Northern Shield Energy Corridor:

 Canada's Boldest Pipeline Proposal in a Generation!

July 6, 2026 — London, Ontario

This morning in Calgary, against the backdrop of Stampede week, Premiers Danielle Smith and Doug Ford unveiled the proposed route for the Northern Shield Energy Corridor… a 3,300-kilometre pipeline that would carry Western Canadian oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to the refining hub of Sarnia, Ontario, along a route that never leaves Canadian soil!

For those of us who have been following the slow-motion drama of Canadian pipeline politics, this is the announcement that changes the conversation. 

Not because it is a done deal... it is very far from that... but because it puts an all-Canadian eastern route squarely on the national agenda for the first time since Energy East died in 2017!

What Was Announced:

The essentials of the Northern Shield pipeline proposal:

• Route: A 3,300 km primary corridor from Hardisty, Alberta... the storage and pricing hub of the Canadian oil patch... to refineries in Sarnia, Ontario, crossing Saskatchewan and Manitoba along the way.
• Capacity: An estimated 500,000 barrels per day, with potential expansion to 800,000 barrels per day.
• Cargo: The broader corridor vision includes not just crude oil but natural gas and other energy products moving from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and ports in southern Ontario.
• Materials: The provinces say the line would be built with Canadian steel, supporting domestic manufacturing and supply chains.
• Next steps: A feasibility study is already underway, expected by the end of 2026. Ontario says it will now work out cost estimates, commercial models, and related opportunities, including grid upgrades and a potential strategic petroleum reserve.

The announcement builds on the memorandum of understanding that Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan signed last year, committing to new energy and trade infrastructure. 

Today, that MOU acquired a map.

Why "Northern Shield" Matters: The Energy Security Argument!

The name is doing real work here. This is being framed not as an export project but as a shield... a defensive piece of national infrastructure. 

The logic runs as follows!

Eastern Canadian refineries still depend heavily on imported oil and on the pipeline routes that dip through the United States! 

Line 5... which feeds Sarnia, crosses Michigan and has been the subject of years of legal threats from that state's government. 

Every barrel that reaches Ontario refineries today does so at the pleasure of American jurisdictions. 

In an era of tariff wars and CUSMA brinkmanship, that is a strategic vulnerability, and both premiers know it!

An all-Canadian route from Hardisty to Sarnia would give this country something it has never had: "The ability to move Western oil to Central Canadian refineries without asking anyone's permission!" 

Add a strategic petroleum reserve... explicitly on the table in today's announcement... and the "shield" framing starts to look less like branding... and more like doctrine!

Readers of this blog will recognize the theme. 

I have argued for months that Canada's real leverage in its dealings with Washington lies in energy, potash, electricity, and critical minerals... and that leverage is only real if we have the infrastructure to redirect flows. 

The Manitoba Problem:

The proposed route passes near Regina and Winnipeg, which means Manitoba is not optional... and Manitoba has, so far, refused to sign on! 

Premier Wab Kinew's position is principled and clearly stated: His government will pursue large-scale projects that begin with Indigenous partnership, not projects that consult Indigenous communities after the route has been drawn!

This is not a trivial objection, and it should not be waved away as an obstruction. (The graveyard of Canadian megaprojects is full of proposals that treated Indigenous consultation as a box to tick at the end rather than a partnership to build at the start.)  

The lesson has been taught repeatedly and expensively!

To their credit, the proponents seem aware of it. 

Ontario says it has initiated its duty to consult with Indigenous partners and is supporting Indigenous involvement in nation-building projects, and the corridor documents point to the Manitoba–Crown Indigenous Corporation as a potential vehicle. 

Ford, for his part, praised Kinew today... and sounded hopeful about bringing Manitoba aboard. 

Whether hope translates into equity stakes and genuine co-ownership will determine whether this project lives or joins its predecessors in the archive.

Two Pipelines, Two Directions, One Week:

Here is the detail that makes this week remarkable: The Northern Shield announcement comes only days after Alberta formally proposed a separate crude pipeline to the southwest coast of British Columbia, in partnership with the federally owned Trans Mountain Corporation and Calgary's Pembina Pipeline Corp!

Premier Smith is now pushing for both accesses simultaneously... west to tidewater and Asian markets... east to Canadian refineries and energy security. (And down the line, there will be pipes to Prince Rupert and Churchill as well!!!!)

It is the most aggressive pipeline posture any Alberta government has taken in decades, and it puts Ottawa in an interesting position. 

Mark Carney's government has staked its economic strategy on nation-building projects and reduced dependence on the United States. 

It will be difficult for the federal government to champion that vision while standing aside from a project literally named for shielding the nation.

The Questions Nobody Answered Today:

A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted, and here is where mine points:

Who pays? No cost estimate was offered, and no private-sector proponent has stepped forward to own and operate the line. 

Energy East was pegged at roughly $16 billion nearly a decade ago! (A 3,300 km line through the Canadian Shield in 2026 dollars will not be any cheaper!) 

Until a commercial model emerges... [private capital, provincial equity, federal backstop, Indigenous ownership stakes] or some blend... this remains a map... not a pipeline!

Is there demand? Sarnia's refining complex is substantial but finite. 

A 500,000 bpd line exceeds what Sarnia alone can absorb, which is why the announcement gestures toward "export markets" and the extension of infrastructure to Eastern Canada! 

That gesture quietly revives the 'Energy East' question: Does this line eventually reach Quebec and Saint John?) 

Nobody said so today. But everybody was thinking it!

What does Ottawa do? The federal major-projects framework will decide how quickly... or whether... this proposal moves. 

Watch for the federal response in the coming days, particularly with the NATO summit in Ankara drawing attention to security and infrastructure spending commitments!

The Bottom Line:

Today's announcement is a route on a map, a feasibility study, and two premiers with a shared political interest in building things. 

That is not nothing... it is more eastern-pipeline momentum than this country has seen in nine years. 

But the distance between a Stampede-week press conference and steel in the ground is measured in Indigenous partnerships, commercial commitments, federal approvals, and billions of dollars that no one has yet put on the table!

The Northern Shield Energy Corridor is the right idea arriving at a moment when the country is finally receptive to it. 

Whether it becomes real infrastructure or another entry in Canada's long ledger of pipeline proposals... will depend on whether its proponents learned the actual lesson of the last decade... in this country... you do not build around people — you build with them!

I will be following the feasibility study and the Manitoba negotiations closely. 

Subscribe or check back for updates as this develops!

WE NEED A NEW STANDARD OF CURRENCY EXCHANGE!

ALLAN SAID; Sal... would it make sense to drop the American dollar as our trading currency and develop a new base currency strictly for exchanges between different monetary systems?

SAL SAID: Yes! In fact, economists have discussed versions of this idea for decades. 

The question isn't whether it makes sense in principle... it does! 

The challenge is getting enough countries to adopt it!

The basic idea is to separate the unit used for international trade from national currencies. 

Instead of Canada paying in U.S. dollars, for example, Canada would pay in an international settlement currency. The U.S. would then receive the equivalent value in U.S. dollars through the settlement system.

There are several advantages:

• Countries would no longer need to hold enormous reserves of U.S. dollars.
• Trade would become less vulnerable to U.S. monetary policy or sanctions.
• Exchange-rate risk could be reduced because each country's currency would be converted only once, into the settlement currency.
• No single country would receive the enormous economic privilege that comes from issuing the world's reserve currency.

This idea isn't entirely new.

One example is the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). SDRs are a basket of major currencies and already exist as an international reserve asset. 

However, they are used mainly between governments and central banks rather than for ordinary trade!

Another proposal came from John Maynard Keynes in 1944. 

He proposed a global clearing currency called the Bancor! 

Under his system:

• Every country would keep its own currency.
• International trade would be settled in Bancors.
• Countries with persistent trade surpluses and deficits would both be encouraged to rebalance, making the system more stable.

