Canada bets on 'Build at Home' defence strategy to reclaim sovereignty — and revive readiness
Plan aims to award 70% of federal defence contracts to Canadian firms within a decade
Canada's new defence industrial strategy sets out a series of important, extraordinarily high benchmarks for the country to achieve over the next decade, including buying and maintaining most of the military's equipment domestically.
The long-awaited plan, which was developed more as a response to NATO's call for industrial clarity among allies than to annexation threats by the Trump administration, sets a goal of awarding 70 per cent of federal defence contracts to Canadian firms within a decade.
It also proposes to raise the servicability rates of Canadian military equipment to 75 per cent of the navy's ships, 80 per cent of the army's vehicles and 85 per cent of the air force's planes.
Outdated equipment and a lack of spare parts has taken its toll, with — according to figures obtained by CBC News last year — 54 per cent of the navy, 55 per cent of the air force and 46 per cent of the army vehicles deemed as "not serviceable."
The strategy pours more money into defence-related research and development. It also proposes to increase Canada's defence exports by 50 per cent, with the goal of creating an additional 125,000 jobs across the country by 2035.
WATCH | Carney announces defence industrial strategy with major focus on Canadian investment:
The strategy was slated to be released last week, then it was embargoed by the federal government following the tragedy in Tumbler Ridge, B.C. On Sunday, the Financial Times, a U.K.-based publication, began reporting on it.
It is now apparently slated to be released on Tuesday.
The plan has $6.6 billion behind it. The money is carved out of the Liberal government's broader $81.8-billion defence reinvestment plan, which was part of last year's federal budget.
Cutting down on foreign suppliers
At the core of the strategy is what's being described as a "Build–Partner-Buy" procurement framework, which is intended to reverse what the document calls an over-reliance on foreign suppliers — notably the United States.
"Canada cannot afford to outsource its national defence," the strategy states.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has made that point repeatedly over the last year, including in an interview with CBC's Power & Politics last spring.
"Seventy-five cents of every dollar of capital spending for defence goes to the United States. That's not smart," Carney told host David Cochrane.
Carney talks U.S. relations, his government’s ambitions in exclusive interview | Power & PoliticsThe strategy proposes that building military equipment domestically will be the default option for the federal government, "particularly in areas of key sovereign capability or where Canada already has deep strengths."
The strategy pointedly suggests there are certain things that, for national security reasons, a country should be building itself.
In contrast to other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Canadian defence-industrial strategy has produced a vague list of 10 industrial sectors it wants sovereignty over.
The list includes many things the country is already doing: ammunition production, the creation of digital and cloud-based services, sensors, space-based platforms for surveillance, training and simulation and specialized vehicle manufacturing.
HMCS Corner Brook sits in drydock at CFB Esquimalt in Esquimalt B.C., in 2023. (Chad Hipolito/The Canadian Press)Topping the sovereign capability list is aerospace, a reference that could have political significance for the political debate over whether the purchase of U.S.-manufactured F-35 stealth fighter will proceed. Last on the list is drones, both aerial and underwater.
The U.K.'s defence industrial strategy, released last fall, was far more specific in terms of sovereignty capabilities the country was prepared to get behind. Britain said it would safeguard its nuclear deterrent through the renewal of its submarine fleet, missile technology and building more armoured vehicles at home.
Partnerships with Canadian companies
To accomplish Canada's objectives, the Carney government said it will enter into formal strategic partnerships with select Canadian companies. These partnership would have an eye "to building world-leading champions that can meet Canada's needs — securing domestic ownership and control over critical intellectual property (IP) and capacities" that will support the country's geopolitical interests.
Where Canada cannot build alone, the strategy calls for deeper partnerships with trusted allies, particularly in Europe, the United Kingdom and the Indo-Pacific.
The new Canadian strategy was released several days after U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing what he calls the America First Arms Transfer Strategy.
Much like the intention of the Canadian blueprint, Trump wants to further build U.S. arms-making capacity and essentially make the country the first-choice arms maker.
The government has waved off repeated concerns about competing with the United States and possibly not finding export markets for Canadian-made systems. Several ministers have, in the past, noted the recent defence co-operation deals signed with countries like Denmark and even the European Union, which are intended to open the door for Canadian companies.
Minister
of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand and Minister of National Defence David
McGuinty, take part in a signing ceremony the with European Union
foreign policy chief during the Canada EU Summit in Brussels in 2025. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)Wendy Gilmour, a Canadian and former assistant secretary general for defence investment at NATO, described the document as a good starting point.
She said she is concerned, however, that the report simply extends the long-time Canadian tradition of using defence purchasing as economic leverage at the expense of the military.
"It's more about our industrial and economic agenda, then perhaps it is explicitly about what military capabilities Canada believes it must have to protect our sovereignty and to contribute to deterrence and defence," said Gilmour.
"At the moment because of Canada's fiscal situation, there is a desire to use the investment in the reconstitution of the Canadian Forces as a driver for economic prosperity and to address some of the difficulties our economy is having because of the loss of the American market. We see in some other nations that they are very focused on delivering defense capability. The danger in Canada is that that message gets diffused."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Carney rolls out plans to build up domestic defence sector | Power Play for Feb.17, 2026
CTV News
Can Canada deliver on its ambitious new defence industrial strategy? | Power & Politics
LIVE: Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy · EN DIRECT : Stratégie industrielle de défense du Canada
Mark Carney426 Comments
'We need to stop being overreliant on the U.S.': Mélanie Joly justifies Canada's defence spending
CJAD 800 Montreal 113 Comments
N.L. defence sector ready to pounce as feds announce ‘build at home’ strategy
Ottawa’s investment poised to be launchpad for local industry
Meagan Kay-Fowlow opens a steel door to a sprawling pavement lot and beams with excitement.
