The Free Press
Welcome back to This Week in Canada, your one-stop shop for what’s making headlines, moving policy, and sparking debate across the country. This week, a Canadian company is helping the U.S. lead the deep-sea mineral race while the government dithers, a parent gets punished for objecting to a land acknowledgment, defense spending rises, and much more.
Let’s get to it.
While Ottawa Virtue-Signals, a Canadian Company Leads U.S. Deep-Sea Mining Push
What if I told you that roughly 3.7 miles deep in the ocean are rocks the size of potatoes containing the elements needed for iPhones, electric vehicle batteries, and wiring for electrical grids?
Most of us know nothing about deep-sea mining because it has been heavily regulated in international waters by the United Nations since 1982. But now Donald Trump, with an executive order on April 24, is trying to rip these regulations wide open, pushing the U.S. to fast-track commercial deep-sea mining and seize a new frontier of critical minerals before China does.
The Metals Company (TMC), a Vancouver-based company, is seeking, through its U.S. subsidiary, to become the first company licensed under the U.S. to commercially mine the international seabed.
Gerard Barron, the CEO of TMC, is often compared to Elon Musk, who he counts as an inspirational figure. “I’m out to change how the world thinks about extracting metals,” Barron told me.
TMC’s U.S. subsidiary is eyeing more than 9,652 square miles within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), a 1.7-million square-mile expanse of Pacific Ocean seabed between Hawaii and Mexico. The zone is rich in polymetallic nodules containing nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, and rare-earth elements.
While regulatory details are still being ironed out with the Trump administration, Barron hopes the company will secure its permits before year’s end and begin commercial mining next year. The CCZ lies in international waters, beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation. Mining activity there is governed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—a treaty ratified by 169 countries, including Canada. The U.S. has never ratified UNCLOS, though Washington had long respected its provisions—until Trump indicated in his executive order that deference to the treaty was no longer in America’s interests.
Meanwhile, China, which is already a dominant player in global critical mineral supply chains, is eyeing the seabed. It currently holds five of the 30 exploration permits issued so far by the ISA, the most of any country in the world, setting the stage for a new power contest four miles beneath the ocean.
“The idea of China picking up an asset in the middle of the Pacific and shipping it straight to China is very appealing to them,” Barron told me. “America now has the opportunity to play massive catch-up, and we can help make the United States mineral-independent, much like shale oil helped make them energy-independent.”
That a Canadian company could help drive U.S. leadership in deep-sea mining while Ottawa watches from the sidelines is a repeat of the story that has played out for the past decade, as Canada sat on vast natural-gas reserves, while the U.S. raced ahead to become the world’s top liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter. Pipeline projects were killed or stalled by regulatory gridlock and environmental activism. When Europe desperately needed non-Russian gas after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Canada, which is the world’s fifth-largest producer of natural gas, had virtually nothing to offer.
But Barron is “hopeful” that new Canadian prime minister Mark Carney will be more “reasonable” on deep-sea mining than his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, given Carney’s recent overtures toward the oil and gas industry .
“As a country with deep mining expertise, strong environmental standards, and a proud history of innovation, Canada should be helping to shape how responsible deep-sea resource development is done, not sitting on the sidelines,” Barron told me. “If you’re talking to Carney, give him my number. I’m happy to take his call anytime.”
Parent Suspended from School Council for Objecting to Land Acknowledgment
Late last month, a Canadian school board informed Catherine Kronas, a parent serving on her child’s local school council in Ontario, that her role was being “paused” for allegedly causing “harm” and violating board policy.
Her offense? “Respectfully” requesting during an April 9 council meeting that her objection to the land acknowledgment be recorded in the meeting minutes. Kronas argued that the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board lacks an official mandate to require land acknowledgments at school council meetings and that such statements “undermine the democratic process,” amount to “compelled speech,” and are “divisive” and “inappropriate.”
Kronas, who has served on the board for the past year and like all board members is a volunteer, has since been barred from attending upcoming meetings, including virtual ones, while the board reviews the allegations.
“They’ve ostracized me and painted me as someone who harms others,” Kronos told me, pointing to the letter she received in May.
Parents who once expressed similar concerns about land acknowledgments privately have all “slunk away” and “gone silent,” she said. She is convinced that if even one other parent had publicly backed her objection, she wouldn’t have been suspended.
“I have no support,” Kronas says.
But Kronas is far from alone in her views. A new poll shows that a majority of Canadians—52 percent—reject the idea that they live on “stolen” indigenous land. In Kronas’s own region, Hamilton-Niagara, a suburb just outside Toronto, 50 percent said “no” to the concept.
There’s also a political shift underway that reflects this: New legislation from Ontario premier Doug Ford that is widely viewed as effectively anti–diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) aims to roll back some of the ideological activism that has spread through school boards. The bill will, among other things, ban the renaming of schools based on the belief that historical figures are linked to “systems of oppression” and mandate the return of school resource officers, a form of law enforcement, in jurisdictions where police services provide them. In recent years, many Ontario school boards have removed police from schools on the grounds that their presence causes harm to “racialized” groups—a peculiarly Canadian euphemism for non-white people that casts them as perpetual victims in need of saving—and makes at least this brown Canadian feel like something is inherently wrong with us.
Canada’s Immigration System Runs on Trust
Picture this: a justice system where criminals are politely asked to turn themselves in. Does it sound absurd? That’s exactly how Canada approaches immigration enforcement.
On June 9, in the House of Commons, Lena Metlege Diab, minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship, was asked repeatedly what the Carney government is doing to ensure that people on expired visas leave the country.
