewers. That means more than 98 per cent of TV-viewing Canadians are tuning out. The public isn’t buying what the CBC is selling—but they’re being forced to pay for it anyway.
Government-funded journalism is a conflict of interest by design. The CBC is expensive, unpopular, and unaccountable. It doesn’t need more money. It needs to stand on its own—or not at all.
Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
EU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
conflict2 days ago“Evacuate”: Netanyahu Warns Tehran as Israel Expands Strikes on Iran’s Military Command
-
Health2 days agoLast day and last chance to win this dream home! Support the 2025 Red Deer Hospital Lottery before midnight!
-
Energy1 day agoKananaskis G7 meeting the right setting for U.S. and Canada to reassert energy ties
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s Honeymoon Phase Enters a ‘Make-or-Break’ Week
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoThe Canadian Medical Association’s inexplicable stance on pediatric gender medicine
-
Energy2 days agoCould the G7 Summit in Alberta be a historic moment for Canadian energy?
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta announces citizens will have to pay for their COVID shots
-
conflict1 day agoIsrael bombs Iranian state TV while live on air