https://youtube.com/@makyabugu?si=BMzWeVuXh9vRHu2x

Maky Abugu, Toronto, ON (2026)

10/25/2026

I’m finally back on YouTube.

I stepped away for a few months because between work, family and trying to keep up with content, I had simply stretched myself too thin.

I needed the break. I needed to reset. And now I’m ready to come back stronger.

In my new video, I talk about why I disappeared, what changed, and what you can expect from the channel going forward.

Watch the full video here: [https://youtu.be/VO391SmATys?si=F1Trgec3XGHKyPbJ]

And if you enjoy my breakdowns on Canada, the U.S., global politics, finance and the economy, make sure you subscribe because more videos are coming.

10/24/2026

Alberta separatists lost the referendum. Now they are being told to get out of the United Conservative Party if they cannot support Canada. And this time, the warning is coming from within conservative circles.

I think this is a significant development in Alberta politics.

Speaking on CBC's Saturday Political Panel, former Conservative campaign manager Fred DeLorey delivered a very direct message.

"I would put down a flag right now, the United Conservatives are pro-Canada party. If you're not pro-Canada, get out of the party."

Then he added something important.

"Will it be? We'll see."

And those last few words are where the real story begins.

On October 19, Albertans delivered a decisive verdict on separation.

Approximately 75% voted to remain in Canada, while 25% supported beginning the process toward another referendum on independence.

More than 1.5 million votes were cast in favour of remaining in Canada, according to the latest unofficial count.

That is not a narrow result.

Yet some prominent separatists are refusing to abandon their political ambitions.

Instead, they are turning their attention toward the UCP itself.

Some have discussed supporting candidates for the party's board and constituency positions, while others have openly questioned Danielle Smith's leadership.

And that creates a serious problem for the premier.

Because Smith is now trying to draw a line that some of her own supporters do not want to accept.

On Wednesday, she declared that the UCP is not an independence party and told members who want to turn it into one to find another political home.

She has also promised not to hold another separation referendum while she remains premier.

But making that declaration is one thing.

Ensuring the party follows it is another.

And there is a bigger economic issue here that should not be ignored.

Alberta needs investment, stable government policies and confidence in its long-term economic future.

Its energy industry depends on major infrastructure projects, international markets and access to financing.

Businesses considering billion-dollar investments need certainty about the political and regulatory environment.

A prolonged internal battle over separation could distract the government from attracting investment, supporting jobs and improving public services.

And with Trump's tariffs already creating uncertainty across Canada, Alberta does not need another unnecessary economic risk.

I live in Alberta, and I believe the province can be strong, prosperous and influential without leaving Canada.

There is nothing wrong with demanding better treatment from Ottawa.

Alberta has legitimate concerns about energy development, federal regulations and provincial powers.

But those issues can be addressed through negotiations, legislation and cooperation within Confederation.

Separation is not the only way to defend Alberta's interests.

And I think the referendum has settled something important.

The majority of Albertans who voted want their province to remain part of Canada.

That decision deserves respect, regardless of political affiliation.

The UCP now faces a choice between continuing internal battles over independence and focusing on the economic priorities Albertans expect their government to address.

Fred DeLorey's message is simple, but it puts Danielle Smith's leadership to the test.

If the UCP truly intends to be a pro-Canada party, its actions must reflect that commitment.

Because Alberta's future should not be held hostage by a separation debate that voters have already rejected.

Sources: CBC News Network, Saturday Political Panel, October 24, 2026, Fred DeLorey's remarks | Elections Alberta, 2026 Provincial Referendum unofficial results.

Please like and share.

10/24/2026

Alberta just spent public money asking voters whether the province should move toward separation from Canada. Nearly 75% rejected the idea. Now Danielle Smith is being accused of spending taxpayers' money to settle a problem she should have confronted within her own party.

And as someone living in Alberta, I think this criticism deserves serious attention.

Speaking on CBC's Saturday Political Panel, former Liberal ministerial adviser Greg MacEachern did not hold back.

"It's kind of shameful how expensive it was in order for her to run a referendum to decide whether or not she has the power and strength to say to separatists, 'Get out of my party!'"

That is a pretty strong accusation against the premier.

But look at what happened.

On October 19, Albertans voted on ten referendum questions, including whether the province should remain in Canada or begin the legal process toward another referendum on separation.

The unofficial results were decisive.

Approximately 75% voted to remain in Canada, while about 25% supported beginning the separation process.

And remember, this was not even a direct vote to leave Canada. It was a vote on whether to start the process toward another vote.

Think about that. Albertans were effectively being asked whether they wanted another referendum about separation.

Now, I understand that some Albertans have legitimate frustrations with Ottawa.

There are serious disagreements over energy policy, federal regulations, immigration and provincial autonomy.

Those concerns deserve attention.

But disagreeing with the federal government does not automatically mean Alberta should leave Canada.

And I believe the referendum results have made that distinction very clear.

Here is where I think MacEachern's criticism becomes particularly relevant.

Running a provincewide referendum requires public resources, election workers, administrative planning and taxpayer funding.

The precise final cost still needs to be established.

And while supporters can argue that allowing Albertans to vote was worthwhile, taxpayers are entitled to ask whether this was the best use of those resources.

Especially when Alberta is dealing with pressures in health care, education, infrastructure and the cost of living.

There is also an economic issue that cannot be ignored.

Alberta is one of Canada's most important energy-producing provinces.

Its oil and gas industry depends on pipelines, export markets, investment and access to customers beyond provincial borders.

Prolonged uncertainty about separation can complicate long-term business planning and raise questions about regulation, trade arrangements, debt and financial stability.

Those are not small issues.

Investors generally want predictable rules before committing billions of dollars to projects that could operate for decades.

And Alberta needs that investment to sustain jobs, government revenue and economic growth.

But there is another important development.

Smith has accepted the result and said she will not hold another separation referendum while she remains premier.

She is now pointing to the other referendum questions, particularly those involving immigration and provincial powers, as a basis for seeking changes from Ottawa.

Some of those proposals received majority support, although the margins were much narrower than the vote on remaining in Canada.

And those votes do not automatically give Alberta powers currently held by the federal government.

My position is simple.

Alberta should absolutely defend its economic interests and negotiate firmly with Ottawa.

But it can do that while remaining a strong province within Canada.

I would rather see the provincial government concentrate on attracting investment, improving public services, supporting businesses and creating jobs than continue entertaining a separation debate that voters have overwhelmingly rejected.

Albertans have spoken. They want a stronger Alberta, but they also want to remain part of Canada.

I think the premier should respect both parts of that message.

Sources: CBC News Network, Saturday Political Panel, October 24, 2026, Greg MacEachern's comments.

Please like and share.

10/24/2026

Pete Hoekstra came to Canada as America's ambassador. But Ralph Goodale says he needs to stop behaving like a Michigan politician. And I think that message is long overdue.

Because what is happening between Canada and the United States is becoming increasingly difficult to understand.

Speaking to CTV News, former Canadian cabinet minister and diplomat Ralph Goodale delivered a pointed message to the U.S. ambassador.

"He really should remember that his role has changed. He's no longer the Michigan politician. He's a diplomat and an ambassador."

Goodale went further, saying Hoekstra should conduct himself in a diplomatic manner that is respectful of the country where he is serving.

And when you consider Hoekstra's recent statements, you can understand why Goodale is frustrated.

Earlier this month, Hoekstra warned Canadian politicians to keep their noses out of American politics ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

Then the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa released a list of nine examples accusing Canadian officials of attempting to influence American politics.

Among those targeted were Industry Minister Mélanie Joly and Ontario Premier Doug Ford.

And what exactly were they accused of doing?

Publicly criticizing American tariffs, discussing Canada's response to those tariffs and trying to convince American businesses and politicians that the trade war is damaging both economies.

I find that accusation particularly troubling.

Canada did not initiate this tariff dispute.

Canadian businesses are facing higher costs, uncertainty and pressure on jobs because of decisions made in Washington.

So why should Canadian officials remain silent about policies that directly affect their economy?

There is a difference between legitimate diplomacy and improper election interference.

And the publicly available examples presented by the U.S. Embassy have not established that Canadian officials were secretly attempting to manipulate American election results.

Now look at the bigger economic picture.

Canada and the United States share one of the world's most important trading relationships.

Automotive manufacturing, steel, energy, agriculture and countless other industries depend on cross-border cooperation.

When diplomatic relations deteriorate, businesses face additional uncertainty about tariffs, investment decisions and supply chains.

That uncertainty can delay expansion plans, discourage investment and ultimately affect workers on both sides of the border.

And the latest developments show just how serious this dispute has become.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has dismissed the election interference allegations as having no merit.

Ottawa has also instructed Canadian diplomats in the United States to avoid meetings and public appearances with midterm candidates.