She looks around the space — the former lumberyard of a shuttered hardware store — and starts to explain her vision. A secure fence here, a private entrance there.
Where most would see an empty lot, Kay-Fowlow sees the blossoming future of the defence industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
“It looks like a very basic parking lot, but in terms of a facility — having this is exciting,” she said.
Kay-Fowlow heads up the Co. Innovation Centre in St. John’s, a 54,000 square-foot space where businesses from multiple industries work together to solve problems and scale up.
The centre is betting big on national defence, adding a secure space to the rear of the building where companies can work on sensitive projects in private.
Kay-Fowlow believes the local defence industry is in a prime position to launch, after the federal government announced a new “build at home” strategy on Tuesday.
N.L. defence sector poised to grow with Ottawa’s new strategyOttawa aims to have 70 per cent of defence contracts awarded to Canadian companies within the next 10 years, adding a projected 125,000 jobs to the industry in the process.
It’s a drastic shift, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged during the announcement, but a necessary one. Canada can no longer rely on its proximity to the United States as a defence strategy, and must look within its own borders for solutions.
That’s good news for Canada’s most eastern province.
“Companies in Newfoundland and Labrador are already working in those spaces,” Kay-Fowlow said. “We've already developed those capabilities. We have infrastructure in place to be able to basically be ready to respond to what they've laid out.”
The province has punched above its weight for years, Kay-Fowlow added, with companies like Kraken Robotics, Genoa Design, Bluedrop, PAL Aerospace and more garnering investment and winning contracts at home and abroad.
Victoria
Belbin, CEO of the Atlantic Canada Aerospace and Defence Association
(ACADA), says all four Atlantic provinces are poised to benefit from the
federal government's new defence industrial strategy. (Mike Simms/CBC)Victoria Belbin — a Newfoundlander and CEO of Atlantic Canada Aerospace and Defence — was in Luxembourg on Tuesday as the new strategy was unveiled.
She was there for a series of NATO meetings, pitching public-private partnerships with companies from the Atlantic region, including Newfoundland and Labrador.
“The tone is right. It's a very optimistic tone,” she said of Carney’s announcement. “And it says that government is interested in helping grow this industry domestically.”
The defence and aerospace industry employs about 10,000 people in Atlantic Canada, about 20 per cent of the total workforce across Canada. Belbin believes that number will only go up with more federal investment in the region.
“The opportunities for Atlantic Canada are there, absolutely, for Newfoundland and Labrador in particular,” Belbin said, noting about 40 of ACADA’s 200 members are based in the province.
“I know that there will be opportunities for growth of the defence sector in Newfoundland and Labrador. Each province of this region has its uniqueness and that is being recognized and we will see an opportunity for more coming to all four provinces.”
Why Newfoundland and Labrador?
Kay-Fowlow said the advantages in the province are obvious.
Newfoundland and Labrador has a resource economy with a strong marine sector built around it, which is capable of working in harsh and remote conditions. Anything built and tested in the province can operate anywhere — a critical advantage for Arctic defence technology.
There are also two NATO DIANA (Defence Innovator Accelerator for the North Atlantic) sites in the province, stationed in Holyrood and St. John’s.
“Those are very important and they'll help, really, with some of the sovereign capabilities that were highlighted in the defence industrial strategy,” she said.
It remains to be seen how much of the federal investment will land in Newfoundland and Labrador, but Kay-Fowlow said she believes it can be transformative for a province with its share of economic struggles.
“I’m very hopeful,” she said. “It's really relevant for economic development, for jobs, for resilience, for our people, for our province.”
Download our free CBC News app to sign up for push alerts for CBC Newfoundland and Labrador. Click here to visit our landing page.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
From: Blanchet, Yves-François - Député <Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 3:51 PM
Subject: Réponse automatique : Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
(Ceci est une réponse automatique)
(English follows)
Bonjour,
Nous avons bien reçu votre courriel et nous vous remercions d'avoir écrit à M. Yves-François Blanchet, député de Beloeil-Chambly et chef du Bloc Québécois.
Comme nous avons un volume important de courriels, il nous est impossible de répondre à tous individuellement. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel recevra toute l'attention nécessaire.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
L'équipe du député Yves-François Blanchet
Chef du Bloc Québécois
Thank you for your email. We will read it as soon as we can.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
https://www.aims.ca/in-the-
Harper tells AIMS Luncheon that Atlantic Canada does not need “some new grand scheme”
By Alison Auld, CP
By Atlantic Institute for Market Studies| September 20th, 2002
HALIFAX (CP) – Stephen Harper ventured back to Atlantic Canada on Friday, carefully trying to sidestep earlier remarks that inflamed regional tensions and cast even more doubt on the party’s East Coast fortunes.
In a 25-minute address to a business luncheon, the Canadian Alliance leader made only a passing reference to what many believe was a critical gaffe that could cost the party dearly in a region where they now have no representation. Last May, Harper said he thought Atlantic Canada was hampered economically and politically by “a culture of defeat,” a comment that infuriated politicians and people throughout the region.
“Contrary to what you may have heard, it is a pleasure for me to come here,” Harper said to muted laughter in his speech to the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, a conservative business lobby group.
Several people in the audience expected Harper to apologize for the remarks since it was his first trip back to the region after making them in an interview with a New Brunswick newspaper.
“He really should have taken the opportunity to comment, to apologize,” said one businessman who didn’t want to be named.
Harper, who is trying to drum up support in the area, later defended the statement to reporters, claiming he was misrepresented. He said he had been responding to questions about long-standing political traditions and implied that Atlantic Canada had to break from its habit of letting Ottawa decide what’s best for the region.
