One funny thing about the “elbows up!” slogan of the New Canadian Nationalism is that in real life it’s pretty hard to hit yourself with your own elbow. But in the actual policy sphere, most of what we might do to put our elbows up against the United States involves self-harm or, at a minimum, self-denial.

On Sunday the Department of Finance issued a terse circular announcing that the Digital Services Tax announced in 2021 would not, as originally planned, begin to be collected on Monday. The DST (R.I.P.) was designed to exclusively target Canadian revenues of American “web giants” that provide online services, advertising, or streaming content.

As the Finance memo observes

, it is being dropped at the last minute in the hope of restarting negotiations with the U.S. on an updated version of continental free trade.

The idea of a DST was framed by the Trudeau government as a moral necessity of the 21st century: something had to be done about foreign vampires like Netflix and Google which had built businesses with millions of Canadian customers out of digital ether, but paid no tax in Canada. Everybody recognized, however, that much of the cost of the tax was bound to come out of the pockets of the customers rather than the vampires.

It’s inherently difficult to know how the tax incidence would have worked out, because the process of digital price discovery isn’t especially mature: some of these companies are still figuring out their own optimum, revenue-maximizing price points in plain sight. But from a selfish point of view, Canadian consumers, considered strictly as such, can only feel relief at the sudden abandonment of the DST.

Is this a craven surrender on the part of the post-Trudeau Liberals? Well, this is the problem with interpreting everything in brute terms of animalistic personal combat, isn’t it? The governments of the developed nations largely agree (perhaps against the interests of their own citizens) that there ought to be an international framework for digital-services taxation, and the OECD reached an agreement that nobody would run wild and introduce their own digital taxes until the issue could be sorted out collectively.

From that neoliberal-nerd point of view, Canada went rogue when it announced a homebrewed DST — one that would have had a nasty retroactive effect, that was designed specifically only to collect from large American companies with recognizable names, and that didn’t address double-taxation issues. And let’s recall that Joe Biden was still president when this happened.

It’s worth noting that this isn’t just a question of playing chess against Donald Trump. Canada was really forced to withdraw the DST by the terms of the Trump-designed One Big Beautiful Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May, and now before the Senate. The OBBB reflects the fact that there’s genuine bipartisan distaste in the U.S. toward the digital taxes hypothecated by Canada and already in effect in some other countries; it allows for 

tax-withholding countermeasures against countries that impose “unfair” taxes on U.S. digital companies

, countermeasures whose size could easily have dwarfed the relatively meagre revenues from the DST. In other words, if the government hadn’t pulled the plug on the DST, we might have quickly found out how a one-armed man does in a battle of elbows.

National Post

• Kelly McParland: New York swoons over an American Justin Trudeau
• Joel Kotkin: The West’s immigration reckoning is here

The

recent riots

in Los Angeles, sparked by President Trump’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, could be a harbinger to a new era of ethnic conflict not only in the U.S. but throughout the West, including Canada.

Many

leading countries for immigrants

, notably in the Middle East, may have higher percentages of international migrants, but many are only there temporarily. But in Canada, Australia, and the U.S. — where the foreign born

represent between 15 and 30 per cent of the total population

— most come to stay, with sometimes problematic results.

President Joe Biden changed immigration policies, allowing millions, some barely vetted, to enter at ever increasing rates, causing the number of undocumented immigrants

to soar past 11 million.

Until recently, former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau followed a similar liberalization that allowed large numbers of migrants, some coming as refugees, into the country

In both countries, the mass migration has deepened already serious class divides as many new migrants remain poor. In Canada,

one in five recent immigrants

now lives in poverty, with most suffering from “deep poverty” — an income below 75 per cent of the poverty line — compared to only

five per cent

of the whole population.

Such complexities are rarely part of the public discussion of immigration. In the U.S. legacy media spin on the crackdown focuses on

the abuses and often ham handed approach

used by the Trump administration in working class Latino communities. Stories of individual cases of respectable and upright families targeted by the crackdown predominate, stirring up ever more fear of a racist, even “fascist” crackdown on minorities.

