Photo: Our banner at a protest against the sell off of Canada's public assets, like airports, and the waste of public funds on market-less oil projects. (Toronto, Sept. 14th, 2026).
,
Below is an upcoming opportunity to talk about renewable energy with our wind coordinator, Shauna Kelly, and a note to stay tuned for the launch of our NEW Strategic Plan next week. Sierra Club Canada was also on CBC News' Maritime Connection this past Sunday for a full hour (listen here) to discuss the economic problems with oil and gas development and how we can, very practically, go renewable instead. It follows our earlier interview with Global News National TV about the recent UN climate report.
But first another long newsletter intro - that you can scroll past if you prefer. However, if you do choose to take anything from it let it be this: The policies of the U.S. Government (including aggression towards Canada), and the erosion of democracy there, are the result of the influence of oil and gas corporations whose business models can no longer function under democracy. The policies of the U.S. Government are also the result of the growing wealth inequality in the U.S. - which itself is due to:
- tax cuts for the ultra-rich,
- deregulation,
- and privatization.
The U.S. Government now works for the same wealthy interests that were at the Investment Summit - it does not work for the American people nor even necessarily for the pragmatic expansion of U.S. national interests. Those wealthy interests, in turn, help the U.S. Government extend its interests internationally. So when the Canadian Government - as detailed below - cuts taxes on the ultra-rich, deregulates polluters, and privatizes public assets under the influence of those same wealthy interests, that is not a pragmatic move: it is the welcoming in of a Trojan Horse. This Trojan Horse has been left as an offering to the temple of abundance/neoliberalism, and it could seek to spread to the EU through us as well (even as our government demonstrates clear unease at EU offers of associate membership). As The Breach reported
"...the chance to “help build Canada Strong” isn’t what has drawn the interest of gargantuan U.S.-based investment firms like BlackRock and Blackstone (who control no less than 10 per cent of all financial assets in the entire world)."
One cannot defeat U.S. influence without a rapid shift to renewables in Canada, one cannot defeat U.S. influence with deregulation and privatization, and being a part of that renewable shift - right now - IS the pragmatic way forward. Further oil and gas development and democracy can no longer exist at the same time.
Initial Damage Report from Carney's Investor Summit: Airport Privatization and Tax Breaks for the Ultra-Rich and Oil and Gas
In our last newsletter we warned that the privatization of airports was still very much on the table at the Canada Investment Summit. We also warned that the only coherent plan the Federal Government has been pursuing - given the evidence at hand - is one of deregulation and privatization that ultimately benefits U.S. interests with close ties to the U.S. Administration.
Reporting since confirms that there are indeed plans to privatize Canadian airports. It's not even clear if caucus MPs knew about the planned privatization as "none of their staff were allowed" on a last minute call about it. Assertions that the land will remain in government hands are meaningless, as economist Jim Stanford notes:
'We know how to run airports and handing over the operational rights, the part that Mr. Carney didn't mention, we're also handing over the right to charge for the airports...
whether the actual land is still publicly owned or not is almost a moot point. Think about say highway 407 in Ontario. The public still owns that highway, but the operation of it and the right to charge tolls was handed over in long term leases to private investors who are soaking the public for the privilege of driving. This is going to be [the] highway 407 of the skies...
this is the type of foreign investment that doesn't build anything, it just transfers assets to foreign hands [posing big costs for the public and security risks as well, Stanford adds]."
Any funds from privatization of airports WILL be used to fund oil and gas projects (at least in net given the massive tax breaks of the summit). This summit will transfer the risk of market-less oil and gas projects off of often U.S. corporations and onto the Canadian public. We warned previously and via 'asset recycling' that is exactly what Canada's not-a-sovereign wealth fund - for example - is meant to do.
As for claims we won't directly waste airport privatization buyouts on oil and gas, but use it for other infrastructure upgrades: well, remember when we were told that a new west coast oil pipeline would be a private project and not a publicly funded one? Public funds are already being used to finance gas plants for U.S. corporate data centres in Canada that will now face only voluntary regulation. How many times - exactly - do we want to be fooled.
This privatization will cost Canadians as it cost Australians 1.6 billion in added fees (bet that there won't be any real regulation to reduce added costs either, the Federal Government has a terrible record on that file and on consulting workers). As Canadian Labour Congress president Bea Bruske put it:
“Private investors don’t put billions into airports unless they expect to make billions back. We won’t build a stronger Canada by selling pieces of it to the highest bidder.”
New Oil and Gas Subsidies and 1% Tax Breaks (Even as Big Oil and Gas Take Your Money via High Prices)
As The Energy Mix covered recently many real renewable solutions were left out of the Investment Summit (the government has also been using "clean" to apply to a lot of things that are not like CCS). But that isn't stopping the Federal Government from handing out billions more in tax breaks to oil and gas corporations - even as new polling out today reinforces that subsidies for oil and gas are unpopular. As Keith Stewart notes on Bluesky:
"The new LNG tax break announced at Carney's investment summit includes a break from pollution controls..."
That's despite previous reporting from the Narwhal showing that "LNG Canada might have flared more gas than any other plant on earth last year" and detailing the health impacts people are already experiencing locally from LNG pollution. That's also despite the fact that "Canada’s public banks [have already] provided CAD $18.2 billion per year for fossil fuels in 2022 to 2024, the highest in the G20 by far." As the National Observer reports, overall:
'The federal government’s [new, summit-announced] Productivity Mega-Deduction will apply to assets including new oil and gas pipelines, mines, rail, bridges and more. It will cost $36 billion in its first five years.'
That massive subsidy is far from the spirit of an excess profits tax a majority of Canadians (including a majority of Albertans) want to see - to fund the public well-being - given the massive profits oil and gas corporations have made off high prices at the pump. As the Observer continues:
'Canada’s marginal effective tax rate on new business investment, according to Finance Canada, would drop from around 13 per cent to 6.4 per cent, making it the lowest of any major economy in the world — half the US’ 16.9 per cent, and roughly one-third of the OECD average of 19 per cent.'
In other words, Canada is very much for sale and at dollar store prices! Again this is the opposite of the approach to taxation, to public control of assets and corporations, and to saving that Norway took in the past and comes with no coherent plan for building strong public foundations in Canada.
AI Chatbot Positivity, EU Gestures Versus Policy, and the Road to Oligarchy
Of course today the news cycle is dominated by overtures from the EU to have closer ties with Canada which - while well meaning - will serve as a useful distraction to all the matters above. As with the hollow Davos Speech, the seriousness of any commitment to truly reduce U.S. influence in Canada must be measured not in the words spoken but in the policies enacted and who was there to provide input. As Nik Barry-Shaw put it:
"[In the PM's Davos Speech he said] If we're not at the table, we're on the menu... I've been looking around the table that Carney has set for this summer and I don't see any of us at the table... Does that mean we're [as Canadians] on the menu?"
We cannot survive on positive vibes alone. Already pesticide de-regulation has been pursued that is so severe as to actually hurt trade diversification and, as noted in The Walrus recently:
"Canada’s global rankings have fallen across democracy, transparency, press freedom, and living standards..."
The oil and gas focus of the Investment Summit, and the obfuscation of privatization that accompanied it, do not help that situation. But even these gifts to the 1% weren't enough for everyone. Stephen Harper, who gave the closing speech at the summit lamented that Canada had not taken this approach of deregulation sooner and said:
"“[the summit] is such a great innovation that I wish I had thought of it.... More [like it] does need to be done."
That's why public pressure from folks like you is vital (find ways to take action here and to talk to others about the above here). Contrary to that speech I will also add that our lack of regulations can actually be an obstacle as far as EU trade diversification.
AI chatbots love to confirm our beliefs and keep things positive. So perhaps it's no wonder that - amidst an Investment Summit full of AI leaders - Mark Carney found common ground with Donald Trump in dismissing concerns about AI by arguing we should "be positive." Why would Donald Trump and Mark Carney find common ground on AI? Well, as evidenced above, the policies of both so far benefit the same wealthiest 1% - and the 1% like AI. Again, this comes after our Federal Government's decision to implement voluntary, rather than binding, requirements on AI data centres.
The EU Wants Canada's Friendship, Canada Downplays Associate Title, But What Are We Carrying With Us Either Way?
Canada's incoming ambassador to the EU has downplayed the title of EU 'associate member' that was suggested by President Ursula von der Leyen, as CBC reports, "saying decision is 'a ways away.'" One guesses that's because our Federal Government is still holding out for securing a terrible trade deal with the U.S. and would not want to hold corporations - that just got special treatment at its summit - to the same environmental standards as the EU. Certainly the PM is still hopeful for a U.S. deal.
No matter what one thinks of that title though, if we do become closer to the EU, I think it warrants some selfless examination of what we will be bringing to them. Will we truly use this moment as a chance to pivot away from U.S. influence, as it should be, or are we carrying that same U.S. Trojan Horse onward to the EU?
Even full EU member states, after all, are already under U.S. influence aimed at destabilizing the larger European Union. Our policies, and what we advocate for with other countries, matter to their democratic futures and the future of global democracy as well. On regulating big tech we have already set negative precedents that harm the regulation and taxation of big tech in the EU - and we did so to NO benefit to ourselves. We either all win in protecting democracy from hate and autocracy, or we all lose (see Part 2, 45 mins in about 'the Death Star of democracy').
Another example: The EU does not need more LNG development from anywhere in North America to go renewable - especially given current rates of demand destruction due to the energy crisis. But the U.S. insists that the EU should use LNG - not because that benefits the U.S. as a country but because that benefits the friends of the U.S. Administration in both the U.S. and Canada. Our government in Canada has arguably used its considerable influence to push that pro-LNG line in the EU further, without even consulting with communities that are impacted here.
As APTN News reports the Anishinabek Nation has told Carney that summit resources are not the Federal Government's to give, and APTN further reports that:
"That charge echoed a separate warning issued Monday by the Anishnabe Nation of Lac Simon in Quebec. The council said the proposed Kino Aski liquefied natural gas project — a pipeline that would move gas from Western Canada to Baie–Comeau on Quebec’s North Shore for export to Europe 'currently lacks both community consent and significant social acceptance.'"
That LNG project also faces numerous financial hurdles and dubious environmental guarantees. Again, there are two narratives about energy that we are being presented with: a U.S. narrative and a factually informed narrative. We have a choice as to which one we pursue. We also have a choice about whether we follow the U.S. down a road that ends in oligarchy, or change course. | 
