The News Rundown

EU and Canada plan far-reaching alliance to strengthen partnership

The Canadian media landscape has been under siege this week from a flurry of trade and defence deal announcements with the EU and Pacific allies, at a time when the trade war with the US seems to be boiling over amid the petty renaming of large bodies of water.
The mainstream media is actively framing Prime Minister Mark Carney’s international trade announcements as a bold, strategic masterstroke to rescue Canada from its escalating economic conflict with Donald Trump’s America. In newsrooms across the country, Carney’s sudden flurry of European and Pacific engagements is heralded as a necessary "pivot." However, a look behind the carefully orchestrated press conferences reveals a different story. Critics argue these international announcements are largely political theater. They are designed to mask a harsh reality: Canada’s manufacturing sector is scrambling, domestic defense costs are ballooning, and fractional overseas trade changes cannot replace Canada's fundamental reliance on the American market.
Firstly, it was announced this week that the EU and Canada are working toward a new, all-encompassing relationship that will range from trade to security, creating a transatlantic alliance to offset political heavyweights like the United States and China.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the EU’s top executive, is expected to announce the plans at her state of the union address in Strasbourg, France, on Sept. 16, according to people familiar with the preparations. Prime Minister Mark Carney will attend the speech and address European lawmakers the following day.
The bloc’s executive arm is trying to think creatively about its Canada ties, searching for ways to go beyond a typical partnership, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
Ideologically, Canada is the closest non-European nation to the EU, one of the people said. The person noted that Canada was successfully implementing a so-called sovereignty agenda on economic and defence matters — a campaign that could inform the EU’s own push to cut foreign dependencies.
Carney’s government has made a deeper EU partnership a top priority and is actively looking at everything short of actual membership, said a Canadian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The discussions are particularly focused on “strategic capabilities,” such as cooperation on defence, space exploration and scientific research.
It’s not clear whether new legal tools would be needed to formalize the partnership, but those discussions are ongoing and Carney’s government will be consulting with Canadian provinces and industries, the official said.
Dr. Petra Tuts, an EU Envoy said: "We are living in a very fascinating moment in the relationship. We are closer than ever—and we will be even closer." revealing the aggressive, highly centralized coordination bureaucratic teams are fast-tracking behind closed doors.
This of course harkens back to Carney's speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year, Carney warned that the “rules-based international order” was effectively dead and called on so-called middle powers to create a new global architecture to oppose pressure tactics and intimidation by the world’s great powers. He didn’t mention U.S. President Donald Trump by name, but called on new alliances to be the last line of defence against countries that impose their economic and military might at will.
Short of EU membership, the EU and Canada want to get as close as legally possible, one of the people said. The two sides have also discussed working together through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multi-country trade agreement of which Canada is a member. Along those lines, Canada became the first country outside of the EU to join the EU’s 150 billion euro (US$174 billion) military procurement fund last year.
Achim Hurrelmann, a European Integration Expert said: "As always in the Canada-EU relationship, it's easier to come up with big pronouncements of new initiatives than to actually follow through on these announcements." in commenting on the systemic implementation gaps plaguing Carney's European ambitions.
Mainstream outlets gloss over the fact that the underlying Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) remains stuck. Ten separate European Union member states have still failed to fully ratify the agreement over deep domestic pushback. More critically, Carney is reportedly seeking access to the European single market "just short of full membership". Critics argue that the EU does not give away single-market benefits without forcing countries to accept strict central rules, making this a dangerous gamble with Canadian sovereignty. Furthermore, independent commentators note that sacrificing tariff-free access to a physically connected market of over 330 million Americans to cross a 2,000-mile ocean for trade makes very little mathematical or logistical sense.
This week, Canada also took center stage as the designated "lead nation" at the MSPO International Defence Industry Exhibition in Kielce, Poland. The media is framing this as a booming new export opportunity for Canadian innovation in drone technology, aerospace, and defense systems.
Chris Brown, a reporter with CBC News said: "The future of warfare is on sale in Poland this week, wrapped in a bright red Canadian maple leaf... It's part of Canada's effort to pivot defence sales away from the United States to Europe." capturing how Canadian companies are aggressively being pushed to desert the North American market.
Critics note that this sudden, frantic military push into Central Europe is actually a direct act of desperation. Canadian manufacturers are attempting to escape the heavy U.S. tariffs that hit Canadian goods when trade negotiations soured. Furthermore, the narrative completely ignores the domestic cost-of-living crisis. While the Carney government boasts about boosting trade ties to match Poland's massive military budgets, critics argue Canadian manufacturing resources are being forced to uproot traditional supply chains to service volatile eastern European defense markets. This shift subsidizes foreign defense structures while ignoring economic strain at home.
Doug Porter, Chief Economist at the Bank of Montreal, warned that the underlying investment data powering these pivots lacks long-term structural value. "Before celebrating the recent upturn, it is worth reminding that there are a variety of types of FDI [Foreign Direct Investment], and some are, frankly, more positive than others for the long-term health of the Canadian economy."
To cap off the trifecta of trade announcements, the media recently buzzed with New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay's announcement that a new "trade push" with Canada was imminent. It has been rolled out as a victory for diversification and the "CANZUK" alignment.
McClay made the comments at a press conference in New Zealand with visiting Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell. Farrell said: “I think Canada is in the space of free and fair trade, at least as it relates to Australia and New Zealand, and I think we can do a whole lot more. We’ve had a great friendship with Canada.”
The timing is also notable in the wider CANZUK context. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently addressed the Australian Parliament, and Australia intends to send a trade delegation to the G20 meeting in Wisconsin at the end of October. Taken together, these engagements point to a renewed willingness among Canada, Australia and New Zealand to treat one another as first-choice economic partners rather than residual markets.
Contrary to the impression of a shiny new trade deal, New Zealand officials have explicitly clarified that this is not a new bilateral free-trade agreement. Instead, the push is actually just a low-level discussion on how to slightly improve the "utilization" of the already existing Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The total two-way trade between Canada and New Zealand sits at roughly $3.4 billion CAD. For context, the U.S. trade friction has heavily penalized close to $28 billion in trade. Mainstream coverage completely fails to do the math: trying to replace the American economic engine with fractional, incremental adjustments to New Zealand agricultural quotas is mathematically insignificant.
So while Carney has made good on his promise to make trade deals with our allies across the world, it's not coming close to where we need it to be to replace the massive influence the US has on our trade markets. And these announcements coming all at once signify a need for the media or government to focus on these small positives rather than the huge failures of trade mismanagement that Carney has presided over.
Supplementals:

Bill C-69 frequently called the no more pipelines act, otherwise known as the impact assessment act, is a piece of legislation brought forward by the Trudeau administration that requires all emissions both during construction, after, and through use of the final product to be considered when building a natural resources project.
The Conservative Party has long called for C-69 to be repealed and the government in Alberta under Danielle Smith has done the same.
This week though the federal government is making a change to reduce duplication in the approval project for several types of energy projects. This will be codified into law later this fall and expanded.
The first initial step is removing the duplicate approvals on projects related to oil sands extraction, some pipelines, and transmission lines.
The new rules mean that some projects that had been subject to reviews under both the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA) would no longer be subject to the IAA.
Federal Energy Minister Tim Hodgson was in Alberta with Alberta Energy Minister Brian Jean to make the announcement.
To illustrate the institutional friction that has been built into Canada over the last decade plus we go to that announcement itself.
A journalist by the name of Louis (who didn’t state his outlet) asked Minister Hodgson about the changes. He specifically asked, “I was wondering if this talking facility serves to justify expanding fossil fuel production, when we take into account that the tax on industrial emissions has been lowered.”
Minister Hodgson responded, “We’re in a world that is becoming unsecure and unsafe. Our allies are shutting down factories, shutting down schools, because they don’t have access to conventional energy… We have chosen and we have shown the world that we can be the best producers of conventional energy in the world…”
Hodgson continued by mentioning that it pays for so many federal programs.
The reporter interjected, “but it pollutes!”
Hodgson then concluded by saying, “In the world we need to live in - not in a magical world - in the world as it is not as we wish it to be, this is the most productive way to be a clean and conventional energy superpower and it makes complete sense to do that.”
The journalist opposite of Hodgson represents the view in Canada up until very recently. There are going to be those in the media, academia, and the federal bureaucracy who feel the same today. But things are moving in the right direction.
Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior fellow and director of natural resources, energy and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said Wednesday’s regulation change is welcome.
She said, “It’s extremely impactful. This has been a top request of industry associations.”
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, a conglomerate representing a handful of oil companies is also optimistic.
Projects affected include international and provincial pipelines and electrical transmission lines, offshore renewable-energy projects that are regulated under CERA (Canadian Energy Regulator Act), oil and gas pipelines and facilities in national parks and protected areas that are regulated under CERA, some oil sands extraction facilities and fossil fuel-fired generating facilities.
Danielle Smith also spoke very favourably of the news. She said, “This fulfills a promise made by the Federal Government to Alberta in our MOU implementation agreement signed previously. This reform will decrease costly duplication and regulatory uncertainty. It will also help our energy and electricity sectors attract investment and grow. C-69 still needs to be either repealed or amended further to fully respect provincial autonomy and reduce regulatory uncertainty - and we will continue to pursue our case in front of Alberta’s Court of Appeal to help facilitate these needed changes.”
In a silo this is an Alberta-Canada energy story. The reality though is that this story should have been presented in the larger context of Alberta’s October referendum.
We have long detailed the media’s coverage of that referendum as either minimizing the independence movement, belittling its members, or painting remain but with the status quo as the default choice.
In this case the Carney government and Smith government are working to show Albertans that Canada can work. Smith outright has said that there is more work to be done when considering this announcement. The federal government is positioning Alberta and Canadian energy as a solution for the problems of today without marginalizing the province.
This story could very easily have been made to show Albertans how Canada can work while underscoring there are issues that need to be worked out between provinces and the federal government.
CBC, CTV, and Global all treated it as a streamlining of regulations story but did not cover it in the context of any referendums.
Through this week see how the media prefers its sensationalist lenses rather than what would be for the good of Canada and the good of Alberta.
Supplementals:

Canada 'will NEVER be the 51st state. Sorry!': B.C. premier unveils new border welcome signs

B.C. Premier David Eby unveiled new welcome signs for U.S. border crossings at a Tuesday press conference, which he says reflect a message from his government: "Welcome to British Columbia, Canada. Strong, proud, and will NEVER be the 51st state. Sorry!" The signs, he said, were a “uniquely Canadian message. It’s confident, good-humoured and it’s unmistakably clear.”
A second one contained six graphic icons, one of which bore the message “Never 51st State.” The others were “Watch for Moose,” “Don’t Litter,” “60MPH=100KPH,” “Respect Fire Bans,” and “Kindness ≠ Weakness.”
The last message was accompanied by an image of a raised black fist against an icon of a heart.
“They carry a message that reflects the spirit of this moment,” said B.C. Premier David Eby, wearing a red flannel shirt. He called his shirt a “Salmo dinner jacket” and the “single most Canadian piece of clothing I own.”
Some saw plaid, reminiscent of the shirt Gordon Campbell wore in an ill-advised gesture of populism prior to the 1996 provincial election, which he lost.
Others thought “lumberjack shirt,” and wondered if it were a wise choice for a premier presiding over the ruin of the forest industry, much of it predating Trump and owing to NDP policies, taxes and regulations.
The new signs were unveiled at a ceremony held just in front of the B.C. Parliament Buildings, in an area of the Victoria Inner Harbour frequented by U.S. tourists; the B.C. capital being a common port of call for Alaskan cruises. Eby’s speech was preceded by a performance by OGR-Scintilla, a rapper clad in a hockey jersey and trapper hat.
He performed the song Party in Canada, which includes the lines “can’t wait for another snow day” and “eh eh eh, it’s a party in Canada, eh.”
Despite the lighthearted tone of the press conference, Eby did say he anticipated damage from the trade war, and that he didn’t see any immediate end to it.
“There is no getting around the fact that people will lose their jobs and businesses will close on both sides of the border,” he said.
He pointed to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying that when 8,500 passengers were stranded at Vancouver International Airport, Canadians opened their doors to their southern neighbours.
"Now here we are 25 years later, as President Donald Trump has hurled insults, unfair tariffs and continues to threaten our independence as a country."
Eby said even in the face of the ongoing trade war between the two nations, Canadians wouldn't hesitate to step up again.
The new signs are one of several measures that Eby’s government has taken to signal its displeasure with U.S. policy, after Trump began levying punitive tariffs against Canada in early 2025.
Mainstream outlets largely treated the event as a lighthearted display of Canadian diplomacy. However, looking past the media's focus reveals several critical angles that independent articles should highlight regarding the NDP government's actual performance this week.
While the mainstream media focused on Eby's "most Canadian" flannel shirt and the spectacle of a Port Hardy rapper warming up the crowd, they largely ignored the lack of real substance beneath the rally.
Despite warning British Columbians that "people will lose their jobs and businesses will close" due to the escalating trade war, Eby’s government offered no new direct financial aid to struggling local businesses. Critics argue the highly theatrical event was an expensive distraction from the province’s deep economic troubles, including a staggering provincial deficit that currently limits the government's ability to actually help businesses survive.
Eby explicitly stated that the federal government in Ottawa is expected to take the lead on financial support. This allows the NDP to soak up the positive publicity of "standing up to Trump" while taking zero financial responsibility for protecting B.C. workers.
Mainstream reporters widely shared photos of the tongue-in-cheek signs, but failed to ask hard questions about the actual efficacy and cost of "sign-based retaliation".