In contrast, the MAGA view focuses on criminal migrants and radical demonstrators, some of whom have engaged in violence. The images of young protesters waving Mexican flags is offensive to many American citizens, even in California. For MAGA, the crackdown represents both a return to legality as well as a defence from hostile elements.

Both views largely ignore a more complex, and often contradictory reality. Historically, as immigrant advocates rightly claim, the migration of peoples have been critical to the economic health, and cultural dynamism, of countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and France.

Guest workers, for example, played a critical role in the revival of Europe’s economies, and steady immigration sparked growth in Canada, the U.S. and Australia. Yet as immigration levels have soared, the economic payoffs seem to be increasingly dubious, particularly when we put into account the changing structure of the labour market.

The reality is that immigrants are not only filling in for jobs with no workers, but are replacing native born workers who are increasingly on the sidelines. In much of Europe up to one

quarter to one-third

of the population under 30 is neither in school or working.

In the U.K.

one out of seven under 25 is on the economic sidelines, the highest level in a decade.

Much the same pattern is emerging in North America. In the

U.S., labour participation

has steadily dropped since 2000. More American men are now out of the workforce than in

a half century

. Canada too has a

declining labour participation

rate, which is now at the lowest level since 1997 .

These two phenomena — immigrant poverty and native non-participation — likely intersect. The immigrant’s presence at the lower end of the labour market does

tend to retard wage growth

, as noted by

a recent Congressional study

, and could discourage natives from work. This  may be a boon for professionals for cheaper waiters, busboys, gardeners, and nannies but not for working class people.

Early claims

that Trump’s crackdown has helped

reduce crime

and

lifted wages

for low-income workers should be treated with care, but could become persuasive, at least outside the media and academic establishment.

In addition to purely economic calculations, there is also a political one. The new wave of immigrants includes a radical element bringing the tensions of their country of origin to their new home. This can be seen in particular with the

rise of antisemitism

on college campuses and leading urban centres in the West. It is tragic to see once tolerant places, notably

Canada

, including my wife’s hometown of Montreal, into noxious hubs of ethnic and religious strife.

To be sure, the brutal tactics of Trump are less a solution than an incitement to greater discord. And

most Americans

, although

favourable

to control of the border and the arrest of criminal migrants, see his actions

as overreaching

. But western countries — the beacon for millions around the world — still need to reconsider and reform their migration policies for their own sake.

The first step is to get control of the border, which Trump has done and

Canada

seems to be attempting. Newcomers need to enter in a legal and vetted manner, in contrast to the insane border non-enforcement typical of the Biden years, but also in Canada under Trudeau.

Restrictions need to be judicious and reflective of economic reality. Even Trump’s people acknowledge that

in certain industries

, like

hospitality and agriculture

, removing the undocumented could cause major labour shortages. One suggestion may be reviving an improved version of the

old U.S. bracero program

where necessary workers can work, but keep their families, and permanent residences, in their home countries. Even

xenophobic Japan

now recruits such workers for its depopulated economy.

Long supportive of immigration, Canadians have become more skeptical, with most now agreeing that newcomers

drive down wages for Canadians

in places like fast food restaurants. But  as a whole they also

heartily support

the movement of skilled workers and appreciate the cultural contributions of newcomers.

Our societies instead  need to focus on attracting productive entrepreneurs and workers as opposed to, for example, inviting post-modernist academics, whose avocation seems to be undermining the West’s core value system.

Our countries do not need warm bodies of any kind, but specific people who can help build our economies, particularly in the competition with China and its authoritarian allies. As they have in the past, immigrants should be welcomed not as expiation for past “colonial” sins, but as contributors to building more resilient and prosperous societies.

Joel Kotkin is the RC Hobbs presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and author, most recently, of The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Middle Class.

• Opinion: Samidoun exposes failures in Canada’s anti-terror efforts
• Kelly McParland: New York swoons over an American Justin Trudeau

First Reading is a Canadian politics newsletter curated by the National Post’s own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent directly to your inbox, sign up here.

TOP STORY

With the federal government announcing new plans to triple Canadian defence spending, the military itself is saying the organization is so overwhelmed and dysfunctional that they won’t be able to meet even their current duties for at least another seven years.

This time last year, the Department of National Defence

was estimating

that by March 31, 2025, it would have 90 per cent of its forces “ready for operations in accordance with established targets.”

Now,

a new internal report

is estimating that they won’t be able to meet this benchmark until the more “realistic and achievable” date of 2032.

Part of the delay is due to the sudden influx of new defence spending, with the report stating that it will take time to manage the “significant improvements” now being ordered by Ottawa.

But DND also details how it continues to be burdened by personnel shortages, degraded equipment and a chronic inability to obtain new kit.

“There is a risk that DND/CAF will not have the right military personnel, in the right numbers, with the right competencies at the right place, and the right time,” reads a section outlining how the military may even fail to meet its new 2032 targets.

The shortages are most apparent when it comes to equipment. Right now, more than half of the military’s aircraft, ships and army vehicles are effectively out of commission.

The Canadian Armed Forces maintains annual statistics on what percentage of its various vehicle fleets are considered adequate to meet “training, readiness and operational requirements.” In the navy, air force and army, these figures are all at historic lows of 45.7 per cent, 48.9 per cent and 49 per cent, respectively.

The new report estimates that it will be years until this can be turned around. In the air force and army, it won’t be until 2032 that fleets will be “at least 70 per cent” functional. In the Royal Canadian Navy, meanwhile, the 2032 target is set slightly lower “at least 60 per cent.”

Although the navy is waiting on a “future fleet” of new destroyers, the first vessels aren’t scheduled to be completed until “the early 2030.” In the meantime, the navy will largely remain dependent on a fleet of aging frigates that

have been described

as “rapidly becoming combat ineffective.”

“The degradation in materiel readiness of the aging platforms within the existing fleet will present a significant challenge to maintaining … operational readiness,” reads the report.

The military’s bleak picture of its immediate future comes despite the fact that two of its most chronic shortcomings — funding and recruitment — have recently experienced some relief.

The government of Prime Minister Mark Carney

immediately promised

to boost military spending to two per cent of GDP, before raising that target to five per cent just last month.

For the current fiscal year, this means the military

will have $62.7 billion

in place of a previously budgeted $53.4 billion.

More Canadians are also opting for a military career. Earlier this year, the Canadian Armed Forces announced that it was

on track to meet its 2025 recruitment goal

of enrolling 6,496 new members. This follows three consecutive years of the military losing more members than it was gaining.

However, early results are indicating that all these new recruits are already overwhelming the military’s ability to handle them. An April 2025 report leaked to CBC stated that

as many as one tenth of new recruits

were quitting after being faced with waits of up to 200 days for training.

“There are insufficient trainers, equipment, training facilities and other supports to meet training targets effectively,” it read.

The military’s new departmental report also notes that the Department of National Defence is being stretched both by a demand to “address deteriorating global security” while increasingly being deployed for domestic disaster relief.

In 2010, the Canadian Armed Forces was deployed to perform relief for a natural disaster just once. In 2023, by contrast,

it happened eight times

.

 

IN OTHER NEWS

Canada Day saw

another 83 people

added to the rolls of the Order of Canada. They include renowned harmonicist Mike Stevens, actor Ryan Reynolds and MMA fighter Georges St-Pierre. But

probably the most controversial entry is Bonnie Henry

, B.C.’s current Provincial Health Officer. B.C.’s main opposition party, the B.C. Conservatives, have been calling for her firing since 2023, accusing her of both 

overzealous adherence to COVID-19 strictures

 and of championing harm reduction measures that are “

promoting fentanyl use

.”

Get all of these insights and more into your inbox by signing up for the First Reading newsletter.

• Girl, 5, who fell off Disney cruise ship into ocean was ‘not being held’ on railing by father, authorities say
• Airplane plunges 8 km in less than 10 mins; passengers get $142 in compensation

By Ches W. Parsons and Sheryl Saperia

On Oct. 15, 2024, Canada finally added Samidoun to its list of terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. Many observers had long called for this important step, given the group’s well-documented ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a terrorist organization listed in Canada since 2003. The designation came only after mounting public pressure and disturbing events, including a Vancouver rally in which Samidoun-affiliated demonstrators chanted “Death to Canada” and burned our national flag.

Rather than signalling a firm stance against terrorism, the delayed listing highlighted Canada’s reluctance to act until the political cost of inaction became too high. To make matters worse, eight months later, Samidoun continues to enjoy the privileges of a federally registered non-profit.

As Sen. Leo Housakos

pointed out

last week, this contradiction undermines the very purpose of the terrorist designation process. How can a group be banned for terrorist activity while simultaneously maintaining legal status as a non-profit corporation under Canadian law? The answer lies in the fragmented structure of Canada’s counterterrorism and regulatory systems.

While terrorist listings are administered by Public Safety Canada under criminal law, non-profit status falls under Corporations Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency — separate bodies with distinct mandates, timelines, and evidentiary thresholds. A terrorist designation does not automatically trigger the revocation of a group’s corporate or non-profit status, as it should.

Far from being a bureaucratic technicality, this disconnect has real-world implications. It allows listed entities like Samidoun to continue to benefit from the legal protections and legitimacy of a registered non-profit, even as their assets are meant to be frozen and their activities shut down. The longer Samidoun retains its status, the more it casts doubt on Canada’s resolve — and capability — to enforce its own national security laws.

Samidoun has operated openly in Canada for years, despite credible concerns about its affiliations and activities. Political and bureaucratic reluctance kept it off the terrorist list until public outrage erupted. Even now, no charges have been announced in Canada against key figures like

Charlotte Kates

 or

Khaled Barakat

, despite their prominent roles in the organization.

As far back as 2016, Barakat publicly shared in a video interview: “I am here to express the views of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.” Israeli authorities have reported that he has been involved in establishing terrorist cells in the West Bank and abroad. His wife, Kates, publicly applauds Hamas as “heroic and brave” and proudly attended the funeral of slain Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut last year. None of this information is a secret to Canadian authorities.

In theory, terrorist designations should empower law enforcement to take clear actions. In practice, they appear to be used more for signalling than for systematically dismantling threats.

The issue is not a lack of legal authority. Canada has strong mechanisms on paper: designated groups cannot hold or use property, receive financial support or facilitate travel and recruitment. Banks are required to freeze their accounts.

There remain some gaps in the law. This includes the fact that membership in a terrorist group is not in itself illegal — nor is the glorification of terrorist violence (which is outlawed in the U.K.).

But in enforcing existing laws, the lack of integration between Public Safety, Corporations Canada and the CRA creates a loophole that delays meaningful enforcement. That delay erodes public confidence and gives dangerous individuals with room to manoeuvre.

It also renders the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act even more essential legislation — as Canadian terror victims can turn to civil lawsuits to find justice when the authorities have failed to do so. Indeed, some Canadian family members of October 7 victims have filed a lawsuit against several defendants including Samidoun, Kates and Barakat.

Canada is not alone in recognizing the threat posed by Samidoun. The group has been banned in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as labelled a sham charity by U.S. authorities. Canada should be a leader in this space, not a laggard. We cannot afford for terrorist listings to be seen as symbolic gestures without real consequences.

It’s time for reform. The government should establish a streamlined process to ensure that once a group is listed as a terrorist entity, it triggers a whole-of-government response to sanction the organization. This includes ensuring its non-profit status is immediately reviewed and — where appropriate — revoked. Inter-agency co-ordination must be improved so that criminal law and administrative oversight are not operating in silos.

National security cannot be selectively applied. If we are serious about combating terrorism, we must ensure that our enforcement measures are not only robust in theory, but swift and seamless in practice.

Special to National Post

Ches W. Parsons is a retired Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP and its former Director General of National Security. Sheryl Saperia is CEO of Secure Canada, a non-profit dedicated to combating terrorism, extremism and related national security threats.

• Samidoun doubles down, says ‘death to Canada’ an accurate summation of its goals
• Jesse Kline: The Canadian terrorist supporter who Iran loves