LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Union workers rally for David Huerta, the president of Service Employees International Union California, who was arrested during a Los Angeles protest, on Monday, June 9, 2025, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

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.


House Republicans are ready to vote on President Donald Trump’s $4.5 trillion tax breaks and spending cuts bill early Thursday after staying up all night with GOP leaders and the president himself working to persuade skeptical holdouts to drop their opposition by his Fourth of July deadline.

Final debates began in the predawn hours after another chaotic day and night at the Capitol following a series of closed-door meetings.

Putting the bill on Trump’s desk would be a milestone for the president and his party as Republicans have the votes to overcome Democratic opposition to a long list of GOP priorities. Trump’s “one big beautiful bill,” an 800-plus page package, is a defining measure of his return to the White House. Read what’s in the full bill for yourself.

Here’s the latest:

What’s in the Big Beautiful Bill Act

At some 887 pages, the legislation includes tax breaks, spending cuts, a rollback of solar energy tax credits, new money for national defense and deportations. The bill does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, despite what Trump says.

The bill rolls back past presidential agendas: In many ways, the package is a repudiation of the agendas of the last two Democratic presidents, a chiseling away at the Medicaid expansion from Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and a pullback of Joe Biden’s climate change strategies in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Congressional Budget Office review: The nonpartisan CBO said Sunday the bill would pile nearly $3.3 trillion onto the nation’s debt load from 2025 to 2034, a nearly $1 trillion increase over the House-passed version of the bill. The analysis also found that 11.8 million Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill passed.

White House: The big bill is kind of like the solution to a bad hair day

With Trump’s spending and tax cut bill nearing passage, the White House is getting creative in pitching it to Americans who haven’t been closely following the debate over the legislation.

The White House late Wednesday dropped a tongue-in-cheek video on social media that includes before and after shots of women who transform flat hair to voluminous bouffants as a narrator ticks off aspects of the bill that she says will make Americans’ lives better.

“Are you tired of government promises falling flat? Do you go through an outrageous amount of stress just trying to get by?” the narrator intones as a woman screams in frustration over her bad hair day. “Then bump it up with ‘one big, beautiful bill’ and get that relief fast and easy.”

By the end of the short video, the screaming woman and others are sporting new hairdos that are markedly more voluminous.

Hakeem Jeffries has been talking for three hours and counting

Republican leadership spent much of the night and early morning persuading a handful of holdouts to support the Senate-approved tax cuts and spending bill. But now, House Speaker Mike Johnson appears to have the votes, and Democrats are standing in the way.

As the House wrapped up its debate over passing Trump’s agenda, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries used a tool known as the “magic minute” that allows leaders unlimited time to speak. He started his address just before 5 a.m. ET. And it’s still going.

“I’m going to take my time,” he said, before launching into a speech criticizing Republicans’ deference to Trump, reading through personal accounts of people concerned about losing their health care coverage, and recounting American history.

Eventually, Jeffries will end his speech, and Republicans will move to final passage of the bill.

The Associated Press





dairy cows feeding

A new law meant to protect supply management might not be enough to shield the system in trade talks with a Trump administration bent on eliminating it, trade experts say.


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney tours military vehicles and meets with Canadian troops of the 4th Canadian Division as he attends a tour of the Fort York Armoury on June 9, 2025 in Toronto, Canada.

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

 As Canada continues to strive for a U.S. trade deal that will end the various tariffs laid against it by U.S. President Donald Trump, Vietnam has provided a somewhat disheartening example of where this could go. Despite securing a similar “deal” this week with the U.S., Vietnam is apparently still being subject to a permanent tariff rate of 20 per cent in exchange for allowing unfettered U.S. access to its own market.

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.


PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Passing a new law restricting assault weapons took Rhode Island lawmakers more than 10 years, but it may offer a road map to other states looking to ease the proliferation of such firearms.

For advocates, the fight is a prime example of the current challenges to passing gun control measures in the U.S., particularly surrounding semiautomatic rifles that have become the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country’s devastating mass shootings.

When Rhode Island’s bill was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Dan McKee late last month, its sponsor, Democratic Rep. Jason Knight, told jubilant supporters: “What was once the impossible became the inevitable.”

How? Persistent advocacy, a change in legislative leadership and a last-minute overhaul to note the broader legal landscape.

What did Rhode Island do?

Rhode Island’s ban, which goes into effect in 2026, prohibits the sale, manufacturing and distribution of certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide. The law does not prohibit possessing such weapons, a key distinction compared with other assault weapon bans enacted elsewhere in the U.S.

Currently, only Washington state has a similar law.

A leadership change helped propel momentum

The assault weapons ban got a much-needed boost from Senate President Valerie Lawson, who secured the Senate’s top spot in the middle of session after her predecessor, Sen. Dominick Ruggiero, died in April. Lawson turned to the bill’s sponsors and others to find common ground between lawmakers in the House and Senate who remained split on how far the law should go.

Lawson’s endorsement was seen as critical to securing the bill’s passage, whereas Ruggiero had previously deferred action, pointing instead to the need for Congress to act rather than a state Legislature taking the lead.

“There are issues at certain points that meet the moment,” Lawson said. “I think it was the time for this.”

Gun control advocates also acknowledged that banning assault weapons in Rhode Island hadn’t previously been a top priority given that the state has largely been spared from national high-profile shootings that sometimes help propel legislative change.

Assault weapons bans consistently face court challenges

In the U.S., just 11 states and Washington D.C. have some sort of prohibition on certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide. Rhode Island’s version is the only one not yet facing a constitutional challenge — though a lawsuit against it is all but assured.

Certain state legal battles are on hold until others make their way through lower federal courts. To date, none of the lawsuits have been completely thrown out, but the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to have the final say.

As Rhode Island lawmakers were in the middle of their gun debate, the high court declined to hear a challenge to Maryland’s assault weapons ban — a move that some of the more conservative justices opposed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh even signaled that laws banning assault weapons are likely unconstitutional.

“Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decision making on the AR–15 issue,” Kavanaugh wrote, referencing a popular style of high-powered rifle.

Yet the legal focus on banning such weapons often hinges on possessing firearms such as AR-15-style rifles and AK-47s, rather than on the distribution process. Rhode Island lawmakers hope that by tailoring their assault weapons ban to sales, manufacturing and distribution, they might will bypass the thorniest legal questions raised by the Second Amendment.

What other states are doing

Attempts to expand Democratic-dominated Hawaii’s assault weapons ban to rifles in addition to pistols stalled this year. In New Mexico, Democratic lawmakers who control the General Assembly adjourned without taking up an assault weapon ban.

In Rhode Island, advocates say their work isn’t over.

“It’s progress,” said Melissa Carden, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence. “But we know that a true assault weapons ban includes an enforceable ban on possession as well.”

Defenders of Rhode Island’s law bristle that their version could be considered weak. They point out that residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will be blocked. That’s because federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned.

“Some of my constituents have already called me and made comments about ‘bad, bad bad, I’m going out and buying three and four of them now,’” said Sen. Louis DiPalma, the Senate sponsor of the statute. “Okay, come July 1st next year, you will not be able to do that anymore.”

Kimberlee Kruesi, The Associated Press






Former kickboxing champion and alleged sex trafficker Andrew Tate has described himself as an unapologetic misogynist.

Boys as young as 11 and 12 are “idolizing and parroting” the misogynistic rhetoric of Andrew Tate and other masculinist influencers at school, posing a risk to women teachers and the girls who witness it, Canadian researchers are reporting.

Tate, a British-American influencer who has amassed more than 10 million followers on social media platforms, and his brother, Tristan Tate, are facing a string of sexual violence and human trafficking charges in the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Romania. Both brothers have denied all allegations against them.

A former kickboxing champion, Tate has described himself as an unapologetic misogynist, women as “inherently lazy” and has suggested women “bear responsibility” for sexual assaults. Since his rise to social media prominence, the alleged sex trafficker’s male supremacism and violent declarations against women have made him a “both reviled and revered” public figure, according to researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Toronto. Despite a “near-total” ban from posting on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube, “Tate’s images, video clips and messages remain easily accessible and almost omnipresent in the feeds of teenage boys and young men,” the researchers wrote in a study published in the journal 

Gender and Education.

Tate was his most popular when the 2022-23 school year launched. His name was the most searched name on Google in July 2022. The researchers set out to explore what impact the influencer’s “brand of new-wave misogyny” was having on teachers and classrooms.

Rather than survey teachers who might be reluctant to speak frankly, they scraped data from a free and open online community of teachers from the social media site Reddit.com. The researchers pulled more than 250,000 posts and comments from a subreddit community from June 1, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, then filtered the dataset down to the 2,364 posts where Andrew Tate was mentioned in the post title or text.

It’s impossible to know how many in the Reddit teachers’ subgroup are Canadian teachers, but the researchers said most posts and comments skewed heavily towards North American classrooms. In addition, two ongoing studies using Canadian datasets are revealing similar sentiments.

“This rhetoric is very much having an impact on teachers and schools,” said co-author Luc Cousineau, co-director of research at the Canadian Institute for Far-Right Studies and faculty at Dalhousie University in Halifax.

Studies out of Australia and the United Kingdom have reached similar conclusions.

“It’s easy to think ‘that’s a young person’s internet culture,’ and not worry too much about it,” Cousineau said.

“Young men are saying, ‘I don’t have to listen to you or respect you’ to their women-identified teachers, solely because they’re women. It’s an old story made new again by this re-invigoration of really overt and strong misogyny.”

Middle and high school teachers, as well as some elementary school ones, reported that boys were “actively parroting male supremacist rhetoric at school,” devaluing women teachers and making classrooms less safe, the study found.

“There were a group of them, all friends, who to the (vice principal’s) face told him that they would only respect/pay attention in classes taught by men and would not behave in classes taught by women,” one teacher posted.

“If they already have trouble respecting someone simply because that person happens to have a vagina, then they aren’t going to listen to that person with a vagina explain how disrespecting people with a vagina is harmful,” another commented.

“Seemingly, ninety per cent of my work is trying to talk white teenage boys off the alt-right ledge,” according to another comment researchers paraphrased using an AI tool because the user didn’t respond to requests to use verbatim quotes.

Another knew of a 7th grade teacher who said the boys in his class “have taken to calling all women and girls ‘holes’ and anybody who is friendly or polite to girls a ‘simp.’”

While some teachers remarked that female students pushed back and called out male classmates for spouting Tate-inspired anti-woman hate, teachers also worried that the rise in misogynistic rhetoric will lead to “tangible safety threats like gender-based violence in schools,” the researchers wrote.

“I had a student write a paper in graphic detail bout (sic) how SA (sexual assault) victims ‘deserved’ it and ‘all women were asking for it’ and a lot of other extremely alarming sentiments,” one user commented. “The paper topic was nowhere close to anything like this, but he wrote it anyway.”

“I’ve never heard such vitriol from young boys since this Andrew Tate guy came on the scene,” another said.

Some teachers suggested that boys were imitating Tate for attention. “That kind of young boy likes to be ironically edgy because they’re testing boundaries…. Since their intention is to insult and appall the more you resist this kind of behaviour, the more it rewards them,” one wrote.

Teachers sometimes said that when they told their administrators a boy had made lewd or sexual comments towards them or other girls it was brushed off as “boys will be boys.”

“Sometimes it’s a little more overt than that,” Cousineau said. “There are some illusions to folks saying, ‘I think my administrator actually agrees with them.’”

“We really wanted to demonstrate this is happening in real time, and it’s having some significant impacts,” he said. “There are real and tangible dangers to continuing to do nothing. Not recognizing this as a real issue allows it to proliferate and continue.”

This isn’t just the immature actions of some boys. “While it is tempting to be reductionist about a problem like this, we have zero social tolerance for overt racism, especially in the classroom. Why should we tolerate identity-focused hate based on gender,” Cousineau said.

Violent misogyny is never fine. “It only takes one violent misogynist to carry out a Toronto Van Attack or another Ecole Polytechnique.”

In 2018, Alex Minassian drove a rented van into pedestrians on a busy sidewalk on Toronto’s Yonge Street, killing 10. Minassian once told a psychiatrist after the attack that he realized his victims were random pedestrians and was “wishing for more females.”

In December 1989, 14 women in a mechanical engineering classroom were killed by gunman Marc Lépine at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique.

How to monitor what kids are exposed to gets into thorny territory, he said. “Do parents know what their kids consume online? Are lots of parents having in-depth, connected conversations with their kids about what they’re consuming and what the implications of that are? Generally, no.”