Meanwhile, a petition signed by more than 27,000 people was presented in Canada's House of Commons calling for a formal review of Hoekstra's conduct, with the possibility of requesting his recall if warranted.

That is not an official decision to expel the ambassador, but it demonstrates growing concern about his approach.

I believe Goodale is making an important point.

An ambassador is supposed to represent their country's interests while maintaining constructive relations with the host nation.

That does not mean Hoekstra cannot defend Trump's policies or disagree with Canadian leaders.

But there is a difference between defending American interests and repeatedly escalating political tensions with one of America's closest trading partners.

Canada deserves to be treated as a sovereign country and an equal negotiating partner.

Carney is right to stand firm. Canada should not be intimidated into silence simply because Washington dislikes criticism of its trade policies.

And Hoekstra should remember that his responsibility in Ottawa is diplomacy, not campaigning.

Sources: CTV News, October 24, 2026, Ralph Goodale interview | The Canadian Press.

Please like and share.

10/24/2026

Is Trump preparing to blame Canada if Republicans lose the midterm elections? A Canadian journalist has raised that possibility, and the timing of Washington's latest accusations makes it worth paying attention.

Because something very interesting is happening just days before Americans head to the polls.

Speaking on CBC's Saturday Political Panel, journalist Martin Patriquin suggested that Trump could be positioning Canada as a convenient scapegoat if the November 3 elections go badly for Republicans.

"President Trump has a long history of blaming people for failures that are coming or that have happened."

That is Patriquin's assessment, not proof of Trump's intentions.

But look at what has happened over the past few days.

The U.S. Embassy in Ottawa has accused Canadian politicians of attempting to influence American elections.

Its evidence includes public comments by Canadian officials criticizing Trump's tariffs and efforts to pressure Washington over trade.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford have rejected the allegations.

And this is where the situation becomes particularly interesting.

While Washington is accusing Canada of interfering in American politics, Trump's own trade policies are becoming a problem for Republican candidates.

On Friday, Trump signed an order removing 50% tariffs on selected Canadian products after Republican Senator Susan Collins pushed for relief.

Collins is fighting a difficult reelection campaign in Maine, where businesses and farmers have complained about the costs of Trump's tariffs.

The exemptions take effect on October 30, just four days before the election.

That timing is difficult to ignore.

And the economic consequences explain why this matters.

American companies importing Canadian goods generally pay the tariffs at the border.

Those additional costs can translate into higher prices, reduced profit margins and pressure on jobs.

In states such as Maine and Michigan, where businesses depend heavily on Canadian trade, those consequences are becoming politically uncomfortable.

An AP-NORC poll in September found that 64% of American adults believed Trump had gone too far with tariffs.

So the pressure on Republicans is not something Canada invented. It is partly the result of economic decisions made in Washington.

And I think that distinction is extremely important.

Canada has every right to defend its workers, businesses and exporters when American tariffs threaten their livelihoods.

Criticizing a trade policy is not the same thing as secretly manipulating another country's elections.

If Republicans lose seats in November, American voters will have made that decision based on their own priorities, including the economy, cost of living and their assessment of the administration.

Canada should not become an excuse for avoiding those questions.

I believe Carney is right to reject the allegations while continuing to pursue a fair trade agreement.

Canada does not need to interfere in American elections.

It needs to protect Canadian jobs, strengthen its economy and reduce its vulnerability to unpredictable trade decisions.

And Washington needs to recognize that blaming Canada will not make the economic consequences of its own tariffs disappear.

Sources: CBC News Network, Saturday Political Panel, October 24, 2026, Martin Patriquin's remarks.

Please like and share.

10/24/2026

Trump says America holds all the cards against Canada. But on the very same day he made that claim, he was removing tariffs because American businesses were feeling the pain.

And a Canadian journalist has just called out that contradiction.

Speaking on CBC's Saturday Political Panel, journalist Martin Patriquin described Trump's decision to ease tariffs affecting Maine while boasting about America's negotiating power as "a sign of weakness on the part of Donald Trump."

I think he has a point. And the timing makes this particularly interesting.

On Friday, Trump signed an order removing 50% tariffs on selected Canadian products, including certain machinery, packaging materials, refrigeration equipment and forestry products.

Why?

Because Republican Senator Susan Collins, who is fighting to retain her seat in Maine, had been pressing the White House for relief.

She warned that American farmers and businesses were paying higher costs because they depended on Canadian products that were difficult or expensive to replace.

Think about that for a moment.

Trump has repeatedly claimed Canada is desperate for a deal.

