Continuing The League Discussion: Mining as an Anchor in Canada’s Economic Plan

First, let’s acknowledge the partisanship inside The League. It’s strong — and that’s fine. It adds to the entertainment. Watching grown men take political bait and react with the same frustration they show after a duffed shot is part of the show. The impulse for tantrums is always there, and League Members know the inherent risk of engagement.

Many can recover from those impulses and put a streak together. Others keep putting the ball in the bush— and are tempted to say “found it” when no one’s around to verify.

After a while, you learn who can adjust their game — a dynamic player — and who just follows what others are saying.

A few have already made their impression.

But Back to the Question

Does it make sense to push mining further and treat it as one of the anchors of Canada’s new economic development plan?

And next: Do the differences between Carney and Trudeau meaningfully shape that answer?

Trudeau’s government did invest — infrastructure, early-stage value chains, and the original Critical Minerals Strategy. But how strong was Canada’s position when Carney stepped in? That becomes his starting point. On paper, Carney is far better qualified to handle the complexities of economic development.

Someone like L. Shaver, who hasn’t joined The League yet, could distinguish between what was genuinely built and what was simply branded as progress. Mining guys are typically disciplined speakers — what words would such a man use to describe the difference between our current PM and the previous one?

The League would be very interested in hearing a response from an industry leader like Lon.

When I mentioned The League to Lon, golf wasn’t for him right now — but I didn’t bring up The League Magazine. A blunder on my part; it could have made all the difference.

Others interpreting the budget argue Carney is pushing for something bigger than Trudeau: faster approvals, more public capital, and tighter integration between mining, manufacturing, cleantech, and more. The conversation has mostly fixated on cost, calling it reckless. But we should be asking more questions:

If Canada executes, do we gain leverage in global negotiations — something we’ve historically lacked? Can we create what others want?

It’s worth considering. But who in The League can articulate a thoughtful response? We have plenty of jibroni impulses taking up bandwidth.

Legitimacy of Mining as an Anchor

Do our critical minerals give us the clearest path to real supply-chain control? Possibly. And that’s where someone like N. Manji becomes valuable to the conversation.

Neil is a national leader in Energy, Mining, and more. Advising multinational firms, he likely sees Canada’s positioning better than most. On a short walk between tee shots, I’d ask about downstream timelines: smelting, processing, component manufacturing. Where can Canada be a first mover? Where do we have potential to catch up?

Big-firm partners usually see the big picture — that’s how it is.

Neil’s vantage likely extends further. He takes companies public in both Canada and the U.S., giving him insight into Canada’s competitiveness and global investor sentiment. How capital is expected to move and be retained — he could point out both the concerns in the budget and its landmarks.

He’s firmly a top man on The League’s recruiting list — we hope to see him at the tee box. Until then, The League will be following his public commentary.

Downstream Leakage and the U.S. Pull

Canada often loses manufacturing to the U.S. The dynamics simply favour them. But we need someone to verify what’s actually trending, so we don’t repeat the same mistakes when developing mining downstream.

H. Blum understands which value-chain segments stay anchored here and which drift south. He leads a volume-heavy mid-market transaction team.

Will the manufacturing super-deduction help downstream industries? What else keeps production here? Harry might know — and where the discussion needs to be expanded.

Fortunately, H. Blum has indicated — though not confirmed — that he’d make an appearance at the tee box, especially if other managing partners are present for League play.

Not sure if Harry is a mining expert, but he could add supplementary commentary. We need this to understand the integration of industries that Carney is presenting in the budget.

It would be one way to properly assess the cost and its legitimacy — something that will be a recurring theme in League discussion.