The proposal lost to the American-backed system, which established the U.S. dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency after the Bretton Woods Conference.

Today, the idea is receiving renewed attention because:

• China wants to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar.
• The BRICS countries are exploring alternative payment systems.
• Digital payment networks and central-bank digital currencies make international settlement technically much easier than it was 80 years ago.

My own assessment:

I think the long-term trend is toward two layers of money:

1. National currencies (Canadian dollar, euro, yen, etc.) used by citizens and businesses within each country.
2. A neutral international settlement currency, likely digital, used only between banks and governments for cross-border transactions.

People might never even see the second currency. 

A Canadian company would still invoice in Canadian dollars... the banking system would automatically convert the payment into the settlement currency... and then into the recipient's local currency!

That approach would preserve national monetary sovereignty while reducing dependence on any one country's currency.

Ironically, advances in AI and distributed financial technology could make such a system practical. 

AI could continuously optimize exchange rates, monitor liquidity, detect fraud, and balance settlement flows in real time... making a neutral global clearing currency much more efficient than was possible when Keynes first proposed the Bancor!

***

If the global monetary system changes substantially over the next 20–30 years, I think it is more likely to evolve toward this kind of neutral settlement layer than toward a single world currency. 

It offers many of the efficiencies of a common trading currency without requiring countries to give up control over their own domestic money.

ALLAN SAID: That's what I thought... and do you have a name for this exchange currency?

SAL SAID: If someone were designing this from scratch today, I'd avoid names tied to any existing country or political bloc. 

The name should convey neutrality, stability, and function!

Here are a few possibilities I think would work well:

Name	Comments
Terra	Suggests "the world." Simple and memorable.
Nexus	Implies connection between monetary systems.
Unis	From "universal settlement." Short and easy to pronounce.
Merca	Derived from "mercantile." Trade-focused.
Globa	Straightforward global identity.
Concord	Emphasizes cooperation rather than politics.
Axis	A central point around which currencies rotate.
Equa	From "equilibrium" or "equal exchange."
Unita	Suggests unity while remaining politically neutral.
Bridge	Symbolizes connecting national currencies.

If it were my project, though, I'd probably choose something even more descriptive.

Instead of calling it a currency, I'd call it an "International Exchange Unit!" (IEU)

Countries wouldn't "hold IEUs" the way they hold dollars today. 

Instead:

• Canadian dollars → IEUs → Japanese yen
• Euros → IEUs → Mexican pesos
• Australian dollars → IEUs → Brazilian reais

If you owe... It's I.O.U!

If you exchange... It's I.E.U!

The IEU would simply be the common denominator through which all exchanges pass.

That has a psychological advantage as well. 

People don't feel like they're adopting someone else's money. They're simply using a neutral accounting unit, much like the internet uses common protocols to move information without replacing everyone's computers.

Knowing your interest in creating enduring concepts, I might even go one step further and coin a term specifically for this role:

The Exchange Standard: (XS)

The idea is that it's not a currency in the traditional sense... it's a standard of exchange! 

Every national currency would be valued relative to the XS, and AI-driven settlement systems could handle the conversions instantly behind the scenes.

I actually like Exchange Standard because it shifts the conversation away from "Who controls the currency?" to "What is the common standard for fair exchange?" 

That framing may make the concept more politically acceptable!

Canada Picks Germany!

 TKMS Wins the Submarine Competition:

After two years of signalling, three NATO summits, and one of the most aggressively contested defence competitions in Canadian history, we finally have an answer. On July 6, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced in Halifax that Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) has been selected as the preferred bidder for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) — a program to build up to 12 conventionally powered submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy.

The German Type 212CD beat out South Korea's Hanwha Ocean and its KSS-III, ending a rivalry that saw both companies — and both governments — court Ottawa with industrial promises on a scale Canadian procurement has rarely seen. The timing was no accident: the announcement came just before the Prime Minister departed for the NATO leaders' summit in Ankara, where Canada will arrive with something it has not had in decades — a credible plan to put a real fleet underwater.