Harper said he saw no need to apologize, saying his message was that the federal government has failed the region by implementing flawed programs that merely increased Atlantic Canada’s reliance on handouts.
“I don’t typically apologize for being misrepresented,” he said after his speech. “I’ve never ever suggested that the people of this region are responsible for the region’s have-not status.
“There is a policy culture of defeat at the federal level and that’s what we want to change.”
The Alliance has insisted that one way to break that cycle is to rid the region of subsidized programs that prop up lame business schemes at the expense of encouraging viable opportunities.
Harper reiterated that position, saying he would move away from the using the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to generate jobs and instead reduce taxes to spur economic growth.
But critics said he spoke of few specifics related to improving the economic and social situation in the region and mentioned Atlantic Canada only four times in his speech.
“It bore little or no relevance to Atlantic Canada,” said Scott Brison, Tory MP for Kings County. “He continues to distance himself from statements of contempt about the region and has moved on to statements of indifference about the region.
“He’s gone from attacking Atlantic Canadians to ignoring us.”
Harper focused much of his speech on former finance minister Paul Martin, who is expected to be his main rival in the House of Commons when Prime Minister Jean Chretien steps down in 2004. Harper accused Martin of betraying a policy of fiscal conservatism in favour of massive spending.
He said Ottawa’s spending rose to almost $130 billion last year from $110 billion three years ago – something that has let Canada slip behind the United States in personal wealth and productivity.
“The
Paul Martin spending spree of the past few years means that Canada has
missed a golden opportunity to make our tax rates competitive,” Harper
said.
The appearance was one of the first in recent months for
Harper, who has been keeping a low profile since defeating former
Alliance leader Stockwell Day in a leadership vote in March.
The change hasn’t appeared to help the party, though, with a recent poll by Environics Research Group suggesting that national support for the Alliance dropped to 13 per cent in August from 18 per cent the previous month, and to nine per cent from 15 in Ontario.
The party is
expected to to have a tough time gaining ground in Atlantic Canada,
which has been angered before by comments from Alliance members.
Two
years ago, John Mykytyshyn, a senior party organizer, was forced to
resign after he suggested Atlantic Canadians were lazy and always on the
lookout for handouts.
Harper said that is not the belief of the party.
“I’m not going to quarrel about this. My father was from here. My relatives were all from here. . . . This region is part of my family. I’m not going to be labelled as someone who doesn’t like the region or doesn’t like the people.”
2011-2012
Former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney speaks at AIMS event, drawing 600 guests. On the public finance file, AIMS published two large studies to mark the end of the Federal Fiscal Arrangements Act and another one that used Ontario’s “Drummond Report” to analyze public finance in Atlantic Canada.
2012-2013
Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty spoke in Halifax and joined Chairman John Risley for an hour-long fireside chat about the Canadian economy. Events with Kings MP Scott Brison, on “The Future of Atlantic Canada’s Economy” & Alessando Colombo of Politecnico di Milan on Municipal Policy and “Subsidiarity.”
We’d Love to Hear From You, Get In Touch With Us!
AIMS – Atlantic Institute for Market Studies
Suite 1207, Duke Tower, 5251 Duke Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 1P3
Alex Whalen
Policy Analyst
Phone: 902 429 1143
alex.whalen@aims.ca
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Old Harper speech resurfaces on debate day
A speech given by Stephen Harper eight years ago has resurfaced just in time for the first debate of the federal election campaign, and the Liberals are likely to claim it as evidence of the Conservative leader's true character.
The Canadian Press was alerted Wednesday evening to the 1997 speech given to the Council for National Policy, an American think tank in Montreal. The entire text of the speech can be found on the group's website – although there's no longer a link to it from the list of past speakers.
Canadian Press says it was pointed to the story by an "opponent of [Harper's] social policies" who wanted to remain anonymous.
- RELATED: Full text of Harper's speech
Given in Montreal while Harper was a private citizen – he was between stints as an MP at the time – the speech praises American conservatives and slams Canada for being a "European welfare state."
The speech also contains comments about gay rights, abortion, bilingualism and the unemployed.
By contrast, the introduction to the speech contains the following: "Your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."
The Conservatives have confirmed Harper gave the speech, but say the remarks were intended to be tongue-in-cheek, and have no relevance to the current election campaign.
Liberals, however, jumped on the speech, saying it illustrates how a man who wants to be prime minister describes the country to an American audience.
U.S.-Canada relations have become an election issue this week, after U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins told Canadian politicians to tone down the anti-Washington rhetoric.
Both Harper and Liberal Leader Paul Martin have said Wilkins has no business commenting on a Canadian election campaign.
Harper has also tried to distance himself from the administration of President George W. Bush, writing a letter to the Washington Times newspaper in response to a column calling him the White House's dream candidate.
Harper made it clear in his letter that he has philosophical differences with the U.S. president.
https://macleans.ca/politics/
Harper and U.S. protectionism: a trip down memory lane
January 19, 2012
On May 28, 2002, the House of Commons debated a supply motion from the opposition Canadian Alliance:
“That this House has lost confidence in the government for its failure
to persuade the US government to end protectionist policies…”
Stephen Harper rose to speak. “Mr. Speaker, this will be my first speech as the leader of Her Majesty’s official opposition,” he said. He offered the customary thanks to his electors and the people of Alberta, before shifting gears. “I do not have a lot of time so I want to focus instead on the issue we chose for today’s supply debate, which perhaps is the most important issue that ever faces Canada: our relationship with the United States and in particular the increasingly troubled relationship we have on the trade front.”
The motion of the day referred to softwood and agriculture disputes. “To this I could easily add a third, energy,” Harper said, “the issue of pipeline movement of Alaskan gas reserves to the lower 48.” Or a forth, border restrictions.
“The question we must ask is why this has occurred. Why do we find ourselves victims of protectionist, isolationist and unilateralist sentiments from the United States? Why are Canadian interests being systematically ignored in Washington?”
“In fairness,” Harper was willing to acknowledge “the reality of the United States’ domestic political interests, this being an important election year in the United States.” But there was another reason: “the consistent and complete inability of the present Canadian government to make our case to American authorities, to congress and especially to the Bush administration.”
Why was there a secretariat for the Asia-Pacific in Foreign Affairs but none for the United States? Why all the trade missions to China? The reason, Harper said, was the Jean Chrétien had never been a free trader. “The Prime Minister went back to the future. He tried to revive the failed trade diversification of the 1970s, the Trudeau government’s so-called third option strategy, which did not work then and is not working now.”
What was missing, Harper said, was a proper working relationship between the Prime Minister and the President. He quoted former Canadian ambassador to Washington Allan Gotlieb: “Without the Prime Minister in play, the president will not be in play.”
Here, at last, it is possible to see real light showing between the Prime Minister Harper was criticizing in 2002 and the one he has become in 2012. The reason Chrétien wasn’t taken seriously in Bush’s Washington, he said, was because Chrétien was soft on a bunch of security questions.
“It should not be surprising that when Canadian ministers suddenly show up in Washington and demand something be done about softwood duties or agriculture many high level American decision makers do not pay much attention.”
So now what? “On this I will make a very controversial observation. When it comes to United States-Canada relations, the government has much to learn from former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
“Whatever Mr. Mulroney’s shortcomings… he understood a fundamental truth. He understood that mature and intelligent Canadian leaders must share the following perspective: the United States is our closest neighbour, our best ally, our biggest customer and our most consistent friend. Whatever else, we forget these things at our own peril.”
The new opposition leader wrapped up his argument, the first he wanted to make on the subject he had selected in his parliamentary debut as a national party leader: “We will be unable to get the U.S. administration on board unless whoever is in the White House and leading members of congress value and respect what our Prime Minister brings to the table.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Harper plans to battle 'culture of defeatism' in Atlantic Canada
Members of the Nova Scotia legislature voted unanimously Thursday in favor of a resolution condemning Stephen Harper, the leader of the Canadian Alliance.
The resolution was in response to Harper's comments that there is a "defeatist attitude" in Atlantic Canada.
"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism," the Opposition leader said Wednesday following question period in the House.
Nova Scotia's motion called on Harper to look at problems in his own party, and distinguish between the Alliance's unbroken string of defeats in most provinces and the reality of achievement and optimism in the Atlantic region.
Harper tried to clarify his remarks Wednesday by saying that the defeatist culture isn't restricted to Atlantic Canada. But he added that his party has to break through that attitude if the Canadian Alliance is to have a breakthrough of its own in region.
"We have a program that says that Atlantic Canada can be as wealthy as any other region, but that needs to be pursued aggressively and we don't sit around waiting for favours," he said.
People on the streets in the region couldn't believe Harper's comments. "What part of Canada is he from?" one asked.
Atlantic economy booming, says political scientist
NDP leader Alexa McDonough, an Atlantic Canadian, says the comments don't sit well with her.
"This is the real Stephen Harper who wanted to put up firewalls around Alberta to keep us nasty Eastern Canadians out because we're ne'er-do-wells and lazy bums," said McDonough.
Joe Clark says the Alliance leader is treading dangerous waters. "All of us should be very careful to not apply false caricatures to a region."
New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord says Harper is wrong about the economic prospects of the region.
"I think he's sadly mistaken and I would invite him to take the time to come and visit," he said. "In fact, the people here have a very positive attitude."
A political scientist from Dalhousie University in Halifax says Atlantic Canada is actually booming. "The region is moving forward economically," said Jennifer Smith. "It's growing faster than other regions of the country.
"I'm sure that comes as a surprise to some people, but it won't come to a surprise to people who are living here in the region."
Harper allowed there are positive signs in the region, pointing New Brunswick out in particular. But he insisted there is still a long way to go.
"It's not going to be a secret to people in Atlantic Canada that they don't feel very optimistic about their prospects and that's why children and grandchildren have been leaving that region for years," he said. "We're going to change that."
Harper will get closer look at the culture of Atlantic Canada this summer when he plans a tour of the region.
Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech
Updated Wed. Dec. 14 2005 9:20 PM ET
Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- The text from a speech made by Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, to a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing U.S. think tank, and taken from the council's website:
Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.
Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.
But in any case, my speech will make that assumption. I'll talk fairly basic stuff. If it seems pedestrian to some of you who do know a lot about Canada, I apologize.
I'm going to look at three things. First of all, just some basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk, facts about the country and its political system, its civics. Second, I want to take a look at the party system that's developed in Canada from a conventional left/right, or liberal/conservative perspective. The third thing I'm going to do is look at the political system again, because it can't be looked at in this country simply from the conventional perspective.
First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.
In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.
That is beginning to change. There have been some significant changes in our fiscal policies and our social welfare policies in the last three or four years. But nevertheless, they're still very generous compared to your country.
Let me just make a comment on language, which is so important in this country. I want to disabuse you of misimpressions you may have. If you've read any of the official propagandas, you've come over the border and entered a bilingual country. In this particular city, Montreal, you may well get that impression. But this city is extremely atypical of this country.
While it is a French-speaking city -- largely -- it has an enormous English-speaking minority and a large number of what are called ethnics: they who are largely immigrant communities, but who politically and culturally tend to identify with the English community.
This is unusual, because the rest of the province of Quebec is, by and large, almost entirely French-speaking. The English minority present here in Montreal is quite exceptional.
Furthermore, the fact that this province is largely French-speaking, except for Montreal, is quite exceptional with regard to the rest of the country. Outside of Quebec, the total population of francophones, depending on how you measure it, is only three to five per cent of the population. The rest of Canada is English speaking.
Even more important, the French-speaking people outside of Quebec live almost exclusively in the adjacent areas, in northern New Brunswick and in Eastern Ontario.
The rest of Canada is almost entirely English speaking. Where I come from, Western Canada, the population of francophones ranges around one to two per cent in some cases. So it's basically an English-speaking country, just as English-speaking as, I would guess, the northern part of the United States.
But the important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference.
As you may know, historically and especially presently, there's been a lot of political tension between these two major language groups, and between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Let me take a moment for a humorous story. Now, I tell this with some trepidation, knowing that this is a largely Christian organization.
The National Citizens Coalition, by the way, is not. We're on the sort of libertarian side of the conservative spectrum. So I tell this joke with a little bit of trepidation. But nevertheless, this joke works with Canadian audiences of any kind, anywhere in Canada, both official languages, any kind of audience.
It's about a constitutional lawyer who dies and goes to heaven. There, he meets God and gets his questions answered about life. One of his questions is, "God, will this problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada ever be resolved?'' And God thinks very deeply about this, as God is wont to do. God replies, "Yes, but not in my lifetime.''
I'm glad to see you weren't offended by that. I've had the odd religious person who's been offended. I always tell them, "Don't be offended. The joke can't be taken seriously theologically. It is, after all, about a lawyer who goes to heaven.''
In any case. My apologies to Eugene Meyer of the Federalist Society.
Second, the civics, Canada's civics.
On the surface, you can make a comparison between our political system and yours. We have an executive, we have two legislative houses, and we have a Supreme Court.
However, our executive is the Queen, who doesn't live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister.
Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system.
And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process.
So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances.
What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body. I really emphasize this to you as an American group: It's not like your House of Representatives. Don't make that comparison.
What the House of Commons is really like is the United States electoral college. Imagine if the electoral college which selects your president once every four years were to continue sitting in Washington for the next four years. And imagine its having the same vote on every issue. That is how our political system operates.
In our election last Monday, the Liberal party won a majority of seats. The four opposition parties divided up the rest, with some very, very rough parity.
But the important thing to know is that this is how it will be until the Prime Minister calls the next election. The same majority vote on every issue. So if you ask me, "What's the vote going to be on gun control?'' or on the budget, we know already.
If any member of these political parties votes differently from his party on a particular issue, well, that will be national headline news. It's really hard to believe. If any one member votes differently, it will be national headline news. I voted differently at least once from my party, and it was national headline news. It's a very different system.
Our party system consists today of five parties. There was a remark made yesterday at your youth conference about the fact that parties come and go in Canada every year. This is rather deceptive. I've written considerably on this subject.
We had a two-party system from the founding of our country, in 1867. That two-party system began to break up in the period from 1911 to 1935. Ever since then, five political elements have come and gone. We've always had at least three parties. But even when parties come back, they're not really new. They're just an older party re-appearing under a different name and different circumstances.
Let me take a conventional look at these five parties. I'll describe them in terms that fit your own party system, the left/right kind of terms.
Let's take the New Democratic Party, the NDP, which won 21 seats. The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.
This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it's explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that's a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions.
Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology.
The NDP is also explicitly a branch of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is by far our largest labour group, and explicitly radical.
There are some moderate and conservative labour organizations. They don't belong to that particular organization.
The second party, the Liberal party, is by far the largest party. It won the election. It's also the only party that's competitive in all parts of the country. The Liberal party is our dominant party today, and has been for 100 years. It's governed almost all of the last hundred years, probably about 75 per cent of the time.
It's not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that's a disappearing kind of breed. But it's certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values.
In the last Parliament, it enacted comprehensive gun control, well beyond, I think, anything you have. Now we'll have a national firearms registration system, including all shotguns and rifles. Many other kinds of weapons have been banned. It believes in gay rights, although it's fairly cautious. It's put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest.
There is an important caveat to its liberal social values. For historic reasons that I won't get into, the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country, including many practising Catholics. It does have a significant Catholic, social-conservative element which occasionally disagrees with these kinds of policy directions. Although I caution you that even this Catholic social conservative element in the Liberal party is often quite liberal on economic issues.
Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron. But actually, its origin is not progressive in the modern sense. The origin of the term "progressive'' in the name stems from the Progressive Movement in the 1920s, which was similar to that in your own country.
But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.
In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.
At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.
The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican, which I'll get to in a minute.
The Bloc Quebecois, which I won't spend much time on, is a strictly Quebec party, strictly among the French-speaking people of Quebec. It is an ethnic separatist party that seeks to make Quebec an independent, sovereign nation.
By and large, the Bloc Quebecois is centre-left in its approach. However, it is primarily an ethnic coalition. It's always had diverse elements. It does have an element that is more on the right of the political spectrum, but that's definitely a minority element.
Let me say a little bit about the Reform party because I want you to be very clear on what the Reform party is and is not.
The Reform party, although described by many of its members, and most of the media, as conservative, and conservative in the American sense, actually describes itself as populist. And that's the term its leader, Preston Manning, uses.
This term is not without significance. The Reform party does stand for direct democracy, which of course many American conservatives do, but also it sees itself as coming from a long tradition of populist parties of Western Canada, not all of which have been conservative.
It also is populist in the very real sense, if I can make American analogies to it -- populist in the sense that the term is sometimes used with Ross Perot.
The Reform party is very much a leader-driven party. It's much more a real party than Mr. Perot's party -- by the way, it existed before Mr. Perot's party. But it's very much leader-driven, very much organized as a personal political vehicle. Although it has much more of a real organization than Mr. Perot does.
But the Reform party only exists federally. It doesn't exist at the provincial level here in Canada. It really exists only because Mr. Manning is pursuing the position of prime minister. It doesn't have a broader political mandate than that yet. Most of its members feel it should, and, in their minds, actually it does.
It also has some Buchananist tendencies. I know there are probably many admirers of Mr. Buchanan here, but I mean that in the sense that there are some anti-market elements in the Reform Party. So far, they haven't been that important, because Mr. Manning is, himself, a fairly orthodox economic conservative.
The predecessor of the Reform party, the Social Credit party, was very much like this. Believing in funny money and control of banking, and a whole bunch of fairly non-conservative economic things.
So there are some non-conservative tendencies in the Reform party, but, that said, the party is clearly the most economically conservative party in the country. It's the closest thing we have to a neo-conservative party in that sense.
It's also the most conservative socially, but it's not a theocon party, to use the term. The Reform party does favour the use of referendums and free votes in Parliament on moral issues and social issues.
The party is led by Preston Manning, who is a committed, evangelical Christian. And the party in recent years has made some reference to family values and to family priorities. It has some policies that are definitely social-conservative, but it's not explicitly so.
Many members are not, the party officially is not, and, frankly, the party has had a great deal of trouble when it's tried to tackle those issues.
Last year, when we had the Liberal government putting the protection of sexual orientation in our Human Rights Act, the Reform Party was opposed to that, but made a terrible mess of the debate. In fact, discredited itself on that issue, not just with the conventional liberal media, but even with many social conservatives by the manner in which it mishandled that.
So the social conservative element exists. Mr. Manning is a Christian, as are most of the party's senior people. But it's not officially part of the party. The party hasn't quite come to terms with how that fits into it.
That's the conventional analysis of the party system.
Let me turn to the non-conventional analysis, because frankly, it's impossible, with just left/right terminology to explain why we would have five parties, or why we would have four parties on the conventional spectrum. Why not just two?
The reason is regional division, which you'll see if you carefully look at a map. Let me draw the United States comparison, a comparison with your history.
The party system that is developing here in Canada is a party system that replicates the antebellum period, the pre-Civil War period of the United States.
That's not to say -- and I would never be quoted as saying -- we're headed to a civil war. But we do have a major secession crisis, obviously of a very different nature than the secession crisis you had in the 1860s. But the dynamics, the political and partisan dynamics of this, are remarkably similar.
The Bloc Quebecois is equivalent to your Southern secessionists, Southern Democrats, states rights activists. The Bloc Quebecois, its 44 seats, come entirely from the province of Quebec. But even more strikingly, they come from ridings, or election districts, almost entirely populated by the descendants of the original European French settlers.
The Liberal party has 26 seats in Quebec. Most of these come from areas where there are heavy concentrations of English, aboriginal or ethnic votes. So the Bloc Quebecois is very much an ethnic party, but it's also a secession party.
In the referendum two years ago, the secessionists won 49 per cent of the vote, 49.5 per cent. So this is a very real crisis. We're looking at another referendum before the turn of the century.
The Progressive Conservative party is very much comparable to the Whigs of the 1850s and 1860s. What is happening to them is very similar to the Whigs. A moderate conservative party, increasingly under stress because of the secession movement, on the one hand, and the reaction to that movement from harder line English Canadians on the other hand.
You may recall that the Whigs, in their dying days, went through a series of metamorphoses. They ended up as what was called the Unionist movement that won some of the border states in your 1860 election.
If you look at the surviving PC support, it's very much concentrated in Atlantic Canada, in the provinces to the east of Quebec. These are very much equivalent to the United States border states. They're weak economically. They have very grim prospects if Quebec separates. These people want a solution at almost any cost. And some of the solutions they propose would be exactly that.
They also have a small percentage of seats in Quebec. These are French-speaking areas that are also more moderate and very concerned about what would happen in a secession crisis.
The Liberal party is very much your northern Democrat, or mainstream Democratic party, a party that is less concessionary to the secessionists than the PCs, but still somewhat concessionary. And they still occupy the mainstream of public opinion in Ontario, which is the big and powerful province, politically and economically, alongside Quebec.
The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement in Western Canada; the U.S. Republicans started in the western United States. The Reform Party is very resistant to the agenda and the demands of the secessionists, and on a very deep philosophical level.
The goal of the secessionists is to transform our country into two nations, either into two explicitly sovereign countries, or in the case of weaker separatists, into some kind of federation of two equal partners.
The Reform party opposes this on all kinds of grounds, but most important, Reformers are highly resistant philosophically to the idea that we will have an open, modern, multi-ethnic society on one side of the line, and the other society will run on some set of ethnic-special-status principles. This is completely unacceptable, particularly to philosophical conservatives in the Reform party.
The Reform party's strength comes almost entirely from the West. It's become the dominant political force in Western Canada. And it is getting a substantial vote in Ontario. Twenty per cent of the vote in the last two elections. But it has not yet broken through in terms of the number of seats won in Ontario.
This is a very real political spectrum, lining up from the Bloc to reform. You may notice I didn't mention the New Democratic Party. The NDP obviously can't be compared to anything pre-Civil War. But the NDP is not an important player on this issue. Its views are somewhere between the liberals and conservatives. Its main concern, of course, is simply the left-wing agenda to basically disintegrate our society in all kinds of spectrums. So it really doesn't fit in.
But I don't use this comparison of the pre-Civil War lightly. Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform party has spent a lot of time reading about pre-Civil War politics. He compares the Reform party himself to the Republican party of that period. He is very well-read on Abraham Lincoln and a keen follower and admirer of Lincoln.
I know Mr. Manning very well. I would say that next to his own father, who is a prominent Western Canadian politician, Abraham Lincoln has probably had more effect on Mr. Manning's political philosophy than any individual politician.
Obviously, the issue here is not slavery, but the appeasement of ethnic nationalism. For years, we've had this Quebec separatist movement. For years, we elected Quebec prime ministers to deal with that, Quebec prime ministers who were committed federalists who would lead us out of the wilderness. For years, we have given concessions of various kinds of the province of Quebec, political and economic, to make them happier.
This has not worked. The sovereignty movement has continued to rise in prominence. And its demands have continued to increase. It began to hit the wall when what are called the soft separatists and the conventional political establishment got together to put in the constitution something called "a distinct society clause.'' Nobody really knows what it would mean, but it would give the Supreme Court, where Quebec would have a tremendous role in appointment, the power to interpret Quebec's special needs and powers, undefined elsewhere.
This has led to a firewall of resistance across the country. It fuelled the growth of the Reform party. I should even say that the early concessionary people, like Pierre Trudeau, have come out against this. So there's even now an element of the Quebec federalists themselves who will no longer accept this.
So you see the syndrome we're in. The separatists continue to make demands. They're a powerful force. They continue to have the bulk of the Canadian political establishment on their side. The two traditional parties, the Liberals and PCs, are both led by Quebecers who favour concessionary strategies. The Reform party is a bastion of resistance to this tendency.
To give you an idea of how divided the country is, not just in Quebec but how divided the country is outside Quebec on this, we had a phenomenon five years ago. This is a real phenomenon; I don't know how much you heard about it.
The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things.
What was significant about this was that this constitutional proposal was supported by the entire Canadian political establishment. By all of the major media. By the three largest traditional parties, the PC, Liberal party and NDP. At the time, the Bloc and Reform were very small.
It was supported by big business, very vocally by all of the major CEOs of the country. The leading labour unions all supported it. Complete consensus. And most academics.
And it was defeated. It literally lost the national referendum against a rag-tag opposition consisting of a few dissident conservatives and a few dissident socialists.
This gives you some idea of the split that's taking place in the country.
Canada is, however, a troubled country politically, not socially. This is a country that we like to say works in practice but not in theory.
You can walk around this country without running across very many of these political controversies.
I'll end there and take any of your questions. But let me conclude by saying, good luck in your own battles. Let me just remind you of something that's been talked about here. As long as there are exams, there will always be prayer in schools.
Tel: 902-483-5664
5151 George Street, Suite 502
Halifax, NS, B3J 1M5
Visit Website:
https://ac-ada.ca/
ACADA Staff
Victoria Belbin, M.M.S, ICD.D
Chief Executive Officer
Carla Pinsent
Office Manager
Darren Machado
Regional Project Manager
Jolie Mack-Lewis
Marketing, Events and Admin Coordinator
Denise Schroeder
Member Relations Manager
Mailing Address
PO Box 46040
Halifax RPO Novalea, NS B3K 5V8
Have a question?
Email us at info@ac-ada.ca.
ACADA leads, connects, and champions a diverse, dynamic membership in a world-leading region of aerospace and defence.
The Atlantic Canada Aerospace and Defence Association (ACADA) supports, connects, and promotes a diverse and dynamic membership committed to delivering industry- leading aerospace and defence solutions to the world. Through custom services and programming in direct response to market needs, we help our members and our region innovate future potential for positive global impact.
Our 175+ members are doers, dreamers, and defenders who deliver vital products and services in land, marine, air, and space domains to the global marketplace. They are at the forefront of an ever-changing A&D industry.
We recognize the momentum and global reputation of our Atlantic Canadian region as a place to do business. Our ecosystem and our infrastructure are world-class.
Atlantic Canada employs 6% of the total Canadian aerospace industry and 16% of the total Canadian defence Industry. The region is home to a globally recognized aerospace, defence, marine and security cluster, employing 11,000+ and generating $1.24B in direct GDP.
Through custom services and programming in direct response to market needs, ACADA innovates opportunities for Atlantic Canada’s aerospace and defence innovators. In collaboration with all levels of government and across the region, the ACADA team provides strategic counsel, valuable connections, and opportunities for our members.
To view a full list of ACADA members, services, and program offerings visit our website.
ACADA’s activities are made possible in part by support from the Government of Canada through ACOA.
Did You Know?
- ACADA represents 170+ members
- 70% of our Core Industry Members employ <100 people
- Regional specializations:
- Shipbuilding
- Sensor Technologies
- Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul (MRO)
- In-Service Support
- Manufacturing
- Cybersecurity
- Training & Simulation
- Atlantic Canada employs 16% of the total Canadian defence industry and 6% of the total Canadian aerospace industry
- Atlantic Canada directly employs more than 11,000 people in aerospace & defence
- Atlantic Canada generates $1.25B in direct GDP
S2 Ep8 Finding Her Space: Meagan Kay-Fowlow, Co. Innovation Center | Creators at the World's Edge
techNL November 17, 2025
Resolutions passed on technology and innovation, regional collaboration on energy, and ecological connectivity and food security
Monday, November 17, 2025
CONTACT
NL: Ashley Jackson-Politi, AshleyPoliti@gov.nl.ca, 709- 685-3161
VT: Amanda Wheeler, Amanda.Wheeler@vermont.gov
ST. JOHN’S, NL – New England Governors, Eastern Canadian Premiers, and their representatives met on November 16 and 17, 2025 in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador at their 46th annual conference to discuss shared energy and environmental priorities, as well as opportunities to enhance regional collaboration in technology and innovation.
Following the reconvening of the Northeast International Committee on Energy and the Committee on Environment in 2024, both committees provided updates on work completed throughout 2025 to advance regional collaboration, planning on energy issues, ecological connectivity, and food security. These two standing committees have long served to pursue initiatives that the Governors and Premiers direct at the annual conference.
Three resolutions were adopted at the conference, including two directing the continuation of collaboration on energy, ecological connectivity, and food security. In addition, a resolution was adopted to initiate collaboration on technology and innovation. The resolutions are available here: 46-1, 46-2, 46-3.
Premiers, Governors, and appointed representatives also discussed other mutual priorities impacting citizens of their respective jurisdictions, including the cost of living and affordability concerns and the impact of trade relations on the economy on both sides of the border.
“It was an honour to co-chair and host this year’s New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers conference in Newfoundland and Labrador, where we welcomed our regional partners,” said Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Tony Wakeham. “We focused our conversations on technology and innovation, energy, and environment, and demonstrated the collective strength of our jurisdictions and the value of working together.”
“From energy to innovative technology and environmental resilience, there’s a lot of good happening across the region on both sides of the border,” said Vermont Governor Phil Scott. “It’s important we continue to find ways to solve some of the challenges because the relationship between Canda and New England states is important and something we all need to continue to repair and strengthen.”
On November 16, delegates visited the Co. Innovation Centre for technology demonstrations from local innovators, including Avalon Holographics, College of the North Atlantic, Duxion Motors, Kraken Robotics, PolyUnity, and Virtual Marine. Premiers, Governors, and other delegation heads also had a fireside chat with attendees about the role of technology and innovation in growing our economy.
“Technology and innovation are key drivers of economic development and areas where Newfoundland and Labrador bring deep expertise and demonstrated leadership to the table,” said Meagan Kay-Fowlow, President of COIC. “I congratulate Premier Wakeham and his colleagues across Eastern Canada and New England for their vision and collaboration. It was a pleasure to host them this weekend.”
Delegates also participated in a tour of the Beaumont Hamel and Trail of the Caribou Exhibition at The Rooms.
Premier Wakeham co-chaired the conference with Governor Phil Scott of Vermont. Other Governors and Premiers and their representatives in attendance were: New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt, Prince Edward Island Premier Rob Lantz, Nova Scotia Minister of Growth and Development Colton LeBlanc, Quebec Minister of Economy, Innovation and Energy Christine Fréchette, Massachusetts Commissioner of the Department of Energy Resources Elizabeth Mahony, and Maine Acting Commissioner of the Department of Energy Resources Dan Burgess.
Quotes from Conference Participants:
New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt:
“This conference is a great reminder of what we can achieve when we work together across borders. From advancing clean energy to driving innovation and strengthening food security, our shared challenges are also shared opportunities. Collaboration like this helps us build a stronger, more sustainable future for everyone in our region.”
Prince Edward Island Premier Rob Lantz:
“Prince Edward Island values the strong partnerships we share with our New England and Eastern Canadian neighbours. Through continued collaboration, we can strengthen our economies and improve the quality of life on both sides of the border.”
Massachusetts Commissioner of the Department of Energy Resources Elizabeth Mahony:
“Massachusetts is proud to participate in the Annual Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers,” said Massachusetts Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahony. “It was a privilege to welcome our regional partners to Boston last year, and we extend our thanks to Newfoundland and Labrador for hosting this year’s discussions. Our relationship with Canada has never been more important — grounded in shared values, common interests, and deep familial ties. Massachusetts remains committed to strengthening this partnership to expand energy supply, meet rising demand, lower costs, create jobs, and advance economic growth throughout the region.”
Nova Scotia Minister of Growth and Development Colton LeBlanc:
“Nova Scotia has a lot to offer the Atlantic region and the Eastern United States, particularly when it comes to meeting the massive energy needs of our region. We’re pleased to collaborate on ideas and solutions that are in the best interest of hardworking Nova Scotians, and can help us grow and prosper.”
Quebec Minister of Economy, Innovation and Energy Christine Fréchette:
“Québec is a leader in green energy and its cutting-edge expertise is a key lever that is recognized around the world. This annual conference is a unique opportunity to strengthen our strategic ties with New England and Eastern Canada, particularly on issued related to energy supply and defence. In the current geopolitical climate, these issues are among our government’s top priorities. To achieve our goals, we must focus on close and lasting collaboration with our partners.”
Maine Acting Commissioner of the Department of Energy Resources Dan Burgess:
“Maine has long worked closely with our neighboring Canadian provinces and fellow New England states on a range of shared issues, and today these cross-border collaborations are more important than ever. Maine and Canada share more than a border – our economies are closely linked, our electricity grids are interconnected, and we each rely on significant cross-border energy trading. Through these convenings, we are advancing shared priorities and strengthening the regional systems and relationships needed to deliver affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy for Maine and the region.”
About the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG-ECP) Conference
Since 1973, the six New England states and the five Eastern Canadian provinces have worked cooperatively to address their shared interests across the border. Through the annual conferences of Governors and Premiers and discussions of joint committees, the NEG-ECP encourages cooperation by developing networks and relationships, taking collective action, engaging in regional projects, undertaking research, and increasing public awareness of shared interests.
The 11-member jurisdictions are Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Québec.
Is Canada’s debt spiral out of control? PBO sounds alarm at Senate hearing (12 Feb 2026)
Canada Info66 Comments
94 Comments