Matthew Ehret

Originally published on Pluralia

Is it possible that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has selected the worst of all possible pathways in his tight-rope balancing effort to resolve severe tensions with the USA on the one hand, while simultaneously increasing trade/security relations between Canada and the EU?

The incredible untapped resource potential of Canada, fused with a vast northern territories, undeveloped lands, and low population levels makes Canada a living embodiment of potential and value for the entire world.

If a spirit of genuine multipolarity, cooperation, and future-oriented thinking were alive among policy making circles of Ottawa, then there is no doubt that Canada could offer much to the world both in terms of resources, energy, and ingenuity. The vast Arctic, which Canada shares with partners like the USA, several European states, the Russian Federation (and near Arctic partners like China), provides an opportunity for dialogue, scientific cooperation, and economic development, the likes of which humanity has never seen.

Sadly, a different spirit is currently shaping Canadian policy, which lacks that positive vision.

Carney’s Canada–EU Integration Gambit

On June 23^rd of this year, Mark Carney signed the Canada European Strategic Partnership for the Future on the basis of increasing trade and security relations with the European Union.

Despite proposing to increase Canada–EU trade and Canada energy/mineral exports to the EU, the program is entirely driven by a military agenda, which sadly threatens the lives of all Europeans and Canadians alike. The “Strategic Partnership” moves in tandem with another pact enmeshing Canada into the $800 billion Re-Arm Europe plan and additionally ties Canada into the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) program. The ironically-named “SAFE” program serves as a sort of “World Bank,” specifically designed for building up the military defense capabilities of participating nations.

Capitalized with $235 billion, this fund allows the European Union to take loans out at preferential rates and then extend those loans to all European (and soon possibly Canadian) members who may then invest in military industrial capabilities while simultaneously evading the 3% of GDP debt ceiling imposed on all EU nations.

With Trump’s recent appeal to EU states to increase their NATO spending to a dizzying 5% GDP, it appears that both SAFE and Canada’s participation in the EU War gambit are two vital parts of solving this bewildering challenge.

The new Canada–EU Strategic Partnership promises to “boost cooperation on maritime security, cyber security, and other threats to peace, expand Maritime security cooperation and coordination activities, increase defense industrial cooperation” and will “increase ties between Canada and The European Defense Agency.”

De-Growth and Militarization: The Challenge of Mixing Water and Oil

After many decades of slow de-industrialization, Europe now finds itself trapped within a paradigm that demands military confrontation with Russia, on the one hand (requiring a robust industrial powerhouse that hasn’t existed in generations), while simultaneously holding firm to the decarbonization program outlined by Agenda 2030, Paris Accords, and EU–Canada Green Alliance.

While satisfying both dynamics may be impossible (as decarbonization, carbon prices, and windmills have not been known to enhance industrial growth), the ivory-tower technocrats surrounding the likes of Mark Carney and Mario Draghi appear to believe that this circle can be squared… and hence Canada’s participation in the new plan is vital.

In tandem with Canada’s partnership with the EU, on June 26, 2025 Canada’s Governor General gave “Royal Assent” to the passage of one of the most comprehensive omnibus bills in history called the “One Canada Economy Act” (Bill C5).

This bill sets the stage for the repeal of decades of environmental legislation and the end of all trade barriers, which have held back inter-provincial cooperation for generations. An Ottawa press release stated: “The government of Canada is fulfilling its promise to build one Canadian economy out of thirteen” (referencing the 13 provinces and territories making up Canada).

Despite a backlash of First Nations leaders who have recognized that a cancellation of centuries of treaties is taking place amidst a dictatorial gambit to override their voice in any economic or military plans for Canada, it appears the reset in governance is going forward in full steam.

If this bill had been advanced as a genuine endeavor to create for the first time in history a unified Canada capable of executing top-down mega-projects devoid of red tape (not dissimilar from China’s capacity to wield the forces of the nation state in the building of the Belt and Road Initiative), it would appear that Bill C5 were a truly positive blessing. After all, Canada has never been permitted to have free trade among the provinces since its earliest days and has thus been kept artificially underdeveloped and divided within itself, so an end to this unfortunate fate would be most welcomed.

However, when we are reminded that a logic of Orwellian geopolitics is shaping the new emerging iron walls and AI-driven-space-based warfare is now threatening world peace, then a more dystopic reality presents itself.

Not Just Canada: Three of Five Eyes Go for a Eurotrip

However, it is not only Canada that is being drawn into this new dystopic vision of an Eastasia, Eurasia, Oceania division of the globe, but other British Commonwealth nations have also been brought onboard with simultaneous Strategic Partnerships with the EU, beginning with the UK–EU Strategic Partnership, first announced in April 2025, and followed weeks after by an Australian–EU Strategic Partnership, which reads like a replica of the Canada–EU pact.

In all three Commonwealth/Five Eyes pacts with the EU, we find a special focus on intelligence sharing, minerals exports, cybersecurity, countering disinformation, and military industrial/national cooperation enhancement.

But does Canada’s re-alignment with the EU indicate that Ottawa’s relations with Washington are truly as dismal as some have been led to believe, or is there evidence of another game afoot?

The Golden Dome

Beyond the threats of tariffs, the shattering of rules-based order, and US ambition to acquire Canada as a 51^st state, another more insidious war plan has emerged in the form of a $540-billion continental defensive shield, first announced as an Israeli-modelled “Iron Dome” for North America by Trump in January of 2025.

Rebranded “The Golden Dome” after its first two weeks of dismal publicity, both Mark Carney and leading strata of Canada’s defense establishment have shown themselves to be remarkably in favor of the integrated “defensive” security shield, which calls for surrounding North America with medium- and long-range ballistic missiles, space-based weapons, and integrated AI command systems.

This shouldn’t be entirely surprising, since it was only in April 2024 that then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (advised by Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland) approved a Canadian Arctic Defense strategy upgrade permitting for the first time in history long-range missiles installed in Canada’s high Arctic.

The Golden Dome appears to simply be the next logical step.

Instead of showcasing his typical nationalist bravado in opposition US jingoism, which served him well in winning the latest Canadian elections, Carney has shown himself to be in favor of Canada’s participation in the Golden Dome, which will cost Canadian tax-payers approximately $100 billion, according to current estimates.

After meeting with President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on May 21, Carney stated: “We are conscious that we have an ability, if we so choose, to complete the Golden Dome with investments in partnership. And it’s something that we are looking at, and something that has been discussed at a very high level.”

Carney ended by stating: “Is it a good idea for Canada? Yes, it is good to have protections in place for Canadians.”

On June 10, CBC (the official state broadcasting service of Canada) featured a report outlining ongoing secret meetings being held between Ottawa and Washington policy makers to craft a final agreement on the Golden Dome says the draft agreement now under negotiation states “that Canada is willing to participate in the Golden Dome security program, originally proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump… It also mentions Canadian commitments to build more infrastructure in the Arctic, Canada’s pledge to meet its NATO defense spending targets, as well as previously announced border security investments.”

It is clear that a vast re-alignment of global relations is now underway, and it also appears that a consensus has been reached to adapt to a multipolar model… at least for a limited time. However, the word “multipolar” does not mean the same thing to everyone.

While a multipolar model premised on inter-civilizational cooperation and respect for the UN Charter would be a blessing for all nations, it appears increasingly likely that the pilots at the helm of the trans-Atlantic ship have read their George Orwell and prefer to live according to the rules of the jungle instead of embracing a more civilized identity at this stage of history.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Lee Harding exposes the truth behind Canada’s sky-high carbon tax—one that’s hurting our oil industry and driving businesses away. With foreign oil paying next to nothing, Harding argues this policy is putting Canada at a major economic disadvantage. It’s time to rethink this costly approach.

Our sky-high carbon tax places Canadian businesses at a huge disadvantage and is pushing investment overseas

No carbon tax will ever satisfy global-warming advocates, but by most measures, Canada’s carbon tax is already too high.

This unfortunate reality was brought to light by Resource Works, a B.C.-based non-profit research and advocacy organization. In March, one of their papers outlined the disproportionate and damaging effects of Canada’s carbon taxes.

The study found that the average carbon tax among the top 20 oil-exporting nations, excluding Canada, was $0.70 per tonne of carbon emissions in fiscal 2023. With Canada included, that average jumps to $6.77 per tonne.

At least Canada demands the same standards for foreign producers as it does for domestic ones, right? Wrong.

Most of Canada’s oil imports come from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, none of which impose a carbon tax. Only 2.8 per cent of Canada’s oil imports come from the modestly carbon-taxing countries of the U.K. and Colombia.

Canada’s federal consumer carbon tax was $80 per tonne, set to reach $170 by 2030, until Prime Minister Mark Carney reduced it to zero on March 14. However, parallel carbon taxes on industry remain in place and continue to rise.

Resource Works estimates Canada’s effective carbon tax at $58.94 per tonne for fiscal 2023, while foreign oil entering Canada had an effective tax of just $0.30 per tonne.

“This results in a 196-fold disparity, effectively functioning as a domestic tariff against Canadian oil production,” the research memo notes. Forget Donald Trump—Ottawa undermines our country more effectively than anyone else.

Canada is responsible for 1.5 per cent of global CO2 emissions, but the study estimates that Canada paid one-third of all carbon taxes in 2023. Mexico, with nearly the same emissions, paid just $3 billion in carbon taxes for 2023-24, far less than Canada’s $44 billion.

Resource Works also calculated that Canada alone raised the global per-tonne carbon tax average from $1.63 to $2.44. To be Canadian is to be heavily taxed.

Historically, the Canadian dollar and oil and gas investment in Canada tracked the global price of oil, but not anymore. A disconnect began in 2016 when the Trudeau government cancelled the Northern Gateway pipeline and banned tanker traffic on B.C.’s north coast.

The carbon tax was introduced in 2019 at $15 per tonne, a rate that increased annually until this year. The study argues this “economic burden,” not shared by the rest of the world, has placed Canada at “a competitive disadvantage by accelerating capital flight and reinforcing economic headwinds.”

This “erosion of energy-sector investment” has broader economic consequences, including trade balance pressures and increased exchange rate volatility.

According to NASA, Canadian forest fires released 640 million metric tonnes of carbon in 2023, four times the amount from fossil fuel emissions. We should focus on fighting fires, not penalizing our fossil fuel industry.

Carney praised Canada’s carbon tax approach in his 2021 book Value(s), raising questions about how long his reprieve will last. He has suggested raising carbon taxes on industry, which would worsen Canada’s competitive disadvantage.

In contrast, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre argued that extracting and exporting Canadian oil and gas could displace higher-carbon-emitting energy sources elsewhere, helping to reduce global emissions.

This approach makes more sense than imposing disproportionately high tax burdens on Canadians. Taxes won’t save the world.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.