LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A suburban Milwaukee businessman, former Navy SEAL and political newcomer entered Wisconsin’s race for governor Wednesday, likening himself to President Donald Trump and promising a “Wisconsin First” agenda.

Bill Berrien, 56, becomes the second Republican to announce for the 2026 contest. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, 73, has not yet said whether he will seek a third term, but indicated this week he will announce his decision this month.

But that didn’t stop Berrien from taking aim at Evers in his campaign launch video, calling the two-term governor a failure who has encouraged illegal immigration and “welcomed boys into our daughters’ sports and locker rooms.”

Berrien joins Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann as the only announced candidates for the race. This is Berrien’s first race for office and it’s the first statewide campaign for both he and Schoemann.

In his campaign launch video, Berrien walks in front of a tank and footage of Trump is shown after he was shot as Berrien talks about having a “fighting spirit.”

“I’m an outsider and businessman just like President Trump and I’ll shake up Madison like he’s shaking up D.C.,” Berrien said.

Berrien promised to cut taxes as he accused Evers and Democrats of wanting to raise taxes. But just last week, Evers signed a state budget that cuts taxes by $1.5 billion.

Berrien also faulted Evers for opposing mass deportations and vetoing a bill that would have barred transgender people from playing on girls and women sports teams. Berrien pledged to sign that ban. He also promised to increase wages, support police and make Wisconsin “a manufacturing powerhouse.”

Berrien also faulted Evers for proposing to change state law related to the legal rights of children of same-sex couples who are born through in vitro fertilization, sperm donors or surrogates. Evers wanted to replace the words “woman,” “mother” and “wife” with variations or “person who is inseminated” or “inseminated person.”

Republicans removed the wording changes before passing the budget Evers signed into law.

A spokesperson for Evers declined to comment on Berrien’s campaign launch.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Devin Remiker said Democrats will be ready to defeat “whoever Trump handpicks to do his bidding in the primary and emerges as the nominee.”

Remiker said Democrats were building on their playbook that resulted in wins for a hotly contested state Supreme Court seat in April, the U.S. Senate race last year and the governor’s race in 2022.

Berrien served nine years as a Navy SEAL and has been owner and CEO of Pindel Global Precision and Liberty Precision, manufacturers of precision-machined components in New Berlin, for the past 13 years. He is married and has two children.

Berrien formed a political action committee earlier this year that has raised $1.2 million since April.

Numerous other Republicans are considering a run for governor next year, including U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents northern Wisconsin, state Senate President Mary Felzowski and two-time losing U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde, a Madison businessman.

Scott Bauer, The Associated Press


After months of promises to overhaul or eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency, President Donald Trump is touting a fast and robust federal response to the devastating Texas floods. One former agency leader says it’s “a defining event that can help them realize that a Federal Emergency Management Agency is essential.”

Trump also teased that he’ll declare more tariffs against U.S. trading partners ahead of his latest Aug. 1 deadline for negotiations. The 27-member European Union hopes to seal a trade deal ahead of that date, and meanwhile is preparing retaliatory measures against American products, from beef to Boeing jets.

The Latest:

Russia says threat of US tariffs against BRICS violate free trade principles

Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused the U.S. Wednesday of hinting at potential tariffs against the trade alliance of Brazil, Russia, India and China as a form of political pressure.

Spokesperson Maria Zakharova said unilaterally applying such tariffs would destroy the existing architecture for international economic cooperation. She accused Washington of “hiding” behind principles such as fair competition and national security.

Trump’s threat “grossly violates the rules of the WTO and the principles of free trade, which, until recently, Washington insisted on as a universal truth,” Zakharova told journalists.

Trump teases more letters on trade being sent to US trading partners Wednesday

“We will be releasing a minimum of 7 Countries having to do with trade, tomorrow morning, with an additional number of Countries being released in the afternoon,” the president said Tuesday night in a post on his social platform.

Trump has for several days teased letters listing tariffs that the administration plans to impose on different countries — even as it also continues to negotiate trade deals. So far, Trump’s trade blitz has produced lots of uncertainty but deals with just two countries — the United Kingdom and Vietnam.

