Business
Major projects in Western Canada are essential, but they require broad and genuine coalitions.
Nation-building takes hard work and goodwill
A couple of weeks ago, I was feeling a little despondent about the chances that the present federal government would take seriously its constitutional role in facilitating nation-building infrastructure across provinces, particularly something as ambitious (and contentious) as an oil pipeline.
This week, I’m feeling a little more upbeat. On July 6, Reuters reported Prime Minister Carney saying this:
“Given the scale of the economic opportunity, the resources we have, the expertise we have,” Carney said, “it is highly, highly likely that we will have an oil pipeline proposed as a project of national interest.”
In my adult life, I don’t think we’ve seen a true nation-building project. I was still a kid when the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Trans-Canada Highway opened.
One project I’ve been marginally involved in might qualify as nationally significant: the building of a container terminal at the Port of Prince Rupert (opened in 1914) in the early 2000s. It wasn’t a nation-building effort, but it took a crisis to set it in motion.
The situation in the early 2000s was not as intense as it is today, but it did involve major trade disruption. The emergence of China as a global manufacturing hub was upending shipping patterns. Every container terminal on the West Coast was operating over capacity, severely compromising supply chains. Not acting would have been a regretful missed opportunity.
What made the Prince Rupert proposal viable was geography and infrastructure. It sat at the Pacific terminus of the most underutilized section of a transcontinental railway in North America, an asset that had waited nearly a century to be put to good use, except during World War II.
Fairview Container Terminal was an economic lifesaver for Prince Rupert and the Indigenous communities surrounding the Port of Prince Rupert. Consultations with First Nations were anything but smooth. However, the terminal laid the groundwork for a significant improvement in the relationship between the Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA) and local Indigenous governments.
Today, Peter Lantin, a member of the Haida Nation, chairs the PRPA’s Board. Local Indigenous companies are investing in housing projects, owning and operating key hospitality and retail businesses, making up a significant portion of light industrial capacity, holding equity in heavy industry, and spearheading major projects, such as the South Kaien Import Logistics Park.
While the project carried national significance, it didn’t meet the threshold of a genuine nation-building effort. However, it still necessitated a broad coalition, stretching from Prince Rupert, through the Rockies, across the Prairies, and into the manufacturing heartlands of Ontario, Quebec, and the American Midwest, to rally support and address the concerns of others along the way.
The campaign, led by the Prince Rupert Port Authority and the City of Prince Rupert, had to reach beyond politicians, regulators, economic development agencies, and direct beneficiaries. The proposed port facility would be a key asset, but without a railway, it would not be.
The Canadian National Railway formed the backbone of the project, stretching across Canada and deep into the United States, with spur lines reaching thousands of communities, farms, and factories.
The subjective, business, social, and environmental concerns, especially those raised by people along the line, rested with CN Rail.
Some steamship lines and North American logistics providers were skeptical that a container terminal without a large adjacent market could succeed. A few also questioned whether CN Rail would commit the resources needed to support the terminal at scale. Meanwhile, some of CN’s existing customers worried they’d face delays, as containers were prioritized.
The issues became local as traffic volumes increased, resulting in a host of impacts on communities along the line. Container trains are generally longer than other trains, which compounds the impacts: more noise and vibration, longer waits at level crossings, and expanded rail yards in villages, towns, and cities. Safety concerns grow, especially at unregulated crossings and within rail yards.
Traffic growth also brings environmental consequences: twin tracking, new bridges, and overpasses. These changes often occur in remote areas, where they can disrupt wildlife and sensitive habitats.
The more difficult challenges were political. Addressing the legacy issues between the railroad and the First Nations whose land the railway crosses remains an ongoing and often complex process. But there has been real progress.
In this case, CN Rail determined that acquiring the government-owned BC Rail was critical to its participation. Like transmission lines, railways require a degree of redundancy. CN believed that if the line between Prince George and Prince Rupert were ever unavailable, it needed a secondary route to Vancouver that it controlled directly. The concern was that if the shared tracks with Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited (CPKC) in the Fraser-Thompson Canyon became inaccessible, CN would have no fallback.
The BC government of the day agreed to the sale of BC Rail to CN, despite strong objections from the BC NDP.
All of this is a long way of saying that even a utility, stretching through countless communities, across rugged terrain, and multiple jurisdictions, requires a broad coalition to succeed, especially if it is controversial and undertaken in the national interest. Too often, both right- and left-wing ideologues, if not kept at room temperature, lose sight of the national interest.
I’m confused by Premier Eby’s comment that there should be no federal funding for an expected proposal for an oil pipeline to the North Coast, an infrastructure project deemed to be of nation-building scale. There’s no opposition to the pipeline itself, only to federal funding.
We haven’t heard any provincial premier complain about the billions in federal investment in port and airport authorities in Metro Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, and Prince Rupert. The federally funded ports and airports now represent the single largest industrial sector in urban British Columbia.
While the benefits of those facilities are felt across the country, the direct gains, jobs, municipal infrastructure, and local economic activity, are concentrated in BC. Would oil piped to the North Coast not provide the same kind of broadly shared benefit, not limited to Alberta?
Hopefully, Premier Eby, and the NDP more broadly, will reach the position they now hold on the Site C Dam, LNG, and TMX (which they rightly support dredging to bring to full production).
These points are not criticisms. I’m impressed by his flexibility when considering natural resource projects in the context of provincial and national interests, and from a workers’ perspective.
We shouldn’t be so hesitant to supply democratically produced, cleaner-than-average oil to Asia. It creates leverage to secure many other export opportunities across the Pacific.
Jim Rushton is a 46-year veteran of BC’s resource and transportation sectors, with experience in union representation, economic development, and terminal management.
Photo credit to THE CANADIAN PRESS/Spencer Colby
Business
P.E.I. Moves to Open IRAC Files, Forcing Land Regulator to Publish Reports After The Bureau’s Investigation
Following an exclusive report from The Bureau detailing transparency concerns at Prince Edward Island’s land regulator — and a migration of lawyers from firms that represented the Buddhist land-owning entities the regulator had already probed — the P.E.I. Legislature has passed a new law forcing the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (IRAC) to make its land-investigation reports public.
The bill — introduced by Green Party Leader Matt MacFarlane — passed unanimously on Wednesday, CTV News reported. It amends the Lands Protection Act to require IRAC to table final investigation reports and supporting documents in the Legislature within 15 days of completion.
MacFarlane told CTV the reform was necessary because “public trust … is at an all-time low in the system,” adding that “if Islanders can see that work is getting done, that the (LPA) is being properly administered and enforced, that will get some trust rebuilt in this body.”
The Bureau’s report last week underscored that concern, showing how lawyers from Cox & Palmer — the firm representing the Buddhist landholders — steadily moved into senior IRAC positions after the regulator quietly shut down its mandated probe into those same entities. The issue exploded this fall when a Legislative Committee subpoena confirmed that IRAC’s oft-cited 2016–2018 investigation had never produced a final report at all.
There have been reports, including from CBC, that the Buddhist landholders have ties to a Chinese Communist Party entity, which leaders from the group deny.
In the years following IRAC’s cancelled probe into the Buddhist landholders, The Bureau reported, Cox & Palmer’s general counsel and director of land joined IRAC, and the migration of senior former lawyers culminated this spring, with former premier Dennis King appointing his own chief of staff, longtime Cox & Palmer partner Pam Williams, as IRAC chair shortly after the province’s land minister ordered the regulator to reopen a probe into Buddhist landholdings.
The law firm did not respond to questions, while IRAC said it has strong measures in place to guard against any conflicted decision-making.
Reporting on the overall matter, The Bureau wrote that:
“The integrity of the institution has, in effect, become a test of public confidence — or increasingly, of public disbelief. When Minister of Housing, Land and Communities Steven Myers ordered IRAC in February 2025 to release the 2016–2018 report and reopen the investigation, the commission did not comply … Myers later resigned in October 2025. Days afterward, the Legislative Committee on Natural Resources subpoenaed IRAC to produce the report. The commission replied that no formal report had ever been prepared.”
The Bureau’s investigation also showed that the Buddhist entities under review control assets exceeding $480 million, and there is also a planned $185-million campus development in the Town of Three Rivers, citing concerns that such financial power, combined with a revolving door between key law firms, political offices and the regulator, risks undermining confidence in P.E.I.’s land-oversight regime.
Wednesday’s new law converts the expectation for transparency at IRAC, voiced loudly by numerous citizens in this small province of about 170,000, into a statutory obligation.
Housing, Land and Communities Minister Cory Deagle told CTV the government supported the bill: “We do have concerns about some aspects of it, but the main principles of what you’re trying to achieve are a good thing.”
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
Mark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog
After scathing warnings from interim budget officer Jason Jacques, Liberals move to silence dissent and install a compliant insider with “tact and discretion.”
It’s remarkable, isn’t it? After a decade of gaslighting Canadians about their so-called “fiscally responsible” governance, the Liberal Party, now under the direction of Mark Carney, finally runs into a problem they can’t spin: someone told the truth. Jason Jacques, the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, was appointed for six months, six months. And within weeks, he did something this government considers a fireable offense: he read the books, looked at the numbers, and spoke plainly. That’s it. His crime? Honesty.
Here’s what he found. First, the deficit. Remember when Trudeau said “the budget will balance itself”? That myth has now mutated into a projected $68.5 billion deficit for 2025–26, up from $51.7 billion the year before. Jacques didn’t just disagree with it. He called it “stupefying,” “shocking,” and, this is the one they hate the most, “unsustainable.” Because if there’s one thing Ottawa elites can’t handle, it’s accountability from someone who doesn’t need a job after this.