When Ontario Premier Doug Ford launched a similar sign campaign at the border, it cost Ontario taxpayers roughly $25,000. The Eby government has not been pressed by major media outlets on the exact total budget for manufacturing, transporting, and installing these novelty markers across B.C.'s 19 land border crossings.
While Eby claimed his signs represent "Team Canada," independent groups like Resource Works point out that true economic independence does not come from plastic signs or banning U.S. wine. It comes from B.C.'s resource, mining, and energy sectors, which have historically bailed out the economy during manufacturing recessions—sectors that the NDP government has frequently restricted with regulatory red tape.
The hollowness of Tuesday’s event was fully on display near the end when Eby urged British Columbians to “be our own best customer” and buy B.C.
“Buying local is choosing B.C.-made cereal for your breakfast, bread that’s baked here, B.C.-brewed beer, and other B.C.-made products that are made close to home,” preached the premier.
“It is also choosing a local accountant, an engineer or consultant when your business needs advice. … It’s about services too.”
From this year’s provincial budget: “Effective Oct. 1, 2026 the following services will become subject to the provincial sales tax: accounting and bookkeeping services; architectural services; engineering and geoscience services; rental property and strata management services and commissions related to buying and selling non-residential real estate; and security and private investigation services.”
Expanding the seven per cent PST to those services is projected to bring in $1.4 billion over the rest of this year and the next two.
The timely juxtaposition between the premier’s call for a helping hand for the service sector and the imminent expansion of the sales tax to those same services prompted a devastating question from Jeremy Hainsworth of the B.C. Today newsletter.
“Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and rescind that PST extension?” he asked Eby.
The premier tried to sidestep the question for which he was clearly not prepared.
“The provincial tax base increasingly is service-based,” he said. “In fact, you’ll see an expanded Buy B.C. program to encourage British Columbians to buy services from exactly those professionals.”
That did not answer the question, so the reporter repeated it: “Are you going to rescind your extension of the PST so that there’s less damage to those businesses?”
Eby responded with a second rationalization for the tax grab, as a “step that has to be taken so that British Columbians see, when they buy B.C., that that includes products that they might not have initially thought about when engaging in their shopping, when spending their dollars, whether at work or at home.”
The NDP can’t afford to do without the tax grab, given the record deficit and their recent acknowledgment of a further $1.5 billion hole in the budget. What the premier means is that from now on people buying B.C. services should feel good about helping businesses survive, while also helping the New Democrats to survive the mess they made of provincial finances.
The most glaring narrative missing from mainstream nightly news broadcasts is how much this event felt like an official campaign launch. The event featured flags, face paint, a live musical act, and highly charged partisan-style rhetoric.
Public polling historically shows that Canadian politicians see a boost in popularity when they lean into anti-Trump messaging. By manufacturing a highly visual "sovereignty crisis" in Victoria, Eby is successfully changing the channel from domestic failures—such as the ongoing healthcare crunch and housing affordability crises.
When asked by independent observers if he is using the trade war as an excuse to trigger an early provincial vote to secure power before the deficit worsens, Eby pointedly refused to rule out a snap election, calling the idea of an early election an "interesting question".
In the face of a trade war that hits BC far more percentage wise than other provinces, our premier is donning flannel, creating new border signs and launching campaign style press conferences. This should worry British Columbians far more than the humourous articles we got from the media this week.
Supplementals:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bc-unveils-sign-retaliation-against-us

