By Dean Brown.

Follow Dean: Instagram · TikTok ·

Facebook · Support my work☕

Good morning,

Today is September 11.

25 years ago, thousands of passengers were diverted to places like Gander, Newfoundland, after U.S. airspace suddenly closed. It’s one of the clearest reminders of just how intertwined Canada and the United States have historically been.

Which makes where the relationship sits today feel even stranger.

Mark Carney revealed yesterday that he has spoken with Donald Trump a couple of times in recent days and says Canada remains ready to strike a “fair deal.”

But at the same time, Ottawa is moving ahead as though Canada needs a much bigger Plan B.

And that may be the more important story.

Carney says he still believes there is a mutually beneficial trade agreement to be made with the United States.

That doesn’t mean negotiations have restarted or that Canada is suddenly willing to accept the deal it rejected last month.

The U.S. has actually escalated since then. Washington announced import bans on some Canadian alcohol, dairy and motorcycles beginning September 29, while Trump has also directed the U.S. government to begin removing Canadian products from federal purchasing schedules unless he sees more reciprocity.

So I’d read Carney’s comments this way:

Canada still wants a deal. It just doesn’t want its entire economic strategy depending on getting one.

And that’s where this week’s other announcements become much more interesting.

Next week Ottawa hosts its first Canada Investment Summit in Toronto.

The government says its broader goal is to help generate $1 trillion of investment over five years. The official summit material says 27 nation-building initiatives currently represent more than $192 billion in investment and 330,000 potential jobs. See the Canada Investment Summit

But the investor pitch is even broader.

A prospectus circulated ahead of the summit reportedly contains 167 investment opportunities, ranging from mines and data centres to LNG, ports, nuclear projects and a proposed west-coast oil pipeline.

That doesn’t mean 167 projects are approved or getting built.

Some are much further along than others.

But it tells you what Ottawa is trying to sell:

Canada as a place where global money can build the infrastructure, energy and industry needed for the next economy.

And the trade war is clearly giving that strategy more urgency.

The federal government just changed how some major energy and infrastructure projects will be reviewed.

Certain pipelines, power lines and offshore renewable projects will now go primarily through the Canada Energy Regulator, while in-situ oil-sands facilities and fossil-fuel power projects are being removed from the federal Project List used for Impact Assessment Act reviews. Read Ottawa’s project-review changes

The government says environmental protections and Indigenous consultation remain.

The economic idea is simple:

fewer overlapping reviews, faster decisions, more certainty for investors.

Whether that actually shortens construction timelines without weakening oversight is what matters next.

Because Canada has announced big projects before.

The recurring problem is getting them built.

While governments talk about billions in new investment, Canadians could feel another economic change much sooner.

Oil moved above US$100 a barrel, and Canadian bond yields jumped as investors became more concerned that expensive energy could keep inflation higher for longer. The Canadian dollar was around 72.4 U.S. cents Thursday.

That matters because Canadian fixed mortgage rates follow bond yields much more closely than they follow the Bank of Canada’s overnight rate.

As of September 10, competitive five-year fixed rates were still around the low-to-mid 4% range, but bond yields have been moving upward. See current Canadian fixed mortgage rates

So even though the Bank of Canada held at 2.25%, someone renewing a fixed mortgage can still see borrowing costs move higher.

That’s exactly the distinction we talked about last week:

the Bank can hold its rate and your mortgage rate can still change.

Canada and the EU are already working on deeper defence cooperation, critical minerals and a possible digital-trade agreement, with another Canada-EU summit scheduled for October 29–30. See the Canada-EU partnership update

That doesn’t replace the U.S. market. Nothing does in the short term.

But it fits the same strategy: more customers, more partners, fewer single points of dependence.

Carney and Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a 100 Year Partnership Declaration covering defence, trade, reconstruction, critical minerals, technology and people-to-people ties. Read the actual declaration

Separately, Canada announced $350 million for air-defence interceptors and nearly $435 million in new loan guarantees through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

So the partnership is real.

The claim that Canada has committed to an undefined century of taxpayer spending is not what the agreement says.

The Origins CCS Hub near Clive, Alberta is expected to initially store up to 1.5 million tonnes of CO₂ per year and begin operations in January 2027. Ottawa has supported it with two $5-million grants. Read the federal project announcement

The bigger economic question is whether carbon capture can help Canada keep expanding conventional energy while still meeting emissions constraints.

You may have seen a graphic online claiming to show the full list of American demands that caused Canada to walk away.

I couldn't verify it as an authentic government or negotiating document.

Some underlying issues match things that have been publicly reported, but the detailed graphic itself is unverified, so I’m not treating it as fact.

The bigger question isn’t whether Canada can attract investment.

It’s whether these projects actually make Canada more productive and less economically vulnerable, or simply create another round of expensive government-backed announcements.

In today’s Plus edition I go deeper into:

what the $1-trillion investment strategy is actually trying to accomplish,

why faster approvals matter,

what Canada risks by relying more heavily on foreign capital,

and whether diversification can realistically reduce U.S. dependence.

What stands out to me is that Canada’s strategy has changed.

A year ago, the question was largely:

How do we preserve access to the U.S.?

Now it increasingly looks like:

How do we preserve U.S. access while making sure we have somewhere else to go?

Those are not the same strategy.

Canada is still trying to get a deal with Trump.

But pipelines, ports, mines, Europe, domestic procurement and faster project approvals all point toward the same longer-term objective:

options.

Because the easiest country to pressure is the country with nowhere else to sell, buy or invest.

Which matters more right now:

getting a U.S. deal quickly, or accepting more short-term pain to reduce Canada’s dependence first?

Hit reply and tell me where you land.

Until Monday,

Dean