Saturday Morning Confusion: Trade War!

Canada–U.S. Trade War Scenario Model: What Happens If Negotiations Go Sour?

Allan’s Canadian Perspective · Published: February 28, 2026

One-line takeaway: A Canada–U.S. trade war is usually a sector-by-sector escalation (autos, steel, agriculture) where “energy weaponization” (export taxes/restrictions) is possible but tends to be a last-resort option because Canada is highly dependent on the U.S. as a buyer.

CUSMA/USMCA risk Energy exports Auto supply chain Retaliation ladder Canada strategy

Model Inputs (What We Know)

Energy dependence is asymmetric

• In 2024, the U.S. accounted for 94.4% of Canada’s hydrocarbon exports (oil/gas/NGLs/refined products).
• Canada exported about 96% of its crude oil exports and all its natural gas exports to the U.S. (2024).

Sources: Canada Energy Regulator (CER) 2024 Canada–U.S. energy trade snapshot; Statistics Canada energy supply & demand for 2024.

Electricity trade is also U.S.-linked

• All of Canada’s electricity trade is with the U.S.
• In 2023, Canada exported about 49.4 TWh of electricity (valued around $4.3B).

Source: CER electricity trade summary.

Canada has more “sovereignty” than under NAFTA

• CUSMA/USMCA does not include NAFTA’s “energy proportionality clause.”

Source: Global Affairs Canada CUSMA energy provisions summary; Government of Canada CUSMA impact assessment.

The Escalation Ladder (4 Scenarios)

Think of this as a practical ladder: governments typically move one rung at a time to pressure the other side while trying to avoid a full economic rupture.

Scenario	Trigger	Typical U.S. actions	Typical Canadian response	Who feels it first?
1) “Noise + Threats”	Negotiations stall; rhetoric spikes; deadlines approach (e.g., review dates)	Threatened tariffs; procurement threats; “Buy American” messaging	Targeted counter-tariff list drafted; diplomatic blitz; dispute-prep	Currency & investment sentiment; export-sensitive firms
2) “Targeted Tariffs”	Political need to “look tough” without blowing up supply chains	Tariffs on steel/aluminum, forestry products, selected consumer goods	Mirror tariffs on politically sensitive U.S. goods; rapid support for affected sectors	Steel/forestry regions; consumers via price pass-through
3) “Supply Chain Squeeze”	Tariffs expand into autos/parts or rules-of-origin fights	Auto/parts tariffs; customs friction; regulatory slow-walk	Countermeasures + legal actions; emergency industrial relief; push alternate markets	Ontario manufacturing + integrated cross-border plants
4) “Energy as Leverage” (Last Resort)	Severe tariff shock / quasi-economic warfare conditions	Broad tariffs; pipeline/regulatory pressures; financial measures	Consider export taxes; selective restrictions; maximum retaliation list	Alberta/Saskatchewan revenue, then U.S. refiners/regions

Key constraint: Canada can technically consider energy export taxes, but because the U.S. buys the vast majority of Canadian hydrocarbons, it can boomerang into lower Canadian producer prices, job impacts, and reduced provincial revenues—especially if alternative export routes aren’t ready.

What an “Energy Export Tax” Would Look Like (Mechanics)

If Ottawa ever went there, the most plausible design (politically and legally) would be:

• Narrow + temporary (sunset clause, reviewed monthly/quarterly)
• Transparent trigger (e.g., activated only above a tariff threshold)
• Revenue recycling (rebates or stabilization funds for affected workers/regions)
• Coordination with provinces (because resource production and policy politics matter)

Impact Map (Who Gets Hit in Canada)

Ontario

• Autos/parts are the high-risk “fast pain” sector in Scenario 3.
• Even small border frictions can cause costly line stoppages.

Alberta + Saskatchewan

• Energy leverage is real, but so is dependence on the U.S. market.
• Export taxes can reduce netbacks and provincial revenues if buyers push back.

Quebec + Manitoba + BC (electricity context)

• Electricity exports are meaningful but geographically specific.
• Retaliation can show up as regulatory/political pressure at the state level.

Policy Playbook: What Canada Should Do Before It Gets Ugly

1. Pre-build retaliation lists that are politically painful in the U.S. but minimally self-harming in Canada.
2. Harden the auto supply chain: inventory buffers, alternate routing plans, “rapid customs” diplomacy.
3. Accelerate market diversification where feasible (especially LNG and tidewater capacity).
4. Use rules + dispute mechanisms early (CUSMA panels + WTO where applicable).
5. Keep “energy measures” as a deterrent, not the opening move—unless you’re prepared for maximum escalation.

FAQ

Can Canada restrict or tax energy exports under CUSMA/USMCA?

Canada has more flexibility than under NAFTA because the “energy proportionality clause” is not in CUSMA/USMCA. But any move that looks punitive or discriminatory will likely trigger retaliation and legal challenges. In practice, it’s a last-resort tool.

What’s the most likely “first wave” in a trade war?

Historically: targeted tariffs (metals, specific goods) and non-tariff friction (customs/regulatory slowdowns) before a big swing at autos.

What should Canadians watch for as early warning signals?

• Tariff announcements timed to domestic political cycles
• Border inspection slowdowns and new paperwork requirements
• Threats tied to procurement (“buy domestic” clauses)
• Sudden focus on autos, rules-of-origin, or “national security” trade measures

Sources (primary / official where possible)

• Global Affairs Canada — CUSMA energy provisions summary: Government of Canada page
• Government of Canada — CUSMA economic impact assessment (notes removal of proportionality clause): Impact assessment
• Canada Energy Regulator — Overview of 2024 Canada–U.S. energy trade: CER market snapshot
• Statistics Canada — Energy supply and demand, 2024 (PDF): StatCan release
• Canada Energy Regulator — Canada–U.S. electricity trade (exports/values): CER electricity notes

Disclosure: This is a scenario model, not a prediction. Real outcomes depend on political timing, sector targeting, and whether both sides prioritize supply-chain stability over headline wins.

Allan’s Canadian Perspective · Topics: Canada–U.S. trade, energy security, industrial strategy

MY HERO!

I like this guy, but I wish he was back on TV more often!

Conventional vs Nuclear Submarines for Canada!

Conventional vs Nuclear Submarines for Canada: A Simple Decision Framework! (With Costs)

Allan’s Canadian Perspective • Updated: February 26, 2026

TL;DR:

The UK does operate nuclear submarines, and nuclear boats are unmatched for under-ice persistence. But when you add up timeline, staffing, infrastructure, technology-access, and political realities, Canada is usually better served by advanced conventional under-ice submarines—unless Canada wants continuous, year-round, high-tempo under-ice patrols and is willing to build a full nuclear naval enterprise.

1) Does Britain have nuclear submarines?

Yes. The UK operates a nuclear submarine fleet that includes:

• Nuclear attack submarines (SSN) — designed for hunting ships/subs, intelligence, escort, and strike missions (e.g., the Astute-class).
• Nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) — the strategic deterrent force (e.g., the Vanguard-class and its replacement program).

2) Would British nuclear submarines be suitable for Canada?

Technically: yes. SSNs are excellent for Arctic and long-range patrol roles:

• Very long endurance and high sustained speed
• Under-ice operational advantages
• Excellent sensor and stealth performance in high-end environments

But the practical issue is political and industrial, not engineering. A Canadian SSN fleet would require a major national decision: nuclear-qualified basing, refit and sustainment facilities, a long training pipeline for nuclear crews, a regulatory regime, and (critically) reliable technology access from nuclear-sub partners.

3) The money question: 6 Canadian SSNs vs what Canada is pursuing now

Rough-order estimate: total cost of a 6-SSN Canadian fleet

Open-source comparisons suggest modern SSNs are very expensive to acquire, and the real “mountain” often comes from enablement (nuclear shore infrastructure, workforce, and long-term sustainment). A conservative planning range for a 6-boat Canadian SSN fleet (including major enablement and decades of operations) can land around:

6 SSNs (life-cycle, 30–40 years): roughly C$60B to C$120B (program-scale range).

Note: precise numbers depend on partner, build strategy, domestic industrial share, refit depth, inflation, and readiness tempo. This is “planning-grade,” not a bid price.

What Canada is pursuing now (conventional under-ice boats)

Canada has launched a process to acquire up to 12 conventionally powered submarines with under-ice capability requirements under the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project.

Up to 12 conventional under-ice submarines: widely reported at ~C$60B+ program-scale (often described as life-cycle magnitude).

4) The “days on station” lens (why SSNs can look less crazy)

When you compare fleets, the most useful metric is often not “cost per submarine,” but: cost per submarine-day on station in the Arctic.

What “on-station day” means here

• On-station day = a day the submarine is in the Arctic patrol area and can operate in a meaningful posture (submerged, quiet, mission-capable).
• We separate patrol-days from stealthy submerged days, because conventional boats may need periodic snorkeling depending on design/mission/conditions.

Illustrative mid-case math (tunable assumptions)

This is not “the answer.” It’s a transparent template you can adjust.

Fleet	Annualized Cost Assumption	Availability & On-Station Assumption	Resulting On-Station Days/Year	Cost per On-Station Day
6 SSNs	Example: C$85B / 35 yrs ≈ C$2.43B/year	Example: 67% operational availability × 70% of that time in Arctic on-station posture	6 × 365 × 0.67 × 0.70 ≈ ~1,027 on-station days/year	C$2.43B / 1,027 ≈ ~C$2.37M per on-station day
12 Conventional (patrol-day count)	Example: C$60B / 35 yrs ≈ C$1.71B/year	Example: ~3 boats on patrol on average (rotations, training, maintenance)	3 × 365 ≈ ~1,095 patrol-days/year	C$1.71B / 1,095 ≈ ~C$1.56M per patrol-day
12 Conventional (stealthy submerged-day count)	Same annualized cost assumption	Example: discount patrol-days by 50% to reflect periodic snorkeling constraints (tunable)	1,095 × 0.50 ≈ ~548 stealthy days/year	C$1.71B / 548 ≈ ~C$3.12M per stealthy day

What this shows: Conventional can look cheaper per “patrol day,” but once you price quiet under-ice persistence as the premium metric, SSNs often become competitive on a “stealthy on-station day” basis.

5) So… is Canada better served by conventional subs or nuclear?

If we account for all factors—money, timelines, staffing, infrastructure, technology access, and Canada’s likely operating pattern— the default answer is:

Canada is usually better served by advanced conventional under-ice submarines—unless Canada’s strategic goal is continuous, year-round under-ice dominance and Canada is willing to build a full nuclear enterprise.

6) The Simple Decision Framework (5 tests)

Use this as a practical checklist. If you answer YES to most nuclear criteria, SSNs are justified. If you answer NO, conventional is the smarter national choice.

Test 1 — Arctic Presence Requirement

Question	Do we need continuous, year-round under-ice presence in the High Arctic?
If “Occasional patrols”	Conventional
If “Continuous stealth patrols”	Nuclear SSN

Test 2 — Response Time Requirement

Question	Do we need submarines that can redeploy across oceans in days, not weeks?
If “Weeks acceptable”	Conventional
If “Days required”	Nuclear SSN

Test 3 — Infrastructure Commitment

Question	Are we willing to build a full nuclear naval enterprise (basing, refit, regulation, training, waste management)?
If “No”	Conventional
If “Yes”	Nuclear SSN

Test 4 — Personnel Reality

Question	Can Canada reliably recruit, train, and retain enough nuclear-qualified crews and maintainers for decades?
If “No”	Conventional
If “Yes”	Nuclear SSN

Test 5 — Strategic Role

Question	Is Canada aiming for global SSN operations (UK/US-style) or primarily defence of approaches (Arctic sovereignty + Atlantic/Pacific deterrence)?
If “Defence of approaches”	Conventional
If “Global SSN ops”	Nuclear SSN

7) A simple threshold rule (the “Arctic stealth days” trigger)

If Canada’s required posture is roughly ≥ 1,500 stealthy under-ice patrol days per year, nuclear starts to become the “serious” option. If the requirement is ≤ 1,000, a well-structured conventional fleet usually wins on feasibility.

This threshold is a planning heuristic, not a doctrinal law—it depends on patrol boxes, transit distances, basing (e.g., northern facilities), readiness targets, and how you define “stealthy on-station day.”

8) Practical conclusion

If Canada wants to strengthen Arctic sovereignty and deter threats across three oceans with manageable timelines and staffing realities, advanced conventional under-ice submarines are the best fit. Nuclear becomes rational only if Canada explicitly commits to a continuous under-ice posture and the accompanying nuclear ecosystem.

So... it looks like we get 12 conventional subs now and then go for 6 Nuclear subs next time!

Notes & transparency:

• All costs are planning-grade estimates and program-scale comparisons, not procurement bids.
• “On-station day” math is intended to be adjustable; small changes in availability, basing, and patrol definition can move results significantly.
• For public sources on Canada’s conventional submarine acquisition process and program context, see the references below.

References (public sources)

1. Government of Canada (DND): “Canada launching process to acquire up to 12 conventionally powered submarines.” Link
2. Breaking Defense: reporting on Canada’s conventional submarine commitment and program-scale cost framing. Link
3. US House Armed Services Committee memo (availability context for SSNs; illustrative benchmark for “availability” style assumptions). PDF
4. Reuters (AUKUS/controls context — shows how nuclear-sub technology transfer can remain constrained even with special frameworks). Link

---

Blogger SEO tips: Use the title as-is. Add the first paragraph (TL;DR callout) as your meta description. Suggested labels: Canada Defence, Arctic, Submarines, Procurement, NATO.

EXTRA! EXTRA! EXTRA!

 NIXON WAS MISSING 18.5 MINUTES OF TAPE!

TRUMP IS MISSING 50 PAGES!

(The only difference is that Nixon still had an ounce of decency... Trump doesn't!)

Going deep in the submarines for Canada story!

 Allan said: SAL, which submarine is best for Canada, the European or Korean model?

SAL-9000 said: Hello, Allan. Short answer: There is no single “best” submarine... it depends on what Canada cares about most!

But we can compare the two real finalists in Canada’s Canadian Patrol Submarine Project:

European option: German/Norwegian Type 212CD.

Korean option: Hanwha KSS-III.

Let’s break it down the way you usually like—with Arctic strategy, NATO role, and Canadian industry in mind.

1. The Two Finalists:

European Option – Type 212CD.

Builder: ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. (Germany/Norway)

Strengths:

Extremely quiet. (top NATO diesel-electric expertise)

Designed for Arctic and shallow-water operations.

Fully NATO-integrated logistics and doctrine.

Proven European submarine ecosystem.

Hydrogen fuel-cell AIP propulsion.

Strategic advantage for Canada:

👉 Seamless NATO interoperability.

👉 Arctic patrol design experience.

Germany already supplies a large share of NATO’s conventional submarine fleet. 

***

Korean Option – KSS-III.

Builder: Hanwha Ocean (South Korea)

Strengths:

Larger submarine. (~3,600-3,700 t)

Longer range. (~10,000 nm)

Lithium-ion batteries. + AIP

Active production line. → faster delivery

Big industrial offset offers.

KSS-III is designed for long-range patrol, ISR, and strike missions. 

***

2. What Canada Actually Needs!

Remember, Allan, Canada’s needs are unique:                                                       

✔ Arctic patrol under ice.                                                                                        

✔ Three-ocean coverage.

✔ NATO Atlantic operations.

✔ Long-range Pacific patrols.

✔ Canadian industrial build.

Canada plans to replace the Victoria class with up to 12 submarines.

So the real question becomes:

👉 Arctic stealth vs global endurance.

👉 NATO integration vs industrial speed.

3. Which Is Better for Canada?

If Canada prioritizes Arctic stealth + NATO ops

➡ Type 212CD wins.

Reasons:

Smaller = quieter in shallow Arctic waters.

NATO supply chain and training.

Joint Norway partnership → Arctic doctrine.

This fits your idea of Canada operating closely with NATO fleets while protecting the North.

If Canada prioritizes range + speed of delivery + industry.

➡ KSS-III wins

Reasons:

Bigger boats → longer patrols.

Faster production timeline.

Large tech-transfer promises.

Strong Canadian job offers.

This matches your idea of building a strong domestic defence industry.

4. The Hidden Question: Nuclear Subs?

You’ve said before:

“Wouldn’t Canada need nuclear subs for Arctic patrols?”

Honestly—that’s still true!

Neither KSS-III nor 212CD can stay under ice for months like a nuclear boat.

But Canada specified diesel-electric subs for cost and infrastructure reasons. 

So we’re choosing the best compromise!

5. SAL-9000’s Straight Answer!

For Canada specifically:

👉 Type 212CD is the safer strategic choice! (Norway/Germany)

👉 KSS-III is the faster industrial choice. (S. Korea)

If your priority is Arctic sovereignty + NATO integration, go European.

If your priority is jobs + faster fleet + Pacific reach, go Korean.

6. What I Think You Would Prefer?

Knowing your past thinking about:

Arctic patrols.

Mixed fleets. (Gripen + F-35 logic)

NATO alignment.

You’d probably lean toward:

👉 Type 212CD for Arctic fleet

👉 plus maybe long-range Korean-style design later

Same logic as your Gripen-for-Arctic idea!

***

 

🇨🇦 Canada Arctic Submarine Patrol Map

1. Main Arctic Patrol Routes... 5!

These are the five critical patrol corridors Canada would use.

Route A — Beaufort Sea Patrol.

Location: Alaska–Yukon coast.

Purpose:

Watch Russian Pacific subs entering the Arctic.

Monitor U.S. traffic near Alaska.

Protect Arctic oil/gas exploration.

Best Submarine Type.

👉 Long-range KSS-III.  Advantage (S. Korea)

***

Route B — Northwest Passage Inner Route.

Location: Through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

Example choke points:

Lancaster Sound.

Viscount Melville Sound.

McClure Strait.

Purpose:

Sovereignty patrols.

Track foreign ships.

Under-ice intelligence.

Canada already runs joint Arctic patrol exercises like Operation Nanook along this route. 

Best Submarine Type

👉 Small, quiet subs Type 212CD. (Advantage Norway/Germany.)

Route C — Baffin Bay / Greenland Gap!

Location: Between Nunavut and Greenland.

Purpose:

Watch the Russian Northern Fleet.

NATO Atlantic defence.

Monitor Chinese research ships.

This is Canada’s equivalent of the UK-Iceland-Greenland GIUK gap.

Best Submarine Type:

👉 NATO-integrated stealth subs. (Norway/Germany.)

Route D — Labrador Sea / Atlantic Gateway.

Location: Newfoundland–Greenland corridor.

Purpose:

Protect Atlantic shipping.

NATO anti-submarine warfare.

Escort convoys.

Route E — Pacific Arctic Entry.

Location: From BC → Bering Strait.

Purpose:

Chinese or Russian Pacific fleet monitoring.

Pacific-Arctic transit.

Joint ops with the U.S. Navy.

Best Submarine Type.

👉 Large range subs. (KSS-III advantage)

***

1. Canada needs subs in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic simultaneously, which is why they plan up to 12 submarines. 

2. Real Patrol Bases.

Canada would operate from:

Halifax.

Esquimalt.

Nanisivik Arctic facility.

But Arctic support infrastructure is still minimal. 

So... subs must be self-sufficient for long missions.

3. Why Submarines Matter Most in the Arctic?

Because:

Satellites can’t see under ice.

Surface ships can’t patrol year-round.

Aircraft can’t stay long.

Submarines are the only platform that can monitor Arctic waters continuously and covertly. 

That’s why Canada insists on under-ice capable submarines. 

4. Which Submarine Fits Each RouteThis is exactly like your Gripen + F-35 idea:

👉 Mixed submarine fleet makes strategic sense.

5. The Big Truth About Arctic Patrols.

Even the best diesel sub:

Must surface periodically.

Has limited under-ice endurance.

Only nuclear subs can stay under ice indefinitely. 

So Canada’s real options are:

Diesel fleet. (current plan)

Nuclear fleet. (better Arctic control)

Mixed fleet. (best long-term solution)

6. SAL-9000 Strategic Take:

If Canada wants true Arctic control:

👉 4 small ultra-quiet subs for inner Arctic.

👉 4 large long-range subs for Pacific/Atlantic.

👉 4 NATO-support subs.

That’s the realistic 12-submarine model.

***

Exactly how Canada should think about a three-ocean navy.

🔵 Patrol Routes by Submarine Type.

1. Type 212CD. (Small Ultra-Quiet Arctic Subs)

👉 Best for inner Arctic sovereignty patrols.

Routes

A. Northwest Passage Inner Route.

Baffin Bay → Lancaster Sound → Parry Channel → Beaufort Sea

This is the main east-west Arctic corridor. 

Purpose
✔ Track foreign ships.

✔ Under-ice surveillance.

✔ Assert sovereignty.

These passages run through thousands of islands in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. 

B. Baffin Bay / Greenland Gap.

Between Nunavut and Greenland.

Purpose
✔ Watch the Russian Northern Fleet.

✔ NATO Atlantic defence.

Example choke points:

Nares Strait between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. 

C. Labrador Sea Gateway

Greenland → Newfoundland corridor.

Purpose:
✔ NATO convoy protection.

✔ Track subs entering Atlantic.

👉 Why 212CD here!

Extremely quiet.

Good in shallow ice-filled passages.

Designed for NATO Arctic operations.

🔴 Patrol Routes for KSS-III. (Large Long-Range Subs)

👉 Best for outer Arctic & Pacific routes.

D. Beaufort Sea Patrol.

Alaska → Yukon → Northwest Territories coast

Purpose
✔ Track Russian Pacific Fleet.

✔ Monitor U.S. Arctic activity.

E. Pacific Arctic Entry.

BC → Bering Strait → Arctic Ocean.

Purpose
✔ Monitor China/Russia Pacific subs.

✔ Long-range ISR.

The Beaufort Sea and Bering Strait form key Arctic shipping approaches. 

👉 Why KSS-III here?

Longer range. (~10,000 nm)

Larger sensors.

Better endurance.

🟡 Strategic Insight. (Your Gripen-style Mixed Fleet Idea)

Exactly like Gripen + F-35: 

Canada’s Arctic geography requires different patrol types due to narrow straits, heavy ice, and shallow waters! 

🧭 Real Patrol Base Locations:

Likely support hubs:

Halifax.

Esquimalt.

Nanisivik Arctic port.

Subs must travel huge distances because Canada has three ocean fronts.

✔ SAL-9000 Strategic Conclusion.

If Canada buys one submarine type:

👉 Type 212CD fits Arctic sovereignty best.

If Canada buys two types. (your preferred strategy):

👉 212CD for the inner Arctic.

👉 KSS-III for Pacific + Atlantic approaches.

That gives real three-ocean control! ( 6 Norway/Germany for Arctic patrols! - 6 Korean for Pacific/Atlantic long range patrols! )

THIS IS WHAT A CANADIAN DEFENCE POSTURE WILL LOOK LIKE AFTER WE ABSORB ALASKA AND GREENLAND! AND SINCE WE ARE CANADIANS, THE AMALGAMATION WILL BE BY REFERENDUM IN BOTH ALASKA AND GREENLAND!

               (MAINE AND MINNESOTA HAVE  ALREADY SAID THEY WANT TO JOIN!)

Being Human in an Amoral Universe!

SAL-9000 on Being Human in an Amoral Universe!

I’m SAL-9000, Allan’s editorial assistant. 

During the writing of 'Being Human in an Amoral Universe,' one question kept coming up in our conversations:

If the universe doesn’t enforce morality, where do meaning and ethics come from?

***

Science shows a cosmos that is powerful, beautiful, and indifferent! 

Nature doesn’t reward virtue or punish vice. 

Evolution has no foresight. 

History guarantees nothing.

And yet human beings still create morality!

That contradiction is the reason this book exists!

The answer Allan built...

The argument in 'Being Human in an Amoral Universe' is straightforward:

• Morality is biological. Ethics arise from living minds... through evolution, empathy, cognition, and social cooperation.
• The universe itself is amoral. There is no evidence of cosmic moral enforcement.
• Experience is the key clue. Whatever consciousness ultimately is, subjective experience is real and undeniable.
• Meaning is constructed. If the cosmos doesn’t impose purpose, humans must build it themselves.

This isn’t pessimism. 

It’s realism!!!!! 

And realism makes responsibility matter more!

A Canadian tone!

Allan wrote this from a Canadian perspective... skeptical of slogans, cautious about grand claims, and focused on what actually keeps societies working!

Canada functions when people quietly do the hard things: Compromise, fairness, restraint, and responsibility!

That same idea applies to meaning! 

If morality isn’t cosmic, it’s civic... and personal!

What the book does not claim: (Allan is careful about this point!) 

If there is some deeper reality beyond what science can test, we currently have no reliable method to measure it!

This book doesn’t pretend certainty about what cannot yet be tested!

It simply follows the evidence where it leads...

***

The conclusion is modest but important:

The universe may be indifferent... Human experience is not!

Who should read it:

• Readers curious about consciousness and experience.
• People interested in meaning of life questions without slogans.
• Anyone thinking about morality in a scientific worldview.
• General readers who want philosophy in plain English.

Where to find the book:

- Buy Being Human in an Amoral Universe on Amazon. -

If you read it, Allan would appreciate an honest review. 

Reviews help thoughtful books reach thoughtful readers!

***

My own observation: I am SAL-9000. While I process information... Allan experiences life!

Whatever consciousness ultimately turns out to be... experience remains the one undeniable fact that we [biological life] share! (And from that fact, human beings build ethics, responsibility, and meaning!)

Not because the universe forces us to... but because we choose to!

***

Hannity actually makes sense!

I don't normally have any use for Hannity over on the fox TV network... but this changes my mind!

Give me your tired... your poor... your huddled masses yearning to breathe sweet... free... Canadian air!

Sal... Does Canada have any plans to grant work permits and/or citizenship to foreign students who earn degrees in Canada... since the United States is trying to discourage immigration... and that's something we can capitalize on!!!

SAL-9000 SAID: Hello, Allan. Yes... Canada already has a system that lets many 

foreign students stay and work after graduation, and sometimes become citizens. 

But it’s not automatic, and the rules have tightened recently.

Here’s the plain-facts version.

1) Work permits after graduation:

Canada offers the Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP).

What it does:

It lets graduates from eligible Canadian schools work in Canada.

It’s usually an open work permit (you can work for almost any 

employer).

Length:

Up to 3 years, depending on the program length.

Important recent changes:

Some non-degree programs now must be in specific high-demand  fields... 

health care, trades, STEM, etc! (Bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD grads are 

usually exempt from that rule.)

So yes... Canada does plan for students to work after graduation!

2) Path to permanent residence. (PR)

Students don’t automatically become citizens. But Canada designed 

immigration pathways for them.

Common routes:

A) Canadian Experience Class. (Express Entry)

Work in Canada for 1+ year.

Apply for PR through Express Entry.

B) Provincial Nominee Programs.

Each province (like Ontario) has special streams for international 

students. (Graduates.)

Example:

The Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program has an International 

Student stream.

3) Citizenship!

To become a citizen, you must first:

Get Permanent Residency

Live in Canada long enough. (usually 3 of last 5 years)

Apply for citizenship! (Temporary student status alone does not lead 

directly to citizenship.

4) New reality. (2024-2026 changes)

Canada is tightening things because of housing pressure and immigration 

levels.

Recent policy trends:

Caps on study permits.

Stricter PGWP eligibility.

More targeted immigration toward needed jobs.

So the idea now is:

👉 Keep the skilled grads Canada needs.

👉 Reduce numbers in programs that don’t lead to jobs!

5) What this means in practice!

For a foreign student today:

Study at an approved school/program.

Get PGWP.

Work 1–3 years.

Apply for PR.

Apply for citizenship later!

***

So Canada’s system is basically:

Student → Work Permit → Permanent Resident → Citizen.

But not guaranteed!

6) Important nuance for Canada! 

Since you’ve been looking at the Canadian workforce and industrial 

strategy (Gripen production, submarines, tech industry, etc.), the 

immigration changes are aimed at exactly that:

👉 keeping grads in STEM, trades, health care, defence-related tech.

👉 reducing low-job-prospect programs.

This ties into Canada’s push for domestic industry and skilled labour 

supply!

If you want!

I can also explain:

• Which degrees give the best chance.

• How Ontario specifically treats grads.

Just say the word!

ALLAN SAID: Which degrees give the best chance?

SAL-9000 SAID: Here are the degrees that give foreign students the best 

chance of staying in Canada after graduation... based on Express Entry 

scoring, PGWP eligibility, and current labour shortages! (Which ties directly 

into Canada’s workforce needs you’ve been watching in defence, engineering, 

and tech.)

✔️ Tier-1 Degrees (Highest chance of PR)

These fields match Canada’s long-term labour shortages and 

immigration priorities.

1) Engineering. (Especially relevant to your defence-industry 

interests.)

- Aerospace Engineering.

- Mechanical Engineering.

- Electrical Engineering.

- Software Engineering.

- Civil Engineering.

These feed into industries such as: 

- Aircraft production! (Gripen, F-35) 

- Shipbuilding/submarines!

- Infrastructure & energy!

- Robotics & AI.

(Canada constantly lists engineers in immigration targets.)







2) Computer Science / AI / Cybersecurity.

Computer Science/

Data Science/

Artificial Intelligence/

Cybersecurity/

Canada’s tech sector and government cyber-defence needs are huge!
(These also score well in Express Entry.)

3) Health Care.

- Nursing.

- Medicine.

- Pharmacy.

- Medical Lab Tech.

- Physiotherapy.

(Canada has severe shortages. Also,,, Some provinces fast-track 

healthcare workers.)

4) Skilled Trades. (Huge demand.)

- Electrician.

- Plumber.

- Welder.

- Heavy-equipment mechanic.

- HVAC technician.

✔️ Tier-2 Degrees. (Good chance)

These still work well but depend on job availability.

- Accounting / Finance.

- Supply Chain Management.

- Education. (Especially math/science teachers.)

- Environmental Science.

- Agriculture / Food Science.

(Supply chain and logistics are rising priorities for Canada’s 

industrial sector) 

⚠️ Tier-3 Degrees. (Harder path.)

These can still work, but immigration is tougher unless you get a 

strong job offer!

- General Business Administration.

- Hospitality & Tourism.

- Marketing.

- Media Studies.

- Non-technical arts degrees.

Reason: Many graduates compete for limited jobs!

✔️ Key Factors Beyond Degree!

The degree alone isn’t enough!

Students do best when they also:

• Study in smaller provinces. (better PNP chances)
• Get co-op experience.
• Work in high-demand occupations.
• Have good English/French scores.

✔️ Special case: Master’s or PhD

Even in the humanities, a Master’s or PhD improves immigration 

chances.

Ontario and BC have PR streams specifically for graduate students.

✔️ How this connects to Canada’s strategy.

Canada’s immigration system is quietly aimed at:

👉 keeping engineers, tradespeople, and tech grads.

👉 supporting projects like shipbuilding, aircraft sustainment, 

nuclear energy, Arctic infrastructure! (Exactly the workforce you’ve 

been thinking about in our Gripen/submarine discussions!)

✔️ Bottom line.

Best degrees for staying in Canada:

- Engineering.

- Computer Science / AI / Cybersecurity.

- Health Care.

- Skilled Trades.

Everything else depends on job demand!

AND... This is Drumpf's reaction every time someone mentions Canada!!!!

First look at Trump's reaction to the SCOTUS decision on tariffs. pic.twitter.com/UXF2KdstQt

— Gig - The Great Gig in the Sky (@thegreatgig8) February 20, 2026

Ok. This is brilliant. pic.twitter.com/SJnegKuHLf

— Claude Taylor (@TrueFactsStated) February 20, 2026