Her answer: “When people’s visas expire, they are expected to leave the country.” When pressed further, Diab said, “We have rules in this country, and we expect people to follow those rules.”
This statement comes against the backdrop of a system already buckling under its own contradictions. The Trudeau government quietly acknowledged in a note last April that there may be as many as half a million undocumented migrants already in Canada, and that over two million newcomers are “expected” to leave over 2025 and 2026 as their temporary permits expire. But expectation, evidently, is the only enforcement mechanism.
Canada’s population surpassed 41 million in 2024. In 2023, Canada added 1.27 million people, marking the fastest growth in the country’s population in 66 years, driven by international migration. Canada’s population has grown more rapidly than the U.S. and numerous European countries over the past 15 years.
Meanwhile, Canada’s youth (15–24) are facing the highest unemployment rate that Canada has seen since the mid-1990s, and Canada’s overall unemployment rate could hit 7.5 percent as more newcomers are admitted to the country. Canada’s unemployment rate rose to 7 percent in May from 6.9 percent in April.
Just last week, I felt cautiously optimistic that the Carney government’s proposed legislation aimed at tightening border controls—particularly around immigration and asylum—would mean that Canada was finally prepared to confront the realities of a broken system.
But after hearing Kevin Lamoureux, the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government, deliver an impassioned defense of “sustainable” immigration levels, that optimism is fading fast. Immigration, he insisted, is the “key” to growing Canada’s economy—a well-worn talking point that conveniently ignores mounting social and economic pressures.
Shamed Into Action: Trump Forces Canada to Take Defense Seriously
Finally, some good news—and yet another sign that Trump is jolting Canadians out of our complacency and prompting us to take our economy and defense seriously.
On June 9, the Carney government announced that Canada will meet NATO’s spending target for its members—devoting 2 percent of GDP to defense—seven years ahead of schedule, so Canada can “chart its own path” and “assert itself on the international stage.”
President Trump has repeatedly criticized Canada and other allies for falling short of NATO’s spending target—a failure that has long tarnished Canada’s credibility within NATO.
“We stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans throughout the Cold War and in the decades that followed, as the United States played a dominant role on the world stage,” Carney said. “Today, that dominance is a thing of the past.”
While Carney pledged to boost defense spending by $6.6 billion (in U.S. dollars), he was vague on some important details, like where those funds would come from.
Carney also signaled a new approach to military procurement, stating that Canada would aim to source more equipment domestically, or from non-U.S. allies.
“We should no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America,” he said.
Thomas Juneau, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, called Carney’s announcement a “positive first step.” Increasing defense spending, Juneau explained, will help Canada better manage its relationships within NATO and with other key allies and partners. If Canada wants to diversify its diplomatic and strategic relations beyond the United States, it needs to bring more to the table—and defense is a crucial lever.
“Canada’s NATO allies—and countries like India—will not simply deepen ties with us for free,” Juneau noted. “We need to have more to offer, and a stronger defense posture is an essential part of that.”
While Juneau doesn’t believe this move will fully “placate” Trump, he does think it will give Canada “useful leverage” in negotiating a new economic and security partnership with Washington.
A Victory for History: Macdonald Statue Returns to Public View
A statue of Canada’s founding father and first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, encased in a box since 2020 following vandalism and protests linked to his legacy, was finally unveiled on June 11 at Queen’s Park in Toronto. Macdonald is both celebrated for forging modern Canada and criticized for policies that harmed the country’s indigenous people, including the creation of the residential school system, a network of government-funded institutions run by churches and designed to forcibly assimilate indigenous children.
Unveiling the statue is a step in the right direction. While the residential school system was a dark chapter in Canada’s history, erasing Macdonald’s contributions won’t undo past wrongs. Putting him back on display signals that Canadians can handle historical complexity without resorting to cultural purging.
Carney Celebrates Eid with Muslim Brotherhood–Linked Group
Last week, Carney celebrated Eid with members of Canada’s Muslim community. Eid al-Adha, called the “Festival of Sacrifice,” is a major Islamic holiday commemorating the willingness of the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) to sacrifice his son in obedience to God, marked by prayers, feasts, and the ritual slaughter of animals, usually goats and sheep.
The event was hosted by the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), where Carney declared: “Canadians must come together around the values of Eid. . . . these are Muslim values. These are Canadian values.”
In an earlier incarnation of its website, MAC claimed that its “modern roots can be traced to the Islamic revival of the early 20th century, culminating in the movement of the Muslim Brotherhood.” The group said that it viewed the teachings of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, as the “best representation” of Islam.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a designated terrorist organization in Canada or the U.S., but is considered one by some countries in the Middle East, such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. While MAC denies any involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood today, the Canadian group’s website still speaks glowingly about al-Banna, referring to his “charismatic appeal.” Al-Banna sought to promote what he saw as Islamic values, such as Sharia law, advocating for an Islamic state governed by Islamic principles.
In December 2015, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) initiated an audit of MAC, scrutinizing more than a million financial transactions and hundreds of thousands of emails. The CRA alleged that MAC had engaged in activities that breached Canada’s Income Tax Act. The government also alleged that MAC was not merely influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, but was actively promoting that group’s objectives, conduct prohibited for registered charities under Canadian law.
MAC contested the CRA’s actions in April 2023, claiming that the decision to audit it amounted to “systemic bias” and “Islamophobia.” However, in September 2023, a judge in Ontario dismissed MAC’s challenge, allowing the audit to proceed.
Carney’s embrace of MAC as a symbol of Canadian values raises important questions about the line between genuine outreach to the Muslim community and legitimizing organizations with controversial roots.
More from Rupa Subramanya:
