Why geography can no longer shield Canada, and how water, critical minerals, and foreign interests are reshaping our sovereignty in the twenty-first century.
A helpful essay. Thank you. I fear our greatest challenge is Canadians themselves. Until we Canadians recognize that the greatest threat to Canada is our southern neighbour, and until we start to act accordingly to protect our country, our risks won’t diminish. The problem, of course, is that as we more publicly prepare to defend ourselves, such behaviour will be labelled as ‘aggressive and hostile’ in the US. And it isn’t simply an issue of military defense. There’s no chance in hell that anything Canada might do in the next several years will insure a successful military resistance to invasion. As with the Ukrainians, all we can do is make the cost of that invasion spectacularly painful. What we do in a non-military sense is what matters most today. We need to maintain Canadian control of ALL our natural resources. We need to diversify our export destinations to the greatest extent possible, just as we should diversify our source of imports. Economic dependency is the greatest short-term risk, and we must be aggressive in reducing such dependency. We must also make an effort to become, to the greatest extent possible, food self-sufficient. We clearly can’t grow many fruits and vegetables, but we must grow more of those we can grow. 37% of Ontario’s corn crop is destined for ethanol production. Are we nuts? We should be aggressively expanding our generation of electricity from renewables. We should be electrifying our economy as fast as China is electrifying; instead we’re dancing around trying to pretend that we can deal with climate change by building another pipeline. Really? I’d add that our politicians are failing us when they let political considerations outweigh policy considerations. Carney should be addressing Danielle Smith’s anti-Canadian intransigence head-on. A great many Albertans think her nuts. Our current behaviour gives them no support. She wants to separate? Fine. Let Albertans have a vote. But kicking the can down the road as Carney is doing is chickenshit and unproductive. And it extends her runway. Leadership is not just about placating those with whom one disagrees. Sometimes it is about principle and integrity.
Chip, this is a remarkably thoughtful and clear-eyed comment — and I appreciate you taking the time to lay it out so fully. You’re naming something uncomfortable but necessary: Canada’s biggest test isn’t just external pressure, it’s whether we can act like a country with long-term interests and the discipline to protect them.
Where I think you’re absolutely right is on the question of economic dependency. We’ve stretched our luck for decades assuming that geography and goodwill would keep us safe. Meanwhile, the world has shifted under our feet. Diversifying export destinations, building real redundancy in energy and food systems, electrifying faster, and maintaining Canadian control over our strategic resources — these are not ideological choices. They’re the new basics of sovereignty.
And I agree with you that non-military strength matters more than ever. A nation that can feed itself, power itself, move goods without bottlenecks, and negotiate from a position of stability is a nation far harder to intimidate or isolate.
Where I might frame it slightly differently is on the “greatest threat” language. I don’t believe Canadians are the threat — but I do believe our habits of political short-termism are. We lurch from one election to the next without a continuity of purpose, and that makes us vulnerable in ways that have nothing to do with military capacity. As you say, leadership sometimes requires taking hard positions without checking who might bristle.
Your point about electrification is especially important. The countries moving fastest — the Nordics, South Korea, the EU — are doing so because they understand that energy independence is security. Canada should be leading in that race, not jogging behind it.
And on Alberta, I’d offer this: regional frustration is real, but I don’t believe most Albertans want to walk away from Canada. They want to be respected as full partners in building what comes next. The challenge for any national leader — including Carney — will be showing that partnership isn’t weakness, but a source of strength when it’s grounded in shared purpose rather than appeasement.
You’ve given this a lot of thought, and it shows. These are the exact conversations we need to be having — not to stoke fear, but to build a clearer, steadier idea of what it means to be a sovereign nation in a century where the old assumptions no longer hold.
Thank you Leni, and here Chip as well, for making this a thoughtful and thought-provoking space. I try not to miss any of Leni’s essays. And I’m pleased when they are greeted with the respect and care they deserve.
Donna, thank you — truly. Your presence in these conversations always brings a steadiness and generosity that I value more than I can say. You’re such an asset to the Substack community; you’re exactly the kind of reader and contributor who keeps this place working the way it’s meant to — thoughtful, curious, and genuinely engaged. I’m grateful for the care you bring to every discussion.
I would add as a resource patents and intellectual property that are created as a result of public funding. Think about the formative work on A.I. developed in Canada then sold to corporations in other countries. Our business sector is risk adverse, willing to collect rents but not willing to scale up and create applications for innovations. Innovation per worker is somewhere around half of that of the US. The AG and others recently commented on the stagnation if not decline of productivity. Business has the agency to demonstrate they are acting different by investing. There is nothing stopping them except perhaps courage. Once the business sector demonstrates they actively doing their part to make Canada stronger and more independent, then it will be a lot easier to have conversations about regulatory streamlining, PS investment and other measures.
Peter, this is such an important addition — thank you for bringing it in. The point about publicly funded IP being a national resource is one we don’t talk about nearly enough. Canada keeps generating formative work — in AI, clean tech, biotech, and beyond — only to see the value walk out the door long before Canadians see any real return on that investment.
And you’re right about the deeper pattern: too much of our private sector is comfortable collecting rents rather than scaling ideas into real, homegrown capacity. Talent isn’t our problem. Ideas aren’t our problem. It’s that gap between discovery and deployment — the part where courage, capital, and long-range thinking are supposed to kick in — that keeps holding us back.
What you’ve highlighted at the end is key: when business shows it’s willing to build here, not just extract here, the whole policy conversation changes. Regulatory streamlining, PS investment, industrial strategy — all of it lands differently when the private sector signals commitment instead of caution.
The true failure resides not in the resource abundance, but in the legislative machinery that surrendered control. The National Energy Program failed to secure its position before subsequent administrations dismantled it, chiefly via international trade conventions which bind the Crown's hands. One recalls the 19th-century debates on colonial mineral rights, where the mechanism of ownership often superseded the geography of the asset. The executive's temporary political will, alas, is a poor defence against entrenched economic reality.
Well put. This is a really helpful angle, thank you. I was looking at the resource side of the story, but you’re pointing out that the real vulnerability often sits in the frameworks we build around those resources — the laws, the agreements, the political choices that outlast any single government. It’s a good reminder that abundance only matters if the structures protecting it stay solid. The NEP failure is a pet peeve of mine .... I think of it often at this juncture we find ourselves in.
I remember reading about similar realizations during the 1973 oil crisis.
The water and minerals angle is something that doesn't get nearly enough attention in Canadian political discourse. There is usually talk about defence spending and NORAD, but the economic sovereignty piece, i.e, who owns what's under your feet, who controls access, feels like the more immediate threat. Well done, Leni.
You’re right — we still frame sovereignty mostly in military terms, when the more immediate pressure point is economic control: who owns the ground, who sets the terms, who gets first claim. The 1973 crisis is such a good example of how quickly those shocks hit ordinary people, not just governments.
I’m glad the water-and-minerals angle landed. It feels like the part of the story we talk around, but rarely talk about. Thanks for reading, Neela — and happy Friday to you too.
I'm not Canadian and your essays get me to think. I wish there was an equivalent of this for India, but I fear that won't be tolerated by the state given our political circumstances
A helpful essay. Thank you. I fear our greatest challenge is Canadians themselves. Until we Canadians recognize that the greatest threat to Canada is our southern neighbour, and until we start to act accordingly to protect our country, our risks won’t diminish. The problem, of course, is that as we more publicly prepare to defend ourselves, such behaviour will be labelled as ‘aggressive and hostile’ in the US. And it isn’t simply an issue of military defense. There’s no chance in hell that anything Canada might do in the next several years will insure a successful military resistance to invasion. As with the Ukrainians, all we can do is make the cost of that invasion spectacularly painful. What we do in a non-military sense is what matters most today. We need to maintain Canadian control of ALL our natural resources. We need to diversify our export destinations to the greatest extent possible, just as we should diversify our source of imports. Economic dependency is the greatest short-term risk, and we must be aggressive in reducing such dependency. We must also make an effort to become, to the greatest extent possible, food self-sufficient. We clearly can’t grow many fruits and vegetables, but we must grow more of those we can grow. 37% of Ontario’s corn crop is destined for ethanol production. Are we nuts? We should be aggressively expanding our generation of electricity from renewables. We should be electrifying our economy as fast as China is electrifying; instead we’re dancing around trying to pretend that we can deal with climate change by building another pipeline. Really? I’d add that our politicians are failing us when they let political considerations outweigh policy considerations. Carney should be addressing Danielle Smith’s anti-Canadian intransigence head-on. A great many Albertans think her nuts. Our current behaviour gives them no support. She wants to separate? Fine. Let Albertans have a vote. But kicking the can down the road as Carney is doing is chickenshit and unproductive. And it extends her runway. Leadership is not just about placating those with whom one disagrees. Sometimes it is about principle and integrity.
Chip, this is a remarkably thoughtful and clear-eyed comment — and I appreciate you taking the time to lay it out so fully. You’re naming something uncomfortable but necessary: Canada’s biggest test isn’t just external pressure, it’s whether we can act like a country with long-term interests and the discipline to protect them.
Where I think you’re absolutely right is on the question of economic dependency. We’ve stretched our luck for decades assuming that geography and goodwill would keep us safe. Meanwhile, the world has shifted under our feet. Diversifying export destinations, building real redundancy in energy and food systems, electrifying faster, and maintaining Canadian control over our strategic resources — these are not ideological choices. They’re the new basics of sovereignty.
And I agree with you that non-military strength matters more than ever. A nation that can feed itself, power itself, move goods without bottlenecks, and negotiate from a position of stability is a nation far harder to intimidate or isolate.
Where I might frame it slightly differently is on the “greatest threat” language. I don’t believe Canadians are the threat — but I do believe our habits of political short-termism are. We lurch from one election to the next without a continuity of purpose, and that makes us vulnerable in ways that have nothing to do with military capacity. As you say, leadership sometimes requires taking hard positions without checking who might bristle.
Your point about electrification is especially important. The countries moving fastest — the Nordics, South Korea, the EU — are doing so because they understand that energy independence is security. Canada should be leading in that race, not jogging behind it.
And on Alberta, I’d offer this: regional frustration is real, but I don’t believe most Albertans want to walk away from Canada. They want to be respected as full partners in building what comes next. The challenge for any national leader — including Carney — will be showing that partnership isn’t weakness, but a source of strength when it’s grounded in shared purpose rather than appeasement.
You’ve given this a lot of thought, and it shows. These are the exact conversations we need to be having — not to stoke fear, but to build a clearer, steadier idea of what it means to be a sovereign nation in a century where the old assumptions no longer hold.
Thank you again for weighing in with such depth.
Thank you Leni, and here Chip as well, for making this a thoughtful and thought-provoking space. I try not to miss any of Leni’s essays. And I’m pleased when they are greeted with the respect and care they deserve.
Donna, thank you — truly. Your presence in these conversations always brings a steadiness and generosity that I value more than I can say. You’re such an asset to the Substack community; you’re exactly the kind of reader and contributor who keeps this place working the way it’s meant to — thoughtful, curious, and genuinely engaged. I’m grateful for the care you bring to every discussion.
I would add as a resource patents and intellectual property that are created as a result of public funding. Think about the formative work on A.I. developed in Canada then sold to corporations in other countries. Our business sector is risk adverse, willing to collect rents but not willing to scale up and create applications for innovations. Innovation per worker is somewhere around half of that of the US. The AG and others recently commented on the stagnation if not decline of productivity. Business has the agency to demonstrate they are acting different by investing. There is nothing stopping them except perhaps courage. Once the business sector demonstrates they actively doing their part to make Canada stronger and more independent, then it will be a lot easier to have conversations about regulatory streamlining, PS investment and other measures.
Peter, this is such an important addition — thank you for bringing it in. The point about publicly funded IP being a national resource is one we don’t talk about nearly enough. Canada keeps generating formative work — in AI, clean tech, biotech, and beyond — only to see the value walk out the door long before Canadians see any real return on that investment.
And you’re right about the deeper pattern: too much of our private sector is comfortable collecting rents rather than scaling ideas into real, homegrown capacity. Talent isn’t our problem. Ideas aren’t our problem. It’s that gap between discovery and deployment — the part where courage, capital, and long-range thinking are supposed to kick in — that keeps holding us back.
What you’ve highlighted at the end is key: when business shows it’s willing to build here, not just extract here, the whole policy conversation changes. Regulatory streamlining, PS investment, industrial strategy — all of it lands differently when the private sector signals commitment instead of caution.
The true failure resides not in the resource abundance, but in the legislative machinery that surrendered control. The National Energy Program failed to secure its position before subsequent administrations dismantled it, chiefly via international trade conventions which bind the Crown's hands. One recalls the 19th-century debates on colonial mineral rights, where the mechanism of ownership often superseded the geography of the asset. The executive's temporary political will, alas, is a poor defence against entrenched economic reality.
Well put. This is a really helpful angle, thank you. I was looking at the resource side of the story, but you’re pointing out that the real vulnerability often sits in the frameworks we build around those resources — the laws, the agreements, the political choices that outlast any single government. It’s a good reminder that abundance only matters if the structures protecting it stay solid. The NEP failure is a pet peeve of mine .... I think of it often at this juncture we find ourselves in.
I remember reading about similar realizations during the 1973 oil crisis.
The water and minerals angle is something that doesn't get nearly enough attention in Canadian political discourse. There is usually talk about defence spending and NORAD, but the economic sovereignty piece, i.e, who owns what's under your feet, who controls access, feels like the more immediate threat. Well done, Leni.
Happy Friday!
You’re right — we still frame sovereignty mostly in military terms, when the more immediate pressure point is economic control: who owns the ground, who sets the terms, who gets first claim. The 1973 crisis is such a good example of how quickly those shocks hit ordinary people, not just governments.
I’m glad the water-and-minerals angle landed. It feels like the part of the story we talk around, but rarely talk about. Thanks for reading, Neela — and happy Friday to you too.
Thank you, Leni
I hope you had a good weekend.
Happy Monday :)
This article is very good. Thank you!
You are welcome, and it was my pleasure (literally). I'm glad you found the post helpful...and for letting me know!
I'm not Canadian and your essays get me to think. I wish there was an equivalent of this for India, but I fear that won't be tolerated by the state given our political circumstances