▶ Read more about the state of play on Trump’s tariffs

Trump avoids talk of scrapping FEMA after more than 100 killed in Texas flash flood

The president has avoided talking about his plan to scrap the federal disaster response agency after the catastrophic flash flood in Texas that killed more than 100 people, including children attending a girls-only camp.

Asked shortly after the disaster whether he still intended to phase out the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Trump said it wasn’t the right time to talk about it. Nor did he mention such plans during a nearly two-hour meeting with his Cabinet on Tuesday.

Instead Trump opened the meeting by having Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem talk about her visit to Kerrville, Texas, a day after floodwaters swept away riverside campers and homeowners in the wee hours of the Fourth of July holiday.

▶ Read more about Trump, FEMA and the Texas floods

The Associated Press


Three men in suits sit at a desk in front of a large wooden door.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is enacting a cross-departmental review of all regulations starting Wednesday, a measure he promised during the federal election campaign.


TORONTO — A regulator-led survey of Ontario mutual fund dealers based out of big banks shows a sizable minority are not always acting in the interest of clients.

The survey of close to 3,000 dealers by the Ontario Securities Commission and the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization found that 25 per cent say they have at least sometimes recommended products or services to clients that are not in their interest.

OSC chief executive Grant Vingoe says the results of the survey show sales pressures and compensation incentives may be driving concerning behaviour.

The regulator launched the study in response to a CBC investigation last year that alleged bank sales targets were leading dealers to pressure customers to sign up for financial products they didn’t need.

The survey found 23 per cent of dealers agreed there is high pressure to sell potentially unneeded products or services, while 60 per cent disagreed with the statement.

The OSC says next steps in its review include learning more about the sales practices in place at banks, and understanding the controls dealers have to address any material conflicts of interest.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 9, 2025.

The Canadian Press


A for sale sign is seen in front of a home on June 22, 2016 in Miami, Florida.

There has been a nationwide effort among Canadians to

buy local

and

travel domestically this year

, as a strained relationship with the United States continues. And now, a new report is suggesting that the number of Canadians interested in U.S. real estate has declined.

Nearly 30 per cent fewer Canadians searched for properties to buy or rent in the U.S. this May, compared to last year, according to a

report by real estate company RedFin

. The decline began in February. That was around the same time tensions were rising between the neighbouring countries, sparked by U.S. President Donald Trump’s heated rhetoric about Canada becoming the 51st state and the beginning of a trade war, when 25 per cent tariffs were implemented on Canadian goods going to the U.S.

“The Canadian dollar has been relatively weak this spring, making it harder for Canadians to afford already-expensive U.S. real estate,” RedFin said in its report.

The steepest drop came in April, when Canadian searches for U.S. homes fell by 34.2 per cent year over year.

The decline has affected 48 of the largest metro areas in the United States, according to RedFin. That includes Canadians searching for homes in Houston, which dropped 55.2 per cent year over year in May, as well as Philadelphia, by 53 per cent, and Chicago, by 47 per cent.

The report also noted that the housing market in Florida for both American and Canadian buyers “has cooled.” The state is a popular destination for Canadian snowbirds. In April, lawmakers in the U.S., including a Florida congresswoman,

cosponsored a bill that would allow Canadian snowbirds to visit for longer

. The report cited the lack of interest in the state was likely due to

a surge in insurance costs

in its coastal regions as well as intensifying climate disasters.

Canadians searching for homes in Miami and Orlando declined by about 30 per cent year over year in May, the report said.

Canadians have made up a large portion of international buyers in the United States. In 2024, they were listed as the top foreign buyers — at 13 per cent — spending US$5.9 billion,

according to the National Association of Realtors

.

The head of economics research for Redfin Chen Zhao told National Post in an emailed statement on Tuesday that the U.S. real estate market is “already weak.” She added that it has had historically low sales volume for the past three years and prices are starting to fall in many parts of the country.

“If Canadian demand continues to fall, then that means further weakness for the U.S. real estate market,” she said. “The importance of Canadian buyers will vary by geography, so the impact will be large in places like Florida, Palm Springs in California, Texas and Arizona.”

Zhao said she found it “striking” how the decrease in interest lined up so well with tariff volatility.

“The White House first announced tariffs on Canada at the beginning of February, and there was a sharp decline from January to February in traffic from Canada,” she said. “I think that it will take some time for the sentiment to change. Canadians will need to no longer feel like the U.S. is treating them unfairly in its trade policy.”

The percentages in the technology-based real estate brokerage’s report were calculated based on Redfin.com unique users located in Canada who conducted online searches of homes for sale and for rent in the U.S. Unique users refer to the “number of different people who access U.S. home listings” on the site or the app “within a defined period,” according to RedFin. The user is counted one time for that period.

The latest data from Statistics Canada shows that travel to the U.S. from Canadian airports has also been on

a downward trend

. In May, for the fourth consecutive month, the number of passengers on flights to the U.S. decreased year over year by 8.2 per cent.

Meanwhile, Canada’s largest airports saw higher volumes of passenger traffic. International travel, excluding the U.S., was on the rise — up 4.3 per cent this May, compared to 2024.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


U.S. President Donald Trump's erratic behaviour and threats have created huge uncertainty in markets, for producers, investors and consumers alike, writes Derek H. Burney.

In a fit of blatant intimidation, Donald Trump abruptly announced on June 27 that he was suspending trade talks with Canada immediately. The U.S. president also threatened to impose additional tariffs within seven days. In an interview with Fox News, he explained his decision saying, “People don’t realize Canada’s

very nasty

to deal with … There’s been things going on that we don’t like and things where they took advantage.”

The specific targets for Trump’s outburst were a three per cent

Digital Services Tax

(DST) on revenues above $20 million for big tech companies, due to go into effect on June 30, and what the president claimed were tariffs of “almost 400 per cent” against U.S. dairy exports. Despite Trump’s lament, no U.S. exporter has ever paid a 400 per cent tariff on dairy products, which are limited instead by an explicit quota negotiated in CUSMA (Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement) as a trade-off for similar quota limitations on U.S. imports of sugar and sugar-containing products.

When Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on June 29 that Canada would rescind the DST, it seemed an abject capitulation to Trump’s threats, especially when the White House declared that Carney had

“caved”

on the tax. Subsequently it was suggested that the about-face was likely in exchange for the Trump administration dropping a “revenge” tax provision from Congress’s “Big Beautiful Bill” — a measure that would have imposed tens of billions of dollars in taxes on profits of Canadian companies investing in the U.S. While little is known about the substance of the trade talks to date, both topics were obviously discussed. Canada is also undoubtedly seeking relief from crippling tariffs unlawfully imposed, notably the 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum, while isolating other issues to a renewal of CUSMA (also known as USMCA) sometime next year.

In his latest tirade, Trump also repeated his “51st state” desire, “because Canada relies entirely on the U.S. We don’t rely on Canada.” Given that perverse attitude, Canada should demonstrate just how false his claim is. We should use the threat of a 25 per cent surcharge on potash, uranium, oil and electricity exports — all of which are vital to America’s economy — as leverage to set the record straight.

Trump’s tariff rhetoric is not always matched by his erratic start/stop deeds, especially on China, causing some to label him as the “TACO (‘Trump Always Chickens Out’ on tariffs) president.” Regardless, by violating both basic World Trade Organization (WTO) principles and agreements that his administration concluded, he is creating huge chaos and uncertainty in markets, for producers, investors and consumers alike. A return to some semblance of normalcy on trade would be welcome.

Canada should be wary about entering into any renewal of CUSMA given that the original agreement has been flagrantly violated by the U.S. The element of mutual trust essential to any international agreement has evaporated.

It is not easy to deal with a leader who acts like a schoolyard bully, believing that “might is right” and justifying any unilateral penalties as necessary because America’s trading partners are “ripping it off.” As if!

Regrettably, we have not seen much pushback from Congress on Trump’s blunderbuss approach to America’s northern neighbour nor from U.S. CEOs having a major stake in Canada’s economy. His actions have shattered many illusions Canadians had about America. The friendship and trust that provided economic and security dividends to both partners for more than a century may weather the Trump storm, but we should prudently “stand on guard,” signalling our intent to hit back where it will hurt America and provoke a more balanced dialogue and agreement. Trump’s antics have ignited an unprecedented outpouring of “Elbows Up” pride and patriotism in Canada. But the decision by Alberta and Saskatchewan to lift the ban on U.S. alcohol sales mocks any notion of a Team Canada approach to U.S. trade.

The Trump administration now claims that it will conclude many trade agreements before Labour Day. So far it has two — Britain and Vietnam. Trump’s tariff pause will expire on July 9, but most trade experts continue to question the efficacy of his obsession with tariffs.

Trump should be relishing the commitment he has gained from NATO allies to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP. He might bask, too, in the wake of America’s spectacular B-2 bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the real damage of which has yet to be corroborated.

The president succeeded in bulldozing his “Big, Beautiful Bill” through Congress delivering on many of his campaign promises — reinstating the 2017 tax cuts along with no taxes on tips, overtime and social security; a stronger border; and massive energy development. The hope is that these will prompt stronger economic growth, discount some increases to the deficit, and bolster Republican prospects for the 2026 midterm elections. He also won verdicts from the Supreme Court that at least partially vindicated his use of executive power. Trump has an unquenchable thirst for praise, which he received on all of these.

His strong position on the border and illegal immigration remain popular but America’s economic performance will ultimately determine his political fate.

Trump’s aggressively unilateral behaviour is partly attributable to the fact that he will not run again for president and has few guardrails constraining his actions. He demands and receives absolute loyalty from his administration and, thus far, from almost all Republicans in Congress. The chaotic state of the Democratic party only encourages his assertions of executive power.

Inexplicably, Trump continues to placate Russian President Vladimir Putin while weakening U.S. military assistance to Ukraine — a position that is morally and strategically dubious. Following his most recent phone call with Putin, Russia launched its largest ever

drone attack

on Kyiv.

Jake Sullivan, who served as Joe Biden’s national security adviser, recently lamented that Trump’s “America First” foreign policy is undermining U.S. core advantages, specifically the strength of its alliances. Instead of working together to “de-risk” from China, he suggested that many longtime allies in Europe and Asia are now focused on

“de-risking” from the U.S.

Trump’s integrity lapses add stress to an already precarious world.

National Post

Derek H. Burney is a former 30-year career diplomat who served as Ambassador to the United States of America from 1989 to 1993.


An EV charging station in Vancouver sits empty as people fill their tanks with gas in 2024.

Of all the coercive environmental policies implemented by the Trudeau government, the electric vehicle mandate was among the worst, but Prime Minister Mark Carney has been mum on whether Ottawa still intends to force Canadians to ride around in souped-up Power Wheels.

As industry and consumers have been putting pressure on the federal government to scrap the mandate — which will require 20 per cent of all new cars and trucks sold in this country to be zero-emission by next year, increasing to 100 per cent in 2035 — last week, the federal government offered a faint glimmer of hope that it may rethink this choice-limiting policy.

Following a meeting between Carney and the CEOs of Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, a spokesperson for the environment minister

told the Post

that Ottawa is “engaging with the provinces, territories and industry to make sure that our measures reflect times we are in.”

It’s admittedly not much to go on, but there should be no doubt that much has changed since the Liberals introduced the EV mandate in late 2023. When Environment Canada announced the

new regulations

, it said they were designed to “ensure that the supply of (EVs) being sold in Canada keeps up with consumer demand,” while paradoxically promising that the move would “enhance choice.”

But a year and a half later, that demand has failed to materialize. According to a

Transport Canada report

from last year, even in the absence of a government mandate, automakers had “significantly increased and continue to invest in their (EV) manufacturing output,” leading to “significant inventory improvements.”

Yet,

per Statistics Canada

, EVs — which include those powered by electricity, hydrogen and hybrid engines — made up just 7.5 per cent of all new vehicles sold in April, a decline of 28.5 per cent from the same period in 2024.

Part of this decline may be due to the loss of the $5,000 subsidy Ottawa was offering to EV buyers, after the government ran through its $3-billion budget to help rich people put fancy new Teslas in their driveways in January. But it puts a lie to the idea that Canadians would be buying EVs in droves, if only automakers were willing to sell them.

If the mandate is going to be updated to “reflect” current circumstances, it also needs to take into account changes that have been taking place south of the border.

In the United States, sales have been

slumping

, as well, despite deep discounts offered by carmakers, with some EVs selling for noticeably less than their gas-powered alternatives, and most government supports still in place.

When the Liberals announced the new regulations, they noted that California also had a plan to require all new vehicles to be electric by 2035 and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had proposed emissions standards designed to encourage EV adoption.

However, since then, Congress passed a resolution

overturning California’s rules

and the Trump administration is

looking to scrap

the EPA’s new standards.

Meanwhile, Canada’s auto manufacturers have been hit hard by the trade war with the U.S., as President Donald Trump seeks to unravel the integrated North American auto market, leaving them wondering why Ottawa would kneecap them even further with targets they have little hope of actually hitting.

Like most Liberal environmental policies, the EV mandate will cause a lot of pain for very minimal gain. Canadian governments have already pumped

nearly $45 billion

into EV battery plants, which is likely the main reason the Liberals are hesitant about scrapping the mandate.

Attempting to make these cars more appealing has also come at a considerable expense to taxpayers, with federal and provincial governments spending billions of dollars on EV rebates and charging infrastructure.

And yet, the fact remains that Canada produces less than

1.5 per cent

of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we all traded in all our gas-powered cars for EVs and started eating tofu instead of steak, it still wouldn’t have a noticeable impact on global temperatures.

If the Liberals are serious about having a policy that reflects current circumstances, they need to realize that in a time of economic uncertainty and strained relations with our largest trading partner, they can no longer afford niche policies that put Canadian industry at a competitive disadvantage.

The problem is not EVs themselves — I know a lot of people who swear by their hybrid or electric cars — it’s that the government has been trying to force their adoption by spending billions of dollars we don’t have, rather than giving the free market space to perfect the technology and provide products that consumers actually want to buy.

After wasting so much money bribing companies to build battery plants here, it’s easy to see why the government would use all the tools at its disposal to ensure they’re financially viable — including forcing Canadians to buy them and slapping 100 per cent tariffs on cheap

Chinese vehicles

that could help us reach our climate targets without draining the public treasury.

But at some point the Liberals need to come to grips with the fact that trying to centrally plan the auto market was folly to begin with. They need to start cutting their losses and focusing on giving private companies the space to grow their businesses — starting with scrapping the foolish EV mandate.

National Post

jkline@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/accessd


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and his advisers promised a lightning round of global trade negotiations with dozens of countries back in April.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro predicted “90 deals in 90 days.’’ Administration officials declared that other countries were desperate to make concessions to avoid the massive import taxes – tariffs — that Trump was threatening to plaster on their products starting July 9.

But the 90 days have come and gone. And the tally of trade deals stands at two – one with the United Kingdom and one with Vietnam. Trump has also announced the framework for a deal with China, the details of which remain fuzzy.

Trump has now extended the deadline for negotiations to Aug. 1 and tinkered with his threatened tariffs, leaving the global trading system pretty much where it stood three months ago — in a state of limbo as businesses delay decisions on investments, contracts and hiring because they don’t know what the rules will be.

“It’s a rerun, basically,’’ said William Reinsch, a former U.S. trade official who’s now an adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. Trump and his team “don’t have the deals they want. So they’re piling on the threats.”

The pattern has repeated itself enough times to earn Trump the label TACO — an acronym coined by The Financial Times’ Robert Armstrong that stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

“This is classic Trump: Threaten, threaten more, but then extend the deadline,” Reinsch said. “July 30 arrives, does he do it again if he still doesn’t have the deals?’’ (Trump said Tuesday that there will be no more extensions.)

The deal drought represents a collision with reality.

Negotiating simultaneously with every country on earth was always an impossible task, as Trump himself belatedly admitted last month in an interview with the Fox News Channel. (“There’s 200 countries,’’ the president said. “You can’t talk to all of them.’’) And many trading partners — such as Japan and the European Union — were always likely to balk at Trump’s demands, at least without getting something in return.

“It’s really, really hard to negotiate trade agreements,” which usually takes several months even when it involves just one country or a small regional group, said Chad Bown, an economic adviser in the Obama White House and now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “What the administration is doing is negotiating a bunch of these at the same time.’’

The drama began April 2 – “Liberation Day,” Trump called it — when the tariff-loving president announced a so-called baseline 10% import tax on everybody and what he called “reciprocal’’ levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits.

The 10% baseline tariffs appear to be here to stay. Trump needs them to raise money to patch the hole his massive tax-cut bill is blasting into the federal budget deficit.

By themselves, the baseline tariffs represent a massive shift in American trade policy: Tariffs averaged around 2.5% when Trump returned to the White House and were even lower before he started raising them in his first term.

But the reciprocal tariffs are an even bigger deal.

In announcing them, Trump effectively blew up the rules governing world trade. For decades, the United States and most other countries abided by tariff rates set through a series of complex negotiations known as the Uruguay round. Countries could set their own tariffs – but under the “most favored nation’’ approach, they couldn’t charge one country more than they charged another.

Now Trump is setting the tariff rates himself, creating “tailor-made trade plans for each and every country on this planet,’’ in the words of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

But investors have recoiled at the audacious plan, fearing that it will disrupt trade and damage the world economy. Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs, for instance, set off a four-day rout in global financial markets. Trump blinked. Less than 13 hours after the reciprocal tariffs took effect April 9, he abruptly suspended them for 90 days, giving countries time to negotiate with his trade team.

Despite the Trump administration’s expressions of confidence, the talks turned into a slog.

“Countries have their own politics, their own domestic politics,” Reinsch said. “Trump structured this ideally so that all the concessions are made by the other guys and the only U.S. concession is: We don’t impose the tariffs.’’

But countries like South Korea and Japan needed “to come back with something,’’ he said. Their thinking: “We have to get some concessions out of the United States to make it look like this is a win-win agreement and not a we-fold-and-surrender agreement. ”

Japan, for example, wanted relief from another Trump tariff — 50% levies on steel and aluminum.

Countries may also be hesitant to reach a deal with the United States while the Trump administration conducts investigations that might result in new tariffs on a range of products, including pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.

Frustrated by the lack of progress, Trump on Monday sent letters to Japan, South Korea and 12 other countries, saying he’d hit them with tariffs Aug. 1 if they couldn’t reach an agreement. The levies were close to what he’d announced on April 2; Japan’s, for example, would be 25%, compared to the 24% unveiled April 2.

Trump did sign an agreement last month with the United Kingdom that, among other provisions, reduced U.S. tariffs on British automotive and aerospace products while opening the U.K. market for American beef and ethanol. But the pact kept the baseline tariff on British products mostly in place, underlining Trump’s commitment to the 10% tax despite the United States running a trade surplus — not a deficit — with the U.K. for 19 straight years, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.

On July 2. Trump announced a deal with Vietnam. The Vietnamese agreed to let U.S. products into the country duty free while accepting a 20% tax on their exports to the United States, Trump said, though details of the agreement have not been released.

The lopsided deal with Vietnam suggests that Trump can successfully use the tariff threat to bully concessions out of smaller economies.

“They just can’t really negotiate in the same way that the (European Union) or Korea or Japan (or) Canada can negotiate with the United States,’’ said Dan McCarthy, principal in McCarthy Consulting and a former official with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in the Biden administration. “A lot of (smaller) countries just want to get out of this and are willing to cut their losses.’’

But wrangling a deal with bigger trading partners is likely to remain tougher.

“The U.S. is gambling that these countries will ultimately be intimidated and fold,” Reinsch said. “And the countries are gambling that the longer this stretches out, and the longer it goes without Trump producing any more deals, the more desperate he gets; and he lowers his standards.

“It’s kind of a giant game of chicken.’’

Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press






Over 1000 people filled the plaza in front of Calgary City Hall to rally in protest of newly announced Alberta policies regarding children and LGBTQ+ rights on Saturday, February 3, 2024.

Until further notice, transgender medical treatments for minors will continue in Alberta.

In December, Alberta amended its Health Professions Act to prohibit doctors from prescribing hormone therapy and puberty-suppressing drugs to minors in the course of treating gender-related psychological disorders. The law hadn’t come into force, however, and the government was planning to release an order allowing exceptions to the rule.

Before any of these rules, or exceptions, could kick in, Egale Canada, a charity that is 71 per cent government-

funded

and now functions as the feds’ unofficial LGBT litigation department, won an injunction on June 27 that put everything on pause until a constitutional challenge has been heard out.

The reason? The judge handling the case, Allison Kuntz,

appointed

to the Court of King’s Bench by Justin Trudeau in 2023, was convinced that age-based restrictions on cosmetic hormone treatments would cause transgender youth all sorts of harm.

“The evidence shows that the Ban will cause irreparable harm by causing gender diverse youth to experience permanent changes to their body that do not align with their gender identity,” she

wrote

.

Legal restrictions on these treatments would single out “gender diverse youth … by reinforcing the discrimination and prejudice that they are already subjected to” and “signal that there is something wrong with or suspect about having a gender identity that is different than the sex you were assigned at birth.”

The Alberta government had argued, in 183 pages, that the evidence for hormonal cosmetics was unclear, and that the risk of harm that came with providing such treatments to minors warranted legal limits. It called four Alberta doctors to testify, along with three detransitioners; as part of its large pile of evidence pointing to the lack of scientific support for cross-sex medical treatments for minors, it cited the United Kingdom’s Cass Review and other European studies.

Puberty suppression, argued the government, made later transgender-related surgeries more dangerous despite making no detectable impact on the mental health of youth patients; for cross-sex hormones, they, too, were rife with risks.

“All minors with a (gender dysphoria or gender incongruence) diagnosis benefit from being shielded . . . from assuming significant and potentially life-altering risks of harm when they are at a stage of development at which they cannot fully understand or independently consent to assuming these risks,” read the

government’s brief

, which added that puberty itself might help a minor avoid a gender-disorder-related diagnosis.

The big-picture concerns were to be grappled with later on in the challenge, however: in granting an injunction, the judge considered only the potential harm that could be experienced by transgender youth receiving treatment.

The medical risks were of little interest: in the immediate term, she was primarily concerned about not limiting the choice of trans youth. She was clearly moved by the children who

joined

Egale Canada in the challenge: these included one 11-year-old male who was socially transitioned at age three, a 10-year-old male who’d been identifying as agender since Kindergarten, and a 12-year-old male, currently on puberty blockers, who had wanted to become a woman after seeing the film Moana.

In the judge’s view, the only people who would benefit from the government’s treatment restrictions were the minority of youth transitioners who would grow to regret their transition. Most trans youth, she figured, were better off under the status quo, with the province’s professional standards for doctors serving as their primary safeguard.

“I accept that some patients and their parents may have had a different experience and believe that treatment was initiated hastily and without a full understanding of the consequences,” she wrote.

“However, based on my assessment of the evidence it would be a stretch to conclude that because that may have been the experience of some, every doctor who practices gender affirming care has abdicated their responsibilities and are choosing to ignore the strength of the science regarding gender affirming care such that the Ban is necessary to protect the public good.”

It appeared early on in the decision, long before the judge reached her conclusion, that she favoured the gender ideology of the progressive left: “From the age of kindergarten and before they expressed a gender that was different from the sex they were assigned at birth,” she wrote, seeming to agree with the idea of biological sex as an irrational label applied to the freshly born.

And here is Alberta’s problem: even with a growing body of evidence that calls cosmetic hormonal interventions for minors into question, even though objective reality is on its side, Canada has a culture of relying on established professional standards and keeping politicians out of doctors’ offices.

Both Alberta and Egale Canada agreed that the “prevailing sources of clinical guidance” included the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which supports a
radical affirmation model
and is known for
questionable, activist-corrupted research practices
, and the Canadian Pediatric Society, which supports the WPATH guidelines.

The judge was inclined to accept their positions as dogma with some light persuasion from Egale and its litigation partner, the Calgary-based Skipping Stone foundation (which is 40 per cent

funded

by government, and 20 per cent funded by other charities). As for why it takes so little persuasion, well, the Supreme Court of Canada has been

endorsing

gender ideology since 2023.

Alberta isn’t just fighting a few activists: it’s going up against a federal government that acts indirectly, through judicial appointments and generous cash handouts to ideologically aligned charities. There were always going to be losses along the way; what will ultimately count is whether Premier Danielle Smith decides to draw the notwithstanding clause from its holster.

National Post


U.S. President Donald Trump, back left, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attend a dinner in the White House in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

SDEROT, Israel — For the third time since U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has travelled to Washington, D.C., for what is certain to be a few days of very intense discussions and negotiations.

Expectations by all parties are high. The president has been clear that he would like to announce a big peace deal by the end of the week — even if it’s just a partial deal, meaning that some Hamas hostages remain in their underground torture chambers, indefinitely, along with the bodies of murdered Israelis.

But at what cost? Hamas, which is said by military analysts to be nearing the point of collapse, has lost control of much of the territory of Gaza, along with the food supply. Its cash reserves are depleted, and the organization is unable to pay most of its workers — whether fighters or those employed in civilian capacities.

Responding late on Monday to the joint American-Israeli proposal for a partial ceasefire and hostage-release deal, Hamas added some new conditions that it knows Israel will not accept.

Each party has its red lines. Hamas is determined to remain in power. Whether it’s a bankrupt government loathed by the civilian population is unimportant to Hamas’s leadership. They must survive this almost two-year war against the greatest military power in the region. That, for them, would be a victory.

Israel, of course, is firmly entrenched at the opposite end of that spectrum, having made clear that the destruction of Hamas is a paramount goal of this war. Exactly what that overused phrase means is unclear. “Total victory” has become Netanyahu’s mantra.

He is also facing intense domestic pressure to finally bring all the hostages home — at once. No more of these torturous, staggered releases. Domestic pressure in Israel on this issue is explosive. The continued captivity of hostages is a humiliation, and one that Hamas exploits brilliantly. The hostages are Hamas’s most powerful weapon with which to strike Israel.

In a pre-dinner chat at the White House on Monday night — with the press in attendance — Netanyahu made clear that he would not accept a Palestinian state that could in any way harm Israel militarily.

Hamas is also

standing firm

on its demand that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation should no longer be allowed to control the distribution of humanitarian aid within the Strip. Israel is unbending on that issue, as the previous system allowed Hamas to pilfer aid, strengthening it significantly. Food, in the Strip, is power.

President Trump is a guy who likes to make deals. He likes to close. He hates war and suffering and has become somewhat personally involved in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Numerous hostages and their families have paid Trump a visit after they were released, and he welcomed them so graciously. It’s a side of the president that few manage to see — warm, connected, sincere.

When

Edan Alexander

, a 21-year-old American-Israeli IDF soldier who was recently released from Hamas captivity visited Trump in the Oval Office last Thursday, Steve Witkoff, America’s special envoy to the Middle East, was also present. Witkoff asked Alexander to tell Trump how his conditions changed following the November election in the United States.

“They moved me to a new place, a good place,” Alexander said. “People did everything. They treated me really well.”

Trump revelled in the confirmation that Hamas feared him, quipping: “They weren’t too afraid of Biden.” Alexander quickly agreed.

By the end of this week, Trump wants a deal. A big, beautiful deal that will usher in a significant expansion of the Abraham Accords, perhaps announcing that negotiations will include Lebanon and Syria, which would be groundbreaking.

The jewel in the Middle Eastern crown — Saudi Arabia — will likely hold back, as it has indicated consistently. The Saudis will condition their embrace of a new Middle East security and economic order on the end of the war between Israel and Hamas.

It will thus fall to Witkoff to work his magic in Doha and find a way to bridge the critical gap between Hamas and Israel. That would likely involve the first stage of a ceasefire, partial Israeli withdrawal and the phased release of living and dead hostages. Trump would take that as a win at this point.

The final stretch will be the toughest. Hamas will continue to hold living hostages, as they are its only leverage. And Israel will resist committing to a full withdrawal from the Strip with Hamas still standing — even barely — in order to bring them all home.

No one in the region — aside from Iran, Hezbollah and, one has to assume, Qatar — is keen to see Hamas survive. Qatar, of course, is friends with both the United States and Hamas — hosting the largest U.S. military base in the region, while financing and providing a home base to the terrorist organization’s leadership in Doha.

With the flick of a wrist, Qatar could take down Hamas. It has not done so. So we continue with this absurd situation: the battered Hamas terrorist force, which is ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel, is left holding these very powerful aces — human beings.

Waiting on the sidelines is the jewel of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. Only when the dirty details are swept away will the Saudis even consider joining Trump’s big, beautiful plan to bring peace and glory to the Middle East. Steve Witkoff has a big job ahead of him.

National Post

Vivian Bercovici is a former Canadian ambassador to Israel and the founder of www.stateoftelaviv.com, an independent media enterprise..