Firing Line

Stephen Fuhr was mocked for opposing the purchase of F-35s. Now he's in charge of Canada's defence procurement

Stephen Fuhr is a name within the federal government that Canadians should know. He is the minister in charge of defence procurement.
Fuhr is originally from Edmonton but now is the Liberal MP for Kelowna. He has a history with the RCAF as a fighter pilot and later attack planner in Afghanistan where the CBC is quick to go to his RCAF nickname: Picasso.
As the Secretary of State for Defence procurement he is in charge of deciding what the military buys. The CBC news article quickly points out that in this position he would have more power than Industry Minister Melanie Joly or Defence Minister David McGuinty when it comes to purchasing.
Why is this important? The F-35.
In 2009 he drew mockery from other military members for opposing the purchase of the F-35. CBC paints Fuhr as a man who won’t back down, highlighting him saying, “I’m not afraid to stand out on the hill by myself. It's just a principled place to be. And sometimes it's lonely, but that's just the way it is.”
But about halfway through the article, they finally get to why Fuhr may be controversial: he’s never been deployed to a conflict zone.
The real crux of the story is that there has been and will continue to be a push to only purchase the 88 F-35’s we have committed to and purchase the Swedish Saab Gripen to augment that fleet.
CBC is very clear that Fuhr is not closing the door on that mixed fleet citing Fuhr as saying, “Many of our allies … run a mixed fleet with fighters. I don't necessarily subscribe to the fact that we can't do it. We certainly can and we've done it and our allies do it now. So it's a function of 'do we want to do this or not?’”
While the through line of the interview focused primarily on Fuhr’s background it’s clear that the ultimate purpose of the story served to prime the readers for a case where Canada purchase the mixed fleet and they’ll use Fuhr’s background and charismatic profile as reason to justify it in their articles and interviews.
There was no direct discussion about whether or not Canada should or should not purchase the Saab Gripen in addition to the F-35.
But, when asked about NORAD Commander Gregory Guillot who is a US General and his thoughts on the F-35 who at one point said that the F-35 wasn’t necessarily the best aircraft to protect Canadian and American borders, Fuhr said, "He is the commander of NORAD. So I think what he says, I take him at his word.”
CBC then ended the article with that quote saying that Fuhr broke into a laugh after saying it.
There has been a massive push amongst some in the media and government to move away from the F-35. Some want the existing deal scrapped while others want no more F-35’s purchased.
The reality is the following. You can maintain a dual aircraft fleet but it becomes more expensive across the entire line from procurement to training to maintenance and operation.
There’s also a subtle fact about the Gripen that not many realize. Modern variants of it, specifically the JAS39E that Canada is looking at, use a General Electric engine, an American engine.
As a result of that the US needs to clear export of that engine to any country that wants to buy a Gripen. Would the US do that given the present trade dynamics and the possibility of Canada going for a full F-35 fleet? It’s hard to say.
While the article paints the picture that we can run both planes, we need to ask if that realistically makes sense and if we’re doing it because it makes sense operationally or if we’re doing it to divest from the United States.
Instead, the article could have discussed the massive amount of procurement woes the military has seen over the last 10 years. Many of which we’ve discussed on the show before from rucksack shortages to hardware that’s literally falling apart.
The article did mention the GlobalEye radar system, German-Norwegian subs, and 60,000 assault rifles but glossed over the issues the service has seen in Canada.
Does the article seek to show that Stephen Fuhr will enhance procurement or is it about moving away from the F-35?
The real story lies in plain sight that the CBC can’t resist talking about.

Quote of the Week

“I’m not afraid to stand out on the hill by myself. It's just a principled place to be. And sometimes it's lonely, but that's just the way it is.” - Secretary of State for Defence Procurement Stephen Fuhr on acquiring the F-35.

Word of the Week

alone - separated from others

How to Find Us

Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

x.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: It’s a Party in Canada
Teaser: Canada announces trade deals with the EU, Poland and New Zealand, Carney moves to simplify energy project approvals, and Eby unveils new border signs while wearing flannel. Also, CBC pumps up Stephen Fuhr who opposes the F-35.
Production Code: WC-485-2026-09-12
Recorded Date: September 12, 2026
Release Date: September 13, 2026
Duration: 1:10:22
Edit Notes: None

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX