Interview requests

The Strait of Hormuz crisis is exposing how unreliable Middle East energy supply has become and has opened the door for countries like Canada to fill the gap.

Roughly 20 per cent of global crude and 30 per cent of liquefied natural gas move through that narrow channel each year. It is the main export route for producers such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Qatar. When the channel shuts down, the conversation shifts from price swings to whether the Middle East can be trusted as a supplier at all.

That is why this moment feels different. Previous crises in the Middle East pushed prices higher, then settled. Supply resumed and markets carried on. This time, it is about whether relying on the Persian Gulf still works. That is a much bigger shift, and it carries real consequences.

If buyers decide the region carries ongoing geopolitical risk, they will not wait for the next disruption. They will start buying from different countries, signing long-term supply deals and investing in more stable regions.

That is how energy markets reset, not with announcements, but with decisions made quietly and quickly.

So if the world starts looking elsewhere, where does that supply come from? Canada is in the mix, but it is not alone, and others are already ahead.

On paper, Canada looks ready. It has the reserves and growing export capacity through the Trans Mountain pipeline and LNG Canada. More infrastructure is coming online, including the Ridley Island Energy Export Facility, and other projects are already approved.

But paper does not move barrels, and it does not ship gas.

Every time global markets tighten, Canada gets mentioned as part of the solution, and every time, it fails to deliver in meaningful volumes.

The problem has never been what is in the ground. It is whether Canada can get it to market in time, and it has consistently fallen short of doing so. Canada still sends the vast majority of its oil exports to the United States, with limited access to overseas markets.

That matters now because the window to secure long-term supply deals is closing faster than usual.

If buyers conclude Middle Eastern supply cannot be relied on, they will not wait for Canada to catch up. They will lock in supply elsewhere. The United States, Australia and others are already positioned to move quickly. The U.S. is now the world’s largest oil producer and a major LNG exporter, while Australia is already one of the leading LNG suppliers to Asia.

Energy markets do not reward hesitation. They replace it.

There are already signs of how quickly things can shift. Reports of damage to infrastructure at Qatar’s Ras Laffan industrial complex suggest some LNG production has been disrupted, with repairs potentially taking significant time.

Canada could help fill part of that gap. Federal officials have suggested the country could eventually export up to 100 million tonnes of LNG annually if planned projects proceed, and British Columbia alone could reach roughly 47 million tonnes by the early 2030s if approved projects are completed.

But those projections are meaningless unless they turn into real supply; the world doesn’t care about our resource potential, it cares about our ability to act.

Energy systems are unforgiving. They reward reliability, speed and scale, and they punish delay.

Only weeks ago, the conversation was about oversupply. That has changed quickly. One disruption, one chokepoint, and the system recalibrates.

That is the lesson coming out of Hormuz.

Markets will not wait for Canada. They will go where supply is reliable and ready. If Canada misses this moment, it will not get another one.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

The post The Middle East is no longer a reliable energy partner first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations is 250 years old this year and still very much part of the socio-economic conversation. Smith was a believer in the merits of free trade and a critic of mercantilism—the then-popular fashion of promoting exports, reducing imports and hoarding the precious metals emanating from this export surplus. In Smith’s view, mercantilism was definitely not the route to general prosperity.

The late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman pungently expressed the same thought. To quote from a 1978 campus address: “The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is the cost of getting those imports. The proper objective for a nation, as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things so we get as large a volume of imports as possible for as small a volume of exports as possible.”

And Friedman’s formulation certainly has rational power. Trade is by definition a matter of exchange and surely the object of the exercise is to get the imports you want for as little as possible by way of exports. In that sense, seeking to export more than you import seems counterintuitive.

So, 250 years after the publication of The Wealth of Nations, is Adam Smith still relevant?

Often described as the father of economics, Smith believed in concepts like the division of labour; free trade; voluntary exchange; competition; the harmony of self-interest (whereby large numbers of people lawfully pursuing their self-interest will generate broadly beneficial social outcomes); dependence on market forces; and a generally limited role for government, including an antipathy towards attempts at economic micromanagement.

I think the answer to any question of Smith’s continued relevance is very much in the affirmative, albeit with caveats; or, to use one of my favourite words, trade-offs.

Smith’s vision of freer trade has brought great advantages to both developing and developed countries. Poverty has been significantly reduced in the former and consumers in the latter have gained access to a greater range of goods, often relatively inexpensive ones.

But there are potential exposures, one of which is security.

Precisely because it had a large manufacturing capacity, the United States in the Second World War was able to become what Franklin D. Roosevelt dubbed the “arsenal of democracy.” But had that capability been hollowed out by foreign competition, the situation would have been quite different. And the consequences could have been very unpleasant.

Bottom line, this calls for a rigorous assessment of a country’s trading profile from the security perspective. The details of where to draw the line will vary from situation to situation and be heavily influenced by what international role a country perceives for itself. And, of course, all sorts of entities will attempt to get themselves defined as “essential to security” and thus benefit from protection. But the fact that it’s difficult to strike the perfect balance doesn’t detract from the necessity of trying. And there will definitely be times when cheapest isn’t best.

Smith and Friedman were not opposed to exports. Quite the contrary. They both presumed that in order to acquire imports, you would have to have exports. It was making a fetish out of exporting more than you imported that they disagreed with.

Of course, for those engaged in export industries, exports become an end in and of themselves. But the broader societal perspective is more complicated. Giving (exporting) more than you are getting (importing) does not necessarily make a lot of sense.

Of course, there are exceptions.

The U.S. role in facilitating European recovery after the Second World War is a perfect example of how exporting more than you import can serve a useful political purpose.

And you can also make a case for maximizing exports to provide domestic employment while simultaneously using the proceeds of your export surplus to invest in foreign assets. Mind you, this runs the risk of expropriation/nationalization (physical assets) or default (financial assets). Meanwhile, the extent to which it maximizes general well-being is a matter of conjecture.

Like all long-dead thinkers, Adam Smith’s views were influenced by the contours of the environment in which he lived. But his fundamental insights are not obviated by the fact that the world has become vastly more complicated than it was in 1776.

To get one sense of that additional complexity, see my May 26, 2025, column Why the world still bows to King Dollar.

Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.

The post Adam Smith was right about free trade, but he didn’t factor in national security first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

If students don’t learn how to read, not much else that happens at school is going to matter.

It’s a harsh statement, but a true one. Any student who leaves school without the ability to read effectively will struggle to get ahead in virtually all aspects of life.

That’s because reading is a foundational skill. Whether you want to learn how to fix a car engine, order a meal in a restaurant, or write a report for your boss, you need to be able to read.

Ironically, the importance of reading led many educators to make a critical mistake; they assumed that reading was a transferable skill. Entire reading programs were established that treated reading as a skill that worked independently of any specific content.

The so-called “three-cueing” approach to reading instruction was a prime example of this mistaken assumption. Students were encouraged to guess the meaning of words based on the immediate context.

The recent Supporting the Right to Read report from the Manitoba Human Rights Commission correctly pointed out that this failed approach made it harder for students to become fluent readers. A similar report from the Ontario Human Rights Commission came to the same conclusion.

Along with having to endure poor reading instruction methods, students also had to complete endless worksheets about nebulous concepts such as “finding the main idea” and “making connections.” Not only were these worksheets mind-numbingly boring, but they did little, if anything, to help students develop any useful skills.

More importantly, reading comprehension is closely tied to background knowledge. Simply put, the more you already know about a topic, the more likely it is that you will be able to read and understand an article or book about that topic.

Consider, for example, the following sentence: “The players did the best they could to kill the penalty after their team captain received a two-minute penalty for high-sticking.”

Chances are that unless you know something about hockey, you’ll struggle to understand the sentence. Specifically, readers need specific knowledge about hockey to understand what “kill a penalty” and “high-sticking” mean. Even if you can successfully define each word, the sentence itself won’t make much sense unless you know the rules of hockey.

A recent article in Education Next by cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham and Core Knowledge Foundation chair E.D. Hirsch, Jr. summarizes the evidence showing a direct link between background knowledge and reading comprehension. Simply put, the evidence is overwhelming.

Willingham and Hirsch point out that it’s essential for students to develop a common base of shared knowledge. While it might be fun to dabble in esoteric and specialized subfields, there are many things that everyone needs to know in common.

In Canada, this means, among other things, having a basic understanding of parliamentary democracy and of the key events that led to the formation of our country. It’s also important to understand basic scientific principles and to be familiar with classic literary genres.

One of the most important things we can do is ensure that provincial curriculum guides have a knowledge-rich approach. Instead of assuming that teachers will create their own content, curriculum guides must be heavy on subject-specific content so that all students develop a common base of knowledge.

Everyone wants students to become strong readers. It’s about time that we started using evidence-based approaches to ensure this happens.

Michael Zwaagstra is a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The post Schools are teaching reading wrong and our kids are falling behind first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

It’s probably fair to describe Stephen Lewis as the most successful New Democrat on the domestic and international scene. That’s why there was a large outpouring of support from Canada’s left when the 88-year-old political stalwart passed away on March 31 after a long battle against abdominal cancer.

In spite of the pain and suffering he was surely experiencing, he lived just long enough to see his son, Avi, become federal NDP leader. One can only imagine how proud he was to have the third generation of his family in charge of a party and movement that meant so much to him.

Lewis’s father, David, was federal NDP leader from 1971 to 1975. A lifelong social democrat and staunch anti-communist, he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University and a skilled debater in the Oxford Union. David became well connected in British Labour Party circles and was offered a safe seat to run for the party. A June 19, 1935, letter from Co-operative Commonwealth Federation leader J.S. Woodsworth asking him to come back to Canada helped change his mind and the course of his life.

After losing his first few campaigns, David won a seat in the federal riding of York South in 1962. He lost to Liberal candidate Marvin Gelber the following year but beat him in 1965 to regain it. He won the party leadership after a four-ballot tussle with James Laxer and used his memorable 1972 campaign slogan of fighting the “corporate welfare bums” to achieve a then-record 31 seats and the balance of power in a minority Liberal parliament. Two years later, his party would slip to 16 seats, and he lost York South for the final time to Liberal candidate Ursula Appolloni.

Lewis, unlike his father, never finished university and dropped out of law school twice. This had nothing to do with incompetence and everything to do with political ambition. He had become a high-profile figure after debating then-U.S. senator John F. Kennedy at the University of Toronto’s Hart House on Nov. 14, 1957. While no audio or video clips exist, several observers that evening said Lewis’s performance was the highlight and Kennedy was less than stellar. Although the senator won the Hart House debate by a close 204-194 margin, the young socialist had made his mark.

While working at Socialist International, Lewis was invited to speak at a conference in Ghana and stayed in Africa for an additional year. He returned to Canada at then-federal NDP leader Tommy Douglas’s request, ran for the Ontario NDP in 1963 and became a provincial MPP in Scarborough West at age 26. Lewis was elected party leader in 1970 and his father took charge of the federal outfit the following year. It’s a feat that hasn’t been duplicated since.

In the 1975 provincial election, Lewis increased the NDP’s seat count from 19 to 38 and became official opposition leader. His party fell to 33 seats in the 1977 election and the Liberals took back the official opposition role. Frustrated by this result, he stepped down as leader in 1978 and left provincial politics for good.

Lewis would have a long and successful career in other ways, means and avenues.

Then-Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, on the advice of former Ontario PC premier Bill Davis, appointed Lewis as Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations in 1984. While initially viewed with more than a modicum of surprise and shock, it actually made sense. Mulroney and Lewis were political opposites, but they were both strongly opposed to apartheid in South Africa. It was this shared interest that enabled two of Canada’s finest orators to successfully work together until 1988.

Lewis was later appointed special advisor on race relations to then-Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae in 1992. He also served as UNICEF’s deputy executive director and the United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, started the Stephen Lewis Foundation, was a scholar-in-residence at McMaster University, and more.

It’s all rather impressive when you consider that Lewis’s political ideology was pretty far to the left. Just like his wife, former Toronto Star columnist Michele Landsberg. Just like Avi and his wife, political activist Naomi Klein. Just like most of his family, in fact.

Yet, Lewis was the most diplomatic of his politically dogmatic family. He always spoke in a reasonable, level-headed manner with people who fundamentally disagreed with him on most issues. This included Davis, Mulroney, my father, Stanley, who lived near him and infrequently went over to the Lewis house for dinner and, on two occasions, me.

How was he able to do this? It was actually revealed more than a decade ago.

During a Nov. 21, 2013, interview on TVO’s The Agenda, which examined the Hart House debate, the topic of JFK’s assassination came up. While Lewis acknowledged that he was sad about what happened, it didn’t match the same intensity that other people felt. In his view, he wasn’t a “raw, emotional person.” When TVO host Steve Paikin disagreed with this assessment, Lewis provided a fascinating rebuttal. “I think it’s partly because of being kind of sullied by socialism,” he said. “You know, when you have such intense ideological convictions, everything falls within that frame. And the likes and dislikes emerge within—that’s the way you measure things.”

This is the mark of a true political ideologue. Never waver in your beliefs and convictions, but always take a civil, friendly approach when speaking with others who will never see things your way. That’s how Lewis became the most successful New Democrat in Canada and the world. His fellow left-wing travellers could learn something from this. RIP.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.

The post Stephen Lewis mastered the art of political civility first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

Ever since that fateful day 2,000 years ago when Judas Iscariot sold out his friend for 30 pieces of silver, switching sides and joining the enemy camp has had a bad name.

Indeed, the names of those who do so, like Benedict Arnold during the American Revolution and Vidkun Quisling in Nazi-occupied Norway, have become shorthand for treachery.

What then is one to make of the recent defection of four opposition members of Parliament to the ruling Liberal Party?

Hundreds of their predecessors have done the same over the years. Since 1867, 307 MPs have changed allegiance in the midst of their term of office. The first to do so seems to have been Stewart Campbell of Nova Scotia, who had been elected as an opponent of Confederation in 1867 but abandoned that cause a year later and joined Sir John A. Macdonald’s Conservative-Liberal coalition. For his actions, he was pelted with eggs back in Antigonish.

This sort of defection is common enough to have influenced the design of the House of Commons in Britain and its empire.

Centuries ago, when parliamentary democracy was developing in England, it was common for supporters of the King to sit on one side of the House and opponents of the ruling clique to sit across from them, separated by a space wider than two swords’ lengths, a distance meant to discourage heated debate from becoming violent. (That distance is still in evidence today in legislative chambers around the Commonwealth, including Ottawa.) Thus, when one shifted loyalties, the term became “crossing the floor.”

When the British House of Commons was destroyed by German bombing during the Second World War, Winston Churchill insisted that it be rebuilt in the traditional fashion rather than adopting the semicircular design common in European legislatures. He argued that the opposing benches reinforced clear government-opposition confrontation and made “crossing the floor” a momentous act.

Why do Canadian MPs shift parties midstream?

Some floor-crossing emerges out of genuine principle. MPs have found themselves in a party with which they no longer agree. Others move out of resentment at being snubbed for a lucrative cabinet or parliamentary secretary post, losing a leadership race or wanting to be on the winning side of the next election.

After struggling with their consciences and winning, defectors will utter phrases such as “wanting to be at the decision table” or “building a better future” for their constituency.

The ambitious seem to far outnumber the principled.

By looking at which direction the defections take place, we can see that jumps to the governing party are far more common than to the Opposition.

Of the 77 MPs who changed parties since 1968, only four left the government to join its opponents. Two left the Progressive Conservatives to establish the Bloc Québécois. One Liberal defected to the Conservatives and a single Conservative moved to sit with the Liberals.

What is the fate of such turncoats? Taking Canadian history as a whole, more of those who have changed parties win re-election than not, but there has been a shift in those numbers in the modern era. Political scientists believe that for a century after Confederation, Canadian voters tended to vote more for individuals than parties, making it not unreasonable for a popular MP to be chosen again.

In recent decades, however, voters seem to have been motivated more by the choice of party than by individuals. That would account for the number of unremarkable or undistinguished men and women who are elected as MPs (the sort of politician whom Pierre Trudeau derided as “nobodies” when they were “50 yards away from the House.”)

Since 1968, however, that shift toward party-based voting has not boded as well for floor-crossers as in earlier times. Half of those who ran again in the next election were defeated, but that figure hides an interesting fact. Of those who joined the government, two-thirds were successful in winning another term.

Therefore the Gang of Four who recently joined the Liberals have reason to be optimistic about their futures.

Should such defectors be forced to seek immediate re-election on crossing the floor?

Most Canadians think so.

In a recent poll, 41 per cent of respondents said that an MP who crossed the floor should resign and run in a byelection under their new party banner. Twenty-two per cent think the MP should serve out his term as an Independent, and only 26 per cent believe that an MP should be allowed to immediately join another party and continue serving.

Those arguing the need for an immediate byelection may recall that, until 1931, it was compulsory for a Canadian MP who had been appointed to cabinet to go back to his constituency and seek re-election. The rationale was that accepting a cabinet post was considered an “office of profit under the Crown,” which legally created a potential conflict of interest.

If re-election for floor-crossers were mandated, the purely ambitious Judases might have second thoughts and voters would be more confident that their choice of representative was respected.

Gerry Bowler is a Canadian historian and a senior fellow of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The post MPs who switch parties should defend their decision in a byelection first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

Motivation is overrated.

That may sound counterintuitive in a culture obsessed with inspiration, but the pattern is hard to ignore. People don’t fail because they lack motivation. They fail because they rely on it.

If you want to make real progress, whether in your career, your health or your personal life, you have to stop asking how you feel and start paying attention to what you do. Not occasionally. Every day. Especially on the days when you’d rather not.

The usual advice about finding your “why” still has value, but it has been stretched beyond its usefulness. Yes, it helps to know what you’re working toward. But a reason is not a plan. Plenty of people have clear goals and strong intentions and still go nowhere. Without something you can execute daily, a “why” is just something you tell yourself when things aren’t working.

The real shift is from motivation to systems. Most people work in cycles. They get a burst of energy, push hard for a while, then lose momentum and drift. Then they start over. It feels like effort, but it rarely produces results. Progress comes from routines you can repeat. Set a time. Define the work. Remove the decision about whether to start. Then do it again tomorrow. It’s not exciting, but it’s effective.

Even with systems in place, most people run into the same wall: distraction. Not occasional distraction, but constant, engineered distraction. We now spend a significant portion of our day on digital platforms designed to keep us engaged. Phones, notifications and endless feeds are not neutral: they are designed to interrupt you. Left alone, they will win—every time. Turning off notifications, blocking apps and protecting uninterrupted time isn’t optional anymore. It’s the baseline.

The result of all those distractions is predictable: sustained focus has become rare. Most people spread their attention across too many goals, too many ideas and too many half-finished starts. That isn’t ambition. It’s dilution. If everything matters, nothing gets done. Progress picks up when you decide what matters most and give it priority. Not equal time, but priority.

Small wins still matter, but not for the reason most people think. They’re not about feeling good. They’re about proof. Each completed task shows the system is working. It builds the habit of showing up. Over time, that consistency turns into momentum. Not dramatic leaps, but steady progress that actually adds up.

However, there’s a trap: showing up isn’t enough if you’re not producing anything. A full day can still be a wasted day. Busyness is easy to fake. Output isn’t. If you want to know whether you’re moving forward, look at what you’ve actually done. Pages written. Calls made. Work finished. If there’s nothing concrete to point to, something needs to change.

And it’s not just about willpower. The idea that success is simply “you versus you” sounds good, but it’s incomplete. Your environment plays a bigger role than most people admit. If your day is unstructured and your tools are built to distract you, discipline won’t carry you very far. Change the setup, and behaviour tends to follow. Ignore it, and you’ll keep fighting the same battle.

Balance comes up a lot in conversations like this, but most people have the wrong problem. They’re not over-focused. They’re scattered. Balance isn’t about doing everything at once. It is about knowing when to focus and when to step back before things start slipping.

The idea that you need to feel motivated before you act is one of the most persistent and most damaging beliefs in self-improvement. You don’t need motivation to start. You need a plan and the willingness to follow it when motivation is gone.

Motivation might get you moving. Discipline, backed by structure and a controlled environment, is what gets you to the finish line.

Faith Wood is a professional speaker, author, and certified professional behaviour analyst. Before her career in speaking and writing, she served in law enforcement, which gave her a unique perspective on human behaviour and motivations. Faith is also known for her work as a novelist, with a focus on thrillers and suspense. Her background in law enforcement and understanding of human behaviour often play a significant role in her writing.

The post Stop chasing motivation. It’s why you keep failing first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

The 2011 Kia Soul’s boxy design offers more interior room than a typical compact, but its long-term reliability depends heavily on its service history.

Buying a used 2011 Kia Soul might look like an easy win for budget-conscious drivers. It is cheap, practical, and remarkably easy to live with. However, that low entry price can be misleading; without a documented history of proper maintenance, this bargain-basement find can quickly turn into a financial burden.

The Soul carved out a niche when it arrived in 2010. Boxy, upright and simple, it gave buyers more space than a typical compact without the cost of moving up to a full crossover. It landed somewhere between the Nissan Cube and Scion xB, but with broader appeal. And that’s still part of its draw today.

Under the hood, you had two choices. The 1.6-litre engine makes 122 horsepower. The 2.0-litre bumps the horsepower to 142. A five-speed manual came standard on lower trims, with a four-speed automatic optional. Every model is front-wheel drive, which works well in winter with proper tires. Fuel economy is respectable, typically around 7 to 8 litres per 100 kilometres combined.

It’s not fast, but it was never meant to be. Around town, it’s easy to handle, easy to park and easy to see out of. On the highway, it does the job, but don’t expect much power, especially with the smaller engine. It’s also not especially refined. Road and wind noise show up quickly, particularly on models with larger wheels.

Where things start to matter is ride quality. The Soul was firm when new, but many used ones now feel rougher than they should. Worn suspension parts are now common. What feels like a stiff ride may actually be a car that needs work—and that’s where the low purchase price starts to unravel.

Space is one of the reasons people keep coming back to the Soul. The tall roof makes it easy to get in and out, and there’s more room in the back seat than you might expect. Fold the seats down and it handles cargo surprisingly well for its size.

Inside, you’re dealing with basic materials. Hard plastics hold up reasonably well, but they scratch and wear, and the cabin now feels dated. Trim pieces can loosen over time. None of this is a deal-breaker, but it reminds you what kind of car this is.

Features like heated seats, Bluetooth and USB connectivity were available, and they’re still useful today. But they shouldn’t drive your decision. Today, condition matters far more than equipment.

Prices today usually fall between about $3,000 and $8,000, depending on mileage and condition. That range tells you everything you need to know. With a car like this, two different vehicles can look the same and drive very differently.

That’s where the real risk comes in. The 2.0-litre engine has a mixed long-term track record, especially if maintenance hasn’t been consistent. Some run for years without trouble. Others develop oil consumption issues or show early signs of wear. The 1.6-litre tends to be more dependable, but it’s also less powerful.

Service history matters. Regular oil changes and consistent care make a real difference in how these engines hold up. Without that, you’re guessing—and that’s not a good place to be.

The transmission is worth paying attention to as well. Manual models can feel notchy, especially going into first gear, and clutch wear is something to watch for. The automatic is simple and generally reliable, but it’s not particularly refined.

If you’re thinking about buying a 2011 Kia Soul, look for signs of oil consumption. Listen to the engine on a cold start. Check for a consistent service record. Get underneath and look for rust, especially around the rear wheel arches. Pay attention to how it rides. A rough ride can mean worn suspension.

The usual issues start to show up with a car of this age. Rust, worn suspension components, aging brakes and exhaust systems are all part of the picture. The previous owner may have already addressed some of that. But some of it may be waiting for you.

Electrical issues also show up over time. Door locks, sensors and lighting can fail, and while these are usually manageable repairs, they add up. There were also recalls related to electrical components, including the audio system wiring.

Safety was strong when the Soul was new, with good crash-test ratings for its time. But it doesn’t have the driver-assistance features that are now common, and that’s something you need to consider.

One thing the Soul still has going for it is running costs. Parts are widely available, and repairs are generally straightforward. Most shops can work on it, which helps keep costs under control, assuming you start with a good one.

At today’s prices, the 2011 Kia Soul sits firmly in end-of-life budget territory. That doesn’t make it a bad buy. But it does change the calculation.

The 2011 Kia Soul isn’t a car you buy on impulse. Get it right, and it will do exactly what you need. Get it wrong, and the savings disappear quickly.

Our Verdict

If you find a 2011 Kia Soul with a meticulous service record—specifically proving consistent oil changes and a recent timing belt replacement—it is a smart, functional bargain. But if the history is murky, walk away. In the world of used Kias, a cheap buy-in today can very quickly lead to a mechanical backfire tomorrow.

| Auto Desk

The post That 2011 Kia Soul bargain can quickly backfire first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

Many years ago, the notion of government running parts of our food distribution system would have been dismissed outright. Food was abundant, relatively affordable, and reliably stocked on store shelves. The industry operated largely out of the public eye, attracting far less scrutiny than it does today. That era is over.

Fast forward to 2026, and the conversation has shifted dramatically. Toronto has now approved a motion to pilot four municipally run grocery stores. At the federal level, the NDP, under newly appointed leader Avi Lewis, is proposing an even more ambitious plan: a network of 50 government-operated grocery stores supported by food hubs. The promise? Savings of up to 40 per cent on food for consumers. A similar claim was echoed in Toronto just last week.

Let’s be clear: a 40 per cent reduction in grocery bills borders on implausible. In a sector defined by razor-thin margins, such savings would effectively require goods to be procured at little to no cost. And yet, while the math is questionable, the idea of government entering the grocery business is no longer fringe. It is gaining traction.

The challenge is that history offers little reassurance. Government-run grocery stores remain rare across North America, and their track record is, at best, fragile. Over the past decade, a limited number of publicly operated stores have been launched, primarily in the United States, and none have scaled meaningfully in Canada. Many have struggled financially, closed altogether, or transitioned to private operators. The failure or restructuring rate likely exceeds 50 per cent.

The issue has never been intent. Most of these initiatives were designed to address food deserts (areas with limited access to affordable food). The problem is execution. Grocery retail is one of the most complex businesses in the economy, requiring disciplined procurement, tight inventory control, efficient logistics, and relentless pricing precision.

Military commissaries are often cited as a counterexample. But they operate under entirely different conditions. They serve a closed population, benefit from significant subsidies, and function as part of a broader compensation system rather than a competitive retail market. They are not a model that can be easily replicated in the civilian economy.

What Canadians are really asking for is not state-run grocery stores, but greater affordability and control. Government-run grocery stores would not deliver that. They would introduce inefficiencies, require ongoing subsidies, and ultimately shift the financial burden back onto taxpayers.

A far more credible path forward already exists.

Grocery co-operatives offer a proven and resilient alternative. Canada already has a strong foundation in this space. The Co-operative Retailing System in western Canada counts more than 160 independent retail co-operative associations across the country. Broader data suggests there are over 600 food-related co-operatives nationwide, translating into roughly 300 to 400 grocery co-op stores when smaller community models are included.

These organizations operate with market discipline while remaining locally owned and member-driven, delivering affordability without sacrificing operational efficiency. More importantly, they have demonstrated longevity, something most public retail experiments have not.

If policymakers are serious about improving food access and affordability, the solution is not to build a parallel, state-run retail system from scratch, but to strengthen and scale what already works.

The federal government has a clear role to play but it is not as a grocer.

First, access to capital remains the biggest barrier for co-operatives. Because they do not issue traditional equity, financing can be difficult. Loan guarantees, low-interest financing through institutions like the Business Development Bank of Canada, a federal lender to businesses, and targeted support from Farm Credit Canada, which finances the agricultural sector, could significantly reduce that barrier.

Second, the tax system can be used more strategically. Incentives for member equity contributions, similar to Quebec’s co-op investment model, would empower communities to mobilize local capital.

Third, infrastructure matters. Strategic investments in buildings, refrigeration systems, and logistics, particularly in rural and Northern regions, could make otherwise unviable projects feasible.

Fourth, execution capacity is often underestimated. Many co-ops fail not because of a lack of demand, but because of operational challenges. Training, governance support, and access to retail expertise—potentially delivered in partnership with national co-op organizations—would address this gap.

Finally, regulatory reform is essential. Reducing interprovincial trade barriers and simplifying food distribution rules would disproportionately benefit smaller players, including co-operatives.

In short, the federal government does not need to run grocery stores. It needs to create the conditions for others to succeed.

Government-run grocery stores are a costly distraction. Strengthening co-operatives is the practical way to deliver affordability, resilience, and local control.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast.

The post Government grocery stores sound good until you do the math first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

BC residents, still reeling from the fallout of the Cowichan decision, in which a B.C. court allowed Aboriginal title claims over lands on Vancouver Island to proceed, recently woke to newspaper reports about an agreement between the federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band relating to Aboriginal Title claims over large parts of the Metro Vancouver region and raising questions about the future of property rights and development authority in the city. Politicians quickly attempted to reassure the public that the agreement did not mean what it appeared to say.

Those reassurances rang hollow almost immediately. Another First Nation, the Squamish, quickly signalled that it would dispute the Musqueam claim. Other disputes between Indigenous groups are almost certain to follow, because this agreement is only one of many agreements now being negotiated behind closed doors in Ottawa and Victoria.

Governments justify these agreements by arguing that British Columbia never concluded treaties with most of the Indigenous peoples who lived there after Confederation. Because of that historical failure, they say, governments today must negotiate modern agreements to correct the omission.

Even if one accepts that argument, however, these modern agreements bear little resemblance to the numbered treaties signed between 1871 and 1920. Those treaties required Indigenous peoples to surrender any claims they had to land in exchange for compensation and certain guarantees from the Crown. The arrangements now being negotiated in British Columbia operate very differently.

Under the numbered treaties, compensation was modest. Indigenous signatories received reserves, the right to hunt on surrounding Crown land until it was needed for settlement and annuities of five dollars per year. The arrangement was designed to bring Indigenous communities gradually into the Canadian economic system.

Today’s agreements involve something entirely different. Indigenous signatories may retain any Aboriginal Title claims they may have, even after signing. They receive substantial financial compensation and, in many cases, effective authority over large areas of Crown land. That authority can in practice operate as a veto over development.

Governments defend these arrangements in another way as well. They argue that such agreements are required by the Constitution. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, and many officials claim that modern agreements are necessary to satisfy those constitutional obligations.

Critics, however, note that Indigenous peoples already possess the same civil and political rights as every other Canadian. They vote, run for office and hold passports like any other citizen. In addition, they possess a range of legal privileges that other Canadians do not enjoy. The only right they do not have is the ability to own private property on reserve land, a restriction that exists within the reserve system itself.

The deeper issue, however, lies in how courts have interpreted Indigenous rights and title. For most of Canada’s history, the assumption was that Indigenous societies were hunting cultures that occupied territory but did not hold land in the European legal sense of permanent title. Territories shifted over time as groups competed for resources. The modern legal concept of Aboriginal Title was therefore largely absent from earlier Canadian law.

That changed in the late twentieth century, when the Supreme Court of Canada began to reinterpret Indigenous rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The turning point was the 1997 Delgamuukw decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Aboriginal title exists in Canadian law and recognized Aboriginal Title as a powerful legal concept that opened the door to far-reaching claims over land and resources.

Subsequent rulings expanded this framework. Courts recognized a “duty to consult” Indigenous communities before development projects could proceed on lands subject to potential claims. In practice, these rulings created a system in which governments are often required to consult and negotiate with Indigenous groups over land use and development.

The Cowichan decision illustrates how this legal framework continues to evolve. It forms part of a growing line of court rulings recognizing Aboriginal title and expanding legal obligations on governments dealing with Indigenous land claims. Faced with stronger legal claims and the growing risk of losing costly court battles, governments increasingly choose to negotiate agreements rather than litigate title disputes to their conclusion.

These developments carry significant implications. If Aboriginal Title claims extend over large urban areas, property owners may face new layers of uncertainty. Questions arise about whether homeowners or developers will need to obtain approval from Indigenous authorities for building permits, property transfers or development projects. Governments have offered few clear answers.

The consequences may extend well beyond British Columbia. Leaders in the numbered treaty provinces have watched developments in B.C. with interest. Many are now asking why similar arrangements should not apply in their regions as well. Concepts such as co-ownership of land and Indigenous consent over development are already being discussed.

If these trends continue, the legal structure of property ownership across Canada could change dramatically. The certainty of title, the foundation of modern property systems, may become increasingly uncertain.

Supporters of these legal developments and modern agreements argue that such changes are necessary to achieve reconciliation. Critics counter that they represent a fundamental shift away from the principle of equal citizenship under the law.

Canada’s Founders envisioned a country in which people of different backgrounds would gradually integrate into a common civic identity. Indigenous communities were given reserves and certain protections, but the long-term expectation was that all citizens would participate in the same economic and political institutions.

Over time, however, that vision has been replaced by a model that treats Indigenous communities as distinct political entities with separate authority. The result is a complex system of overlapping jurisdictions and claims.

Many scholars have criticized this development. Professor Bruce Pardy has documented how a series of Supreme Court decisions has steadily expanded Indigenous claims and obligations on governments. Other analysts warn that the cumulative effect may be to destabilize property rights and economic development.

If courts and governments continue along this path, conflicts over land and jurisdiction are likely to multiply. Some observers argue that only constitutional negotiations can fundamentally revisit the legal framework now governing Indigenous rights and title.

Professor Bruce Pardy has suggested that the proposed Alberta sovereignty referendum could create such an opportunity. A strong “Yes” vote might force governments across Canada to reopen constitutional discussions on a range of issues, including Indigenous governance, equalization, immigration policy and energy development.

Under that scenario, Albertans could support sovereignty as a strategic measure to compel negotiations, while reserving the option to reject actual separation after discussions conclude.

Whether or not that strategy gains traction remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that Canada now faces a fundamental debate about its constitutional structure and the principles that should govern relations between citizens and governments.

If the country is to remain stable and prosperous, Canadians must eventually decide whether their political system should rest on the principle of equal citizenship under a single national framework or on a system of overlapping jurisdictions rooted in historic identities.

That question will shape the future of property rights, governance and national unity for decades to come.

Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The post Indigenous land deals could mark the end of property rights in BC first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

You may be familiar with Proverbs 17:22 in the Bible (King James Version), which goes like this, “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.”

That’s why many people believe laughter is the best medicine. Lord knows we need plenty of laughs, chuckles, giggles, snorts and guffaws in today’s society.

One way we can find humour is in music. There have been many comedians and comedic figures associated with just about every musical style imaginable. Country stars like David “Stringbean” Akeman, Roy Clark, Homer and Jethro, Louis “Grandpa” Jones, Lonzo and Oscar and Minnie Pearl. Jack Benny and Henry Youngman on the violin. Steve Allen, Jimmy Durante and Oscar Levant on the piano. There’s also Spike Jones, Seth MacFarlane, the Marx Brothers, Spike Milligan, Eddie Murphy, “Weird” Al Yankovic and Peter Schickele’s alter ego, P. D. Q. Bach.

One name arguably stands above the others. That would be Victor Borge, the magnificent classical pianist nicknamed “The Clown Prince of Denmark.”

Borge’s musical talent was undeniable. His parents, Frederikke and Bernhard Rosenbaum, were both Danish, Jewish and musicians. The young Borge started taking piano lessons in 1909 in Copenhagen at age two. He was identified as a prodigy and gave his first piano recital when he was eight years old. He studied at the Royal Danish Academy of Music and briefly became a classical concert pianist. He shifted to his stand-up act in 1926, which enabled him to travel across Europe, North America and the world.

When Nazi Germany occupied Denmark in 1940, Borge was playing a concert in Sweden. He wisely headed to Finland and made his way to America with only $20 in his pocket. (He visited his dying mother in Denmark during the Second World War by disguising himself as a sailor.) He would marry twice and have five children. He performed with the New York Philharmonic, London Philharmonic, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Royal Danish Orchestra and more. He became a household name by appearing on Ed Sullivan’s Talk of the Town, What’s My Line? and PBS specials, as well as children’s shows like Sesame Street, The Electric Company and The Muppet Show.

He was an excellent composer, including his famous “Phonetic Punctuation” routine, and a surprisingly good all-around writer.

Let’s consider his amusing March 1985 piece for Popular Mechanics about moving a baby grand piano. It’s a funny, thoughtful and intelligent tale of how he supposedly got a “4½-foot-wide baby grand through two 3½-foot-wide single door frames and across two thresholds without a sound.” The task involved a stack of books, rolling pin and a sleep-deprived 15-year-old Borge to get it done in one night.

His mother apparently didn’t immediately notice the piano had been moved since she was “so accustomed to seeing the old upright where it belonged for years.” Alas, his success in moving the baby grand piano was seemingly for naught. “From then on, my mother slept even lighter,” Borge wrote in his concluding sentence, “from fear that perhaps one morning she wouldn’t be able to locate the kitchen.”

The first time I ever saw Borge perform was on a PBS special either in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Watching this concert with my father, who had seen him perform live in Toronto at Massey Hall a time or two, I was instantly mesmerized. I already enjoyed classical music (and still do), but the infusion of comedic lines, quips, jokes and asides was a revelation of sorts. I own two of Borge’s legendary performances on CD, Comedy in Music (1954) and Caught in the Act (1955), along with one DVD set, The Best of Victor Borge: Act One and Two (1990). There’s an official YouTube channel of his work, as well as his testimony as a Holocaust survivor to the USC Shoah Foundation.

It was Borge’s ability to tell jokes and captivate an audience that truly set him apart.

His sense of humour was on the light-hearted side, although the early stages of his stand-up career included plenty of anti-Nazi jokes. Borge would tell people to “excuse his front” and “excuse his back” before playing the piano. Some witty remarks often popped up at his performances, such as “I only know two pieces; one is ‘Clair de Lune’ and the other one isn’t” and “Beethoven wrote in three flats a lot. That’s because he moved twice.” There were other great quips, including “the difference between a violin and a viola is that a viola burns longer,” and this appropriate analysis, “laughter is the shortest distance between two people.”

Borge’s music and comedy soothed the savage beast until he passed away on Dec. 23, 2000. He’s greatly missed by those who remember him fondly, but that group of people is shrinking with each passing year. My hope is that this unfortunate trend can be reversed if we start to recognize, cherish and become reacquainted with his genius once more.

“I normally don’t do requests,” Borge once said, “unless, of course, I have been asked to do so.” Fair enough. Ask the Danish clown prince, and ye shall receive.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.

The post Victor Borge made classical music funny and accessible first appeared on Edmonton's Business.