He says Washington has all the leverage.

Yet with the November 3 midterm elections approaching, members of his own party are asking him to ease the economic pressure created by his tariffs.

And the White House has now acknowledged that adjustments are needed to reduce the burden on American commerce.

That is a very different picture from the one Trump is presenting publicly.

But there is another detail Canadians should not overlook.

Trump is not eliminating the trade war.

While removing tariffs on certain products, his administration is adding other Canadian goods to the 50% tariff list, including carpets, valves and waste products.

The changes take effect on October 30, just four days before Americans vote.

So this is not a broad trade breakthrough. It is a selective reshuffling of tariffs at a politically sensitive moment.

And that matters for businesses on both sides of the border.

American importers pay these tariffs when goods enter the United States. Depending on market conditions, those costs can be passed to consumers, absorbed by businesses or pushed back onto Canadian suppliers through lower prices.

Either way, the economic consequences do not stop at the Canadian border.

This is why I believe Carney should remain firm in negotiations.

Canada cannot pretend the United States does not have significant economic leverage. It absolutely does.

But the relationship works both ways.

American farmers need Canadian equipment. Manufacturers need Canadian materials. Businesses need predictable supply chains.

And Republican politicians are discovering that disrupting those relationships can carry an electoral cost.

What makes this story so revealing is that Trump is beginning to face pressure from the very people his tariffs were supposed to benefit.

That does not mean Canada has won the trade war.

It means the economic pressure is not one-sided.

Canada should welcome meaningful tariff relief while continuing to push for a fair, stable trade agreement and stronger access to other markets.

Because having the larger economy does not mean holding every card. Sometimes the people sitting on your own side of the table are the ones demanding that you change your strategy.

And that is exactly what appears to be happening in Washington.

Sources: CBC News Network, Saturday Political Panel, October 24, 2026.

Please like and share.

10/24/2026

So Canada is supposedly too weak to stand on its own, but powerful enough to interfere in American elections? Greg MacEachern has just exposed a contradiction in Washington's argument that is difficult to ignore.

And I think he makes a very interesting point.

Speaking on CBC News, the former Liberal ministerial adviser questioned the logic behind the U.S. Embassy's latest allegations against Canadian politicians.

"How can we be ready to be the 51st state, we can't defend ourselves, yet we're such a superpower, we can influence the outcome of an American election? It deserves to be mocked."

And when you look at what Washington is actually accusing Canada of doing, his argument becomes even more interesting.

The U.S. Embassy in Ottawa recently published nine examples of what it describes as attempts by Canadian officials to influence American politics ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

Among those singled out are Industry Minister Mélanie Joly and Ontario Premier Doug Ford.

Their alleged offences?

Speaking publicly about American tariffs, discussing retaliatory trade measures and encouraging American businesses and political leaders to oppose policies that are hurting Canada.

The embassy also cited Ontario's advertising campaign criticizing tariffs.

But here is the distinction Washington appears to be overlooking.

There is a difference between interfering in another country's election and publicly advocating for your country's economic interests.

Governments routinely lobby foreign governments, meet political leaders and explain how trade policies affect their economies.

That is diplomacy.

It does not automatically become election interference simply because the politicians receiving the message are approaching an election.

And so far, the embassy's publicly presented examples have not established a coordinated Canadian government operation to manipulate American election results.

Now consider the economic implications.

Trump's tariffs are affecting Canadian steelmakers, automakers, exporters and manufacturers.

They are also creating additional costs for American businesses that depend on Canadian goods.

Canada has every reason to explain those consequences to American policymakers.

If Ottawa cannot publicly challenge tariffs without being accused of election interference, that creates a troubling precedent for future trade negotiations.

And the latest developments make this even more revealing.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has rejected the allegations, describing them as baseless.

He has also made it clear that Canada will continue defending its workers and businesses.

Meanwhile, Global Affairs Canada has instructed Canadian diplomats to avoid meetings and public appearances with candidates in the upcoming American midterms.

That is a sensible precaution, but it also shows how much this dispute is complicating ordinary diplomatic relations.

I think Carney is right to stand firm on this issue.

Canada should respect America's democratic process, just as Washington should respect Canada's.

But respecting another country's elections does not mean remaining silent when its trade policies threaten Canadian jobs and investment.

And there is something particularly ironic about Washington's position.

Trump has repeatedly questioned Canada's sovereignty and spoken about making it America's 51st state.

Yet his administration is now warning Canadian officials not to influence American political debates.