But Jacques didn’t stop there. He pointed out that this government has no fiscal anchor. None. Not even a fake one. A fiscal anchor is a target, like a deficit limit or a falling debt-to-GDP ratio—basic stuff for any country pretending to manage its money. Jacques said the Liberals have abandoned even that pretense. In his words, there’s no clear framework. Just blind spending. No roadmap. No compass. No brakes.
And speaking of GDP, here’s the kicker: the debt-to-GDP ratio, which Trudeau once swore would always go down, is now heading up. Jacques projects it rising from 41.7% in 2024–25 to over 43% by 2030–31. And what happens when debt rises and growth slows? You pay more just to service the interest. That’s exactly what Jacques warned. He said the cost of carrying the debt is eating into core government operations. That means fewer services. Higher taxes. Slower growth. The burden gets passed to your children while Mark Carney gives another speech in Zurich about “inclusive capitalism.”
And let’s talk about definitions. Jacques flagged that the Liberals are now muddying the waters on what counts as operating spending versus capital spending. Why does that matter? Because if you redefine the terms, you can claim to be balancing the “operating budget” while secretly racking up long-term debt. It’s accounting gimmickry, a shell game with your tax dollars.
He also pointed to unaccounted spending, about $20 billion a year in campaign promises that haven’t even been formally costed yet. Add that to their multi-decade defense commitments, green subsidies, and inflated federal payroll, and you’re looking at an avalanche of unmodeled liabilities.
And just to make this circus complete, Jacques even criticized the way his own office was filled. The Prime Minister can handpick an interim PBO with zero parliamentary input. No transparency. No debate. Just a quiet appointment, until the appointee grows a spine and tells the public what’s really going on.
Now the Liberals are racing to replace Jacques. Why? Because he said all of this publicly. Because he didn’t play ball. Because his office dared to function as it was intended: independently. They’re looking for someone with “tact and discretion.” That’s what the job listing says. Not independence. Not integrity. Tact. Discretion. In other words: someone who’ll sit down, shut up, and nod politely while Carney and Champagne burn through another $100 billion pretending it’s “investment.”
Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about replacing a bureaucrat. It’s about neutering the last shred of fiscal oversight left in Ottawa. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is supposed to be a firewall between reckless political ambition and your wallet. But in Carney’s Canada, independence is an inconvenience. So now, instead of extending Jacques’ term, something that would preserve continuity and show respect for accountability, the Liberals are shopping for a compliant technocrat. Someone who won’t call a $68.5 billion deficit “stupefying.” Someone who’ll massage the numbers just enough to keep the illusion intact.
They don’t want an economist. They want a courtier. Someone with just enough credentials to fake credibility, and just enough cowardice to keep their mouth shut when the spending blows past every so-called “anchor” they once pretended to respect. That’s the game. Keep the optics clean. Keep the watchdog muzzled. And keep Canadians in the dark while this government drives the country off a fiscal cliff.
But let me say it plainly, thank god someone in this country still believes in accountability. Thank God Jason Jacques stepped into that office and had the guts to tell the truth, not just to Parliament, but to the Canadian people. And thank God Pierre Poilievre has the common sense, the spine, and the clarity to back him. While Mark Carney and his Laurentian elite pals are busy gutting oversight, rewriting the rules, and flooding the economy with borrowed billions, it’s men like Jacques who refuse to play along. He looked at the books and didn’t see “investment”—he saw a ticking fiscal time bomb. And instead of ducking, he sounded the alarm.
Poilievre, to his credit, is standing firmly behind the man. He understands that without a real watchdog, Parliament becomes a stage play, just actors and scripts, no substance. Backing Jacques isn’t just good politics. It’s basic sanity. It’s the minimum standard for anyone who still thinks this country should live within its means, tell the truth about its finances, and respect the people footing the bill.
So while the Liberals scramble to muzzle dissent and hire another smiling yes-man with a resume full of buzzwords and a Rolodex full of Davos invites, at least one opposition leader is saying: No. We need a watchdog, not a lapdog. And in a city full of spineless bureaucrats, that’s not just refreshing—it’s absolutely essential.
-
Business1 day agoCarney shrugs off debt problem with more borrowing
-
Crime2 days agoCBSA Bust Uncovers Mexican Cartel Network in Montreal High-Rise, Moving Hundreds Across Canada-U.S. Border
-
armed forces2 days agoWhy we keep getting Remembrance Day wrong
-
armed forces16 hours agoCanadian veteran says she knows at least 20 service members who were offered euthanasia
-
Alberta16 hours agoHow economic corridors could shape a stronger Canadian future
-
Alberta2 days agoMark Carney Has Failed to Make Use of the Powerful Tools at His Disposal to Get Oil Pipelines Built
-
MAiD1 day agoQuebec has the highest euthanasia rate in the world at 7.4% of total deaths
-
Business5 hours agoSluggish homebuilding will have far-reaching effects on Canada’s economy