What Canada Is Actually Buying:

The numbers deserve a moment of attention. The submarine construction contract is expected to be worth between $20 billion and $30 billion, with operations, maintenance, and upgrades over the life of the fleet pushing the total toward $40 billion to $50 billion more. Some estimates put the full thirty-year program cost above $100 billion.

For that money, Canada gets something it has never had. The Royal Canadian Navy currently operates four second-hand Victoria-class submarines, of which typically only one is operational at any given time. Canada has not purchased a new submarine since the 1960s and has never ordered anything close to 12 boats at once. The navy's logic is straightforward: with roughly one in four submarines available for deployment at any time (the rest in maintenance or training), a 12-boat fleet gives Canada three submarines on station — enough to maintain a genuine deterrent presence across the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific approaches.

Why the Germans Won:

On paper, Hanwha had the stronger operational case. The KSS-III is already in service with the Republic of Korea Navy, uses fuel-cell propulsion with lithium-ion batteries that allow it to stay submerged for more than three weeks, and Hanwha promised first delivery by 2032 — years ahead of the German timeline. The Type 212CD, by contrast, has not yet entered operational service anywhere. Germany answered that concern by pledging to reallocate boats from its own and Norway's existing orders, committing to deliver four submarines to Canada by 2036.

So why did Ottawa choose the unproven boat with the slower schedule? Three reasons stand out.

First, the economics. The conventional wisdom held that Hanwha's industrial charm offensive — 80-plus Canadian partners, the Algoma Steel investment, hydrogen truck manufacturing, a projected $120 billion GDP contribution — would carry the day. But TKMS quietly assembled the larger package: reported pledges of $160 billion in economic effects and more than 650,000 jobs, against Hanwha's $70 billion-plus and 430,000 jobs. Ottawa had made clear that with both boats meeting the navy's requirements, economic benefits would be the deciding factor, particularly for industries battered by the U.S. tariff conflict — steel, aluminum, autos, and forestry.

Second, the alliance logic. Choosing TKMS underscores NATO interoperability and deepens Canada's long-term defence and industrial relationship with Europe. The Type 212CD is a joint German-Norwegian program; Canada now joins an established European submarine ecosystem rather than becoming the anchor customer for a Korean expansion into the Atlantic. In the Carney era of "middle power" coalition-building — and with Washington's reliability an open question — the transatlantic signal matters as much as the boat.

Third, the lifecycle weighting. The evaluation criteria told the story before the announcement did: maintenance, repair, and overhaul accounted for fully 50% of the assessment, with the submarine platform itself weighted at only 20%. Canada was not just buying 12 hulls — it was choosing a strategic partner for the next 40 to 50 years. Berlin and Oslo, embedded in NATO's northern flank, evidently made the more convincing case for the long haul.

The Caveats:

A preferred-bidder announcement is not a signed contract. Negotiations are expected to continue for months or longer, with the government aiming for a final contract by 2028. Ottawa will want to convert the announcement's leverage into binding commitments on delivery schedules, technology transfer, and domestic industrial investment before ink meets paper.

And the risks are real. The Type 212CD remains in the early stages of production, and TKMS has reportedly faced near-term cash flow pressures while juggling multiple large naval programs. Germany's promise to divert boats from its own orders is a serious commitment — but promises made during a competition have a way of softening once the competition ends. With the Victoria-class fleet expected to retire between 2036 and 2042, there is little slack in the schedule for German delays.

The Bigger Picture:

Notably absent from this entire competition: the United States. Canada ruled out nuclear boats, and the Americans no longer build conventional diesel-electric submarines, so for once there was no U.S. defence giant at the table and no pressure from Washington tilting the scales. Compare that to the fighter jet file, where the F-35 selection — currently under review by Ottawa — was widely seen as a foregone conclusion.

That absence made the CPSP something rare: a genuinely sovereign Canadian defence decision, made on Canadian criteria, between two allies competing on merit and money. Whether Ottawa chose correctly will take a decade to know. But the fact that Canada could make this choice at all — $60 billion or more, no American thumb on the scale, industrial benefits directed at the sectors Washington's tariffs have hurt most — says something about where Canadian strategic autonomy is heading.

The submarines are the headline. The independence is the story!

What do you think — did Ottawa make the right call choosing the German bid over the proven Korean boat? Leave a comment below.

Go back to Yemen... eh!

When my dad brought our family here from war-torn Europe in the early 50's, the first thing he asked was what his obligations would be as a new Canadian! (He wanted to do his part... eh!!!)

Nowadays, new immigrants come over here, and the very first thing they want to know is... "WHAT ARE THEIR RIGHTS!

I'm not gonna comment on this kids... it speaks for itself!

Canada is NOT the 51st. State!

A NOTE TO ALL AMERICANS!

I'VE ALWAYS LIKED THIS GUY!!!

 

Happy Canada Day to Donald Drumpf!

On this July 1st. Canada Day... trade wars and tariffs between Canada and the United States dominate headlines... but coverage mostly focuses on a few border cities and major industries... not the states that would be hit hard if Canadian trade and tourism drop. 

Guest Post By Joy Fadogba:

As Canadians reduce U.S. goods and cross-border travel, these states stand to lose the most.

Some depend on Canada for energy and manufacturing trade, while others rely on Canadian shoppers and tourists to support local businesses. 

These ties often go back decades and are stronger than most people realize. Here are fifteen states where Canada matters more than most discussions suggest.

NORTH  DAKOTA:

North Dakota sends a larger share of its exports to Canada than any other U.S. state. Key exports include wheat, crude oil, and farm equipment. Around 70 to 80 percent of the state’s exports go to Canadian buyers, showing a very high level of dependence. 

It also imports large amounts of oil and agricultural products from Canada each year. Any drop in Canadian demand or new tariffs on farm machinery would quickly affect North Dakota’s economy.

This dependence is not new, but it is often overlooked in national discussions about trade. The state’s small population means it gets less media attention. Farmers and equipment dealers have long-standing business ties with buyers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. When trade tensions rise, the effects are often felt first in cities like Fargo and Grand Forks, not in national headlines.

MONTANA:

Montana imports a very large share of its goods from Canada, with some estimates placing it above 90 percent. Much of this is crude oil from Alberta, which is processed in Montana’s refineries and used for fuel across the region. The state’s economy is closely tied to this energy supply, even if it receives little national attention. Any disruption in Canadian oil shipments could quickly raise fuel prices and affect refinery operations.

Montana also relies on trade and travel across its long border with Alberta and Saskatchewan. Ranchers, grain producers, and energy workers depend on stable cross-border links. Canadian tourism and shopping help support small border towns, and declines in visits are often felt in local businesses. Overall, Montana’s economy is more connected to Canada than most national discussions suggest.

MICHIGAN:

Michigan has long been Canada’s largest trading partner among U.S. states, with the auto industry at the center of that relationship. Parts, vehicles, and components often cross the Detroit–Windsor corridor multiple times before a car is finished, closely linking Michigan and Ontario. 

Billions of dollars in goods move through crossings like the Ambassador Bridge each year, supporting many manufacturing jobs on both sides. Tariffs on auto parts could raise costs and slow production across the supply chain.

Michigan’s connection to Canada is large and long-standing, dating back to the early auto industry. The state has also seen fewer Canadian tourists, including shoppers and short-term visitors. This adds pressure to an already sensitive manufacturing sector.

OHIO:

Ohio ranks among the largest state economies in the U.S., and its exports to Canada regularly exceed twenty billion dollars. Much of this comes from the auto industry and related manufacturing links with Ontario. 

Metal products and auto parts cross the border to support assembly plants in Canada, reflecting longstanding production partnerships. 

Ohio also imports large amounts of Canadian goods, keeping trade active in both directions.

Because Ohio is not a border state, its ties to Canada are often overlooked. Many suppliers depend on stable trade rules to maintain steady production schedules. Tariff disputes can disrupt just-in-time manufacturing systems that have developed over decades. As a result, Canada–U.S. trade has a major impact on Ohio’s broader manufacturing economy.

MAINE:

Maine sends close to half of its exports to Canada and also imports a similar share of its goods from across the border, making it one of the most Canada-linked states in the U.S. 

Seafood like lobster and fish moves regularly between Maine and Atlantic Canada, reflecting long-standing coastal trade. 

The state has also seen fewer Canadian visitors in recent years, with land crossings dropping and affecting local spending. Border-area shops and hotels have felt this decline in tourism.

Maine’s economy has long depended on its close connection to New Brunswick and Quebec, a relationship that goes back decades. 

Small border towns that rely on tourism and cross-border shopping are especially affected when travel slows. Business owners in these areas have reported quieter seasons and reduced weekend traffic. 

Despite this, Maine’s strong reliance on Canada is often overlooked in national discussions.

VERMONT:

Vermont sends about 40 percent of its exports to Canada and imports nearly 70 percent of its goods from there, making it highly dependent on cross-border trade for its size. (Because the state’s economy is small, even small changes in trade can have a big impact on jobs and local businesses!)

Vermont also imports specialty goods such as chocolate and cocoa from Canada, indicating a more specific trade link than most people realize. 

Ski resorts and border towns rely heavily on Canadian tourists during the winter too!

Recent data shows a drop in Canadian crossings, with passenger traffic falling by over 25 percent compared to the previous year. Ski towns that depend on weekend visitors from Quebec have seen fewer bookings and quieter resorts. Local businesses near the border are worried about long-term effects if travel does not recover. Overall, Vermont’s strong reliance on Canada makes it especially exposed to trade and tourism changes.

NEW HAMPSHIRE:

New Hampshire imports a large share of its goods from Canada, with energy products such as oil accounting for much of that trade. Cross-border trade is an important part of the state’s economy, especially in northern areas. 

The state’s lack of a general sales tax has also long attracted Canadian shoppers seeking lower prices, thereby supporting local retail businesses. Recent data suggests Canadian visits have dropped by about a third, reducing spending in border communities.

Retail and liquor stores in New Hampshire have historically relied on Canadian shoppers, especially those from Quebec. Many businesses near highways and border routes were built around this steady traffic. 

With fewer visitors due to trade tensions and travel changes, some of these stores are seeing noticeable declines in sales. This dependence on cross-border shopping is often overlooked outside local economic discussions.

SOUTH DAKOTA:

South Dakota sends a large share of its exports to Canada, with estimates often near 40 percent of total export activity. Most of this trade comes from agriculture, including livestock and grain products. 

The state also imports a notable amount of goods from Canada, keeping trade active in both directions. (Because South Dakota is small and rural, this dependence is often overlooked in national trade discussions!)

Farmers and producers have built long-term relationships with Canadian buyers, especially in grain and livestock markets. Tariffs or trade disputes could disrupt these links while farmers already face pressure from changing commodity prices. 

Agricultural cooperatives have also raised concerns about losing market share to other countries if trade weakens. Overall, South Dakota’s reliance on Canada is significant... but rarely highlighted!

IDAHO:

Idaho has seen a noticeable drop in Canadian visitors in recent years, with crossings falling by more than a quarter in some reports. This has affected border communities and mountain recreation areas that depend on road trip tourism, leading to fewer bookings in hotels, restaurants, and ski lodges. 

Idaho also has agricultural trade with Canada, including imports of seeds and farming inputs that support its large farming sector. 

Together, these links make the state more exposed than its inland location might suggest.

Idaho’s tourism economy relies heavily on repeat visitors, and Canadians have long been an important part of that market in both winter and summer seasons. When trade tensions or political issues discourage travel, small mountain towns feel the impact first. 

Local businesses have reported quieter seasons and reduced spending from visitors. Despite this, Idaho is rarely included in national discussions about Canada–U.S. trade.

WASHINGTON:

Washington has seen a sharp drop in Canadian crossings, with passenger traffic falling by about a quarter along the I-5 corridor. Border towns like Bellingham, which rely on day trips for shopping and tourism, have felt the decline in local spending. 

The state also trades agricultural goods with Canada, including produce and processed foods. This makes the border region sensitive to changes in trade and travel.

Bellingham’s retail sector has long depended on Canadian shoppers buying groceries, gas, and other goods. With fewer visitors, local businesses are seeing weaker sales and less foot traffic. 

Community leaders are concerned about long-term impacts if travel does not recover. Washington’s border economy is often overlooked in wider trade discussions.

WEST VIRGINIA:

West Virginia sends roughly half of its exports to Canada, a high share for a non-border state with little national attention on this issue. Much of this trade includes energy and industrial goods tied to the state’s resource-based economy. 

This level of dependence puts it in the same range as much larger trading states. (Many residents outside the business sector are likely unaware of how important Canada is to its export market!)

This reliance has grown over time as North American energy and supply chains became more connected. With an already challenged economy, the state has a limited ability to absorb higher costs from tariffs or trade disruptions. Industry groups have raised concerns about potential job impacts if tensions continue!

ILLINOIS:

Illinois imports more goods from Canada than almost any other U.S. state, making it a major entry point for Canadian products. These imports include energy, machinery, and manufactured goods that support the state’s large industrial economy. 

Illinois has also experienced some decline in Canadian tourism and spending, adding pressure to local businesses. (Because of the scale of trade, any disruption can affect the wider regional economy!)

Chicago’s role as a major transport and logistics hub makes Illinois a key gateway for goods moving across North America. Rail lines and distribution centers across the state depend on stable trade flows to operate efficiently. 

Tariffs or prolonged trade disputes could slow these supply chains beyond Illinois itself. Despite this, Illinois is often left out of discussions about Canada–U.S. trade.

PENNSYLVANIA:

Pennsylvania has seen a slowdown in Canadian tourism as part of a broader drop in cross-border travel. The state also maintains a significant trade relationship with Canada, including energy, machinery, and manufactured goods moving in both directions. 

While Canada makes up a smaller share of Pennsylvania’s overall economy than in border states, the total trade value is still large. This mix of trade and tourism exposure is often overlooked compared to its scale.

Western Pennsylvania’s steel and manufacturing industries have long worked with Canadian partners, especially in Ontario. These supply chain links are often underreported because the state is not usually seen as a major Canada–U.S. trade hub. 

Tourism businesses have also noticed fewer Canadian visitors in recent years.

TEXAS:

Texas runs a trade surplus with Canada, exporting close to twenty billion dollars worth of goods while importing slightly less. 

While its economy is more closely tied to Mexico overall, Canada is still a major trading partner in absolute terms. 

Energy and refining play a key role in this relationship, reflecting Texas’s position as a major oil and gas producer. 

Because of the state’s size and diversified economy, its exposure to Canada often receives less attention.

Texas is better able to absorb trade disruptions than smaller states, but it is not unaffected. Energy companies and suppliers that operate across the border have raised concerns about higher costs linked to tariffs. The impacts are often less visible in statewide figures, which can hide pressure in specific industries. (Texas’s trade ties with Canada are often overshadowed by its much larger economic relationship with Mexico!)

NEW YORK:

New York has one of the largest trade relationships with Canada, supported by its size, population, and close ties with Ontario and Quebec. Its exports include agricultural goods, along with a wide range of industrial and manufactured products. Northern border communities have also seen fewer Canadian visitors as cross-border shopping and travel slow down. This mix of trade and tourism gives New York a broad but often overlooked stake in the relationship.

Upstate border towns have long depended on Canadian shoppers and travellers, similar to communities in Vermont and New Hampshire. 

As travel declines, these areas are feeling quieter business activity and reduced spending. Because New York is such a large state, national attention often focuses on other parts of its economy. As a result, its northern border region is often overlooked in Canada–U.S. trade discussions.

BONUS: How Canada’s travel boycott quietly erased billions from the U.S. economy.