Canada is not asking to choose America's leaders. It is asking Washington to recognize that its economic decisions have consequences beyond the American border.

That is a legitimate position for an independent country to take.

And I believe Canada should continue defending it.

Sources: CBC News, October 24, 2026, Greg MacEachern on U.S. election interference allegations.

Please like and share.

10/24/2026

Ukraine has finally regained access to critical Starlink and Starshield capabilities after more than a week of restrictions. But the damage this episode has done to trust could last much longer.

And I think every country that depends heavily on American technology, including Canada, should be paying attention.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed today, October 24, that the satellite systems have returned to their previous operating speeds.

Ukraine's Defence Ministry says connections are now stable on equipment travelling at more than 400 kilometres per hour.

That is a significant improvement from the restrictions that reportedly limited connections to around 160 kilometres per hour or less.

But these were not ordinary internet disruptions.

Ukraine relies on these systems for military communications, frontline logistics and drone operations.

When the restrictions began earlier this month, Ukrainian forces reported difficulties operating drones used to intercept Russian attacks.

In a country fighting an ongoing invasion, losing that capability can have devastating consequences.

Zelenskyy thanked American lawmakers, the State Department, President Trump and other partners who helped restore the service.

But there is still one major unanswered question. Who authorized the restrictions in the first place?

Reuters previously reported, citing sources, that the order to restrict Starshield originated inside the White House.

Other reporting has pointed toward Elon Musk's involvement.

Trump has denied responsibility, while Musk has said decisions involving military use of Starshield ultimately belong to the American government.

The competing accounts have not been fully reconciled.

And that uncertainty is deeply concerning.

Think about what this means for national security.

A country can spend billions building drones, military equipment and defence infrastructure.

But if the communications technology supporting those systems can be restricted by an outside government or private company, that investment carries an enormous vulnerability.

And this is where Canada comes into the picture.

Just yesterday, Prime Minister Mark Carney warned about the danger of relying too heavily on a single technology provider when that dependence could compromise national sovereignty.

I think Ukraine's experience makes his concern particularly relevant.

Canada needs reliable allies, but it also needs greater control over the technologies that support its defence and critical infrastructure.

That means investing in Canadian satellite communications, cybersecurity, domestic defence technology and alternative suppliers.

Companies operating in these industries could benefit from increased investment, research funding and government procurement.

But developing that independence will require substantial capital and long-term planning.

It is not something Canada can achieve through political statements alone.

There is also a broader economic lesson here.

When governments purchase critical technology, price should not be the only consideration.

Reliability, contractual protections, security and the ability to maintain operations during a political dispute are equally important.

The cheapest supplier can become extraordinarily expensive if losing access puts lives or essential services at risk.

I welcome the restoration of Ukraine's satellite capabilities. But I also believe the circumstances surrounding the restrictions deserve a clear explanation.

Ukraine should not have to wonder whether the technology it depends on to defend its people will remain available tomorrow.

And Canada should learn from this experience before finding itself in a similar position.

Because national sovereignty is not only about controlling borders. It is also about controlling the infrastructure and technology a country cannot afford to lose.

Sources: Office of the President of Ukraine, October 24, 2026.

Please like and share.

10/24/2026

While Trump is using tariffs to pressure Canadian manufacturers, a global steel giant has just opened a $100 million manufacturing facility in Ontario. And the timing could not be more interesting.

This is the kind of economic news I want to see more of coming out of Canada.

ArcelorMittal Tailored Blanks has officially opened its new $100 million facility in Ingersoll, southwestern Ontario, despite the uncertainty surrounding Canada's manufacturing sector.

The facility uses advanced manufacturing technology to produce precision steel components for the automotive industry.

And here is what makes this development significant.

The opening comes just one day after Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced an $8.7 billion plan to strengthen Canada's steel, automotive and critical minerals industries.

That package includes more than $5.2 billion for the steel sector, $2.5 billion for automotive manufacturing and $1 billion in federal funding for infrastructure supporting Ontario's critical minerals development.

Think about what is happening here.

While American tariffs are putting pressure on Canadian factories, Canada is trying to modernize its industrial base and attract investment.

And this new facility shows that companies are still willing to invest in Canadian manufacturing despite the uncertainty.

But there is an important distinction.

The $100 million plant is a separate investment from the newly announced government support package. It should not be presented as a project created by funding announced just one day earlier.

Now look at the bigger economic picture.

Steel is not just another commodity.

It is essential for vehicle manufacturing, construction, energy infrastructure and defence.

And when Canadian steel is processed into higher-value automotive components within Canada, more of the manufacturing activity can remain in the domestic economy.

That creates opportunities for skilled workers, equipment suppliers, transportation companies and other businesses connected to the industry.

It also strengthens Canada's ability to compete for future manufacturing investment.

This is why I believe Carney and Ford are right to focus on industrial investment rather than simply waiting for Trump to remove his tariffs.

Canada cannot control every decision coming out of Washington.

But it can invest in modern factories, improve infrastructure, strengthen domestic supply chains and make Canadian manufacturers more competitive.

Of course, opening one plant does not mean the challenges facing the steel industry have disappeared.

Other Canadian steelmakers are still dealing with layoffs, weak demand and uncertainty over American trade policy.

And the success of the new government funding will ultimately depend on how effectively it protects existing jobs and generates new private investment.

But I think this is an encouraging development.

Canada needs more than statements about economic independence.

It needs factories, equipment, skilled jobs and businesses willing to invest for the long term.

And a $100 million manufacturing facility opening in Ontario during a tariff dispute is a reminder that Canada's industrial future is still worth investing in.

Trump's tariffs may be creating serious challenges, but they do not have to determine the future of Canadian manufacturing.

The real opportunity is to use this period to build a stronger, more competitive and more diversified Canadian economy.

Sources: The London Free Press, October 2026, report on ArcelorMittal's Ingersoll facility | ArcelorMittal Tailored Blanks North America, October 2026 | Prime Minister of Canada, October 21, 2026 | Reuters, October 21, 2026 | ThWhile Trump is using tariffs to pressure Canadian manufacturers, a global steel giant has just opened a $100 million manufacturing facility in Ontario. And the timing could not be more interesting.

This is the kind of economic news I want to see more of coming out of Canada.

ArcelorMittal Tailored Blanks has officially opened its new $100 million facility in Ingersoll, southwestern Ontario, despite the uncertainty surrounding Canada's manufacturing sector.

The facility uses advanced manufacturing technology to produce precision steel components for the automotive industry.

And here is what makes this development significant.

The opening comes just one day after Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced an $8.7 billion plan to strengthen Canada's steel, automotive and critical minerals industries.

That package includes more than $5.2 billion for the steel sector, $2.5 billion for automotive manufacturing and $1 billion in federal funding for infrastructure supporting Ontario's critical minerals development.

Think about what is happening here.

While American tariffs are putting pressure on Canadian factories, Canada is trying to modernize its industrial base and attract investment.

And this new facility shows that companies are still willing to invest in Canadian manufacturing despite the uncertainty.

But there is an important distinction.

The $100 million plant is a separate investment from the newly announced government support package. It should not be presented as a project created by funding announced just one day earlier.

Now look at the bigger economic picture.

Steel is not just another commodity.

It is essential for vehicle manufacturing, construction, energy infrastructure and defence.

And when Canadian steel is processed into higher-value automotive components within Canada, more of the manufacturing activity can remain in the domestic economy.

That creates opportunities for skilled workers, equipment suppliers, transportation companies and other businesses connected to the industry.

It also strengthens Canada's ability to compete for future manufacturing investment.

This is why I believe Carney and Ford are right to focus on industrial investment rather than simply waiting for Trump to remove his tariffs.

Canada cannot control every decision coming out of Washington.

But it can invest in modern factories, improve infrastructure, strengthen domestic supply chains and make Canadian manufacturers more competitive.

Of course, opening one plant does not mean the challenges facing the steel industry have disappeared.

Other Canadian steelmakers are still dealing with layoffs, weak demand and uncertainty over American trade policy.

And the success of the new government funding will ultimately depend on how effectively it protects existing jobs and generates new private investment.

But I think this is an encouraging development.

Canada needs more than statements about economic independence.

It needs factories, equipment, skilled jobs and businesses willing to invest for the long term.

And a $100 million manufacturing facility opening in Ontario during a tariff dispute is a reminder that Canada's industrial future is still worth investing in.

Trump's tariffs may be creating serious challenges, but they do not have to determine the future of Canadian manufacturing.

The real opportunity is to use this period to build a stronger, more competitive and more diversified Canadian economy.

Sources: The London Free Press, October 2026, report on ArcelorMittal's Ingersoll facility.

Please like and share.

Please like and share.

Maky Abugu

10/25/2026

10/24/2026

10/24/2026

10/24/2026

10/24/2026

10/24/2026

10/24/2026

10/24/2026

10/24/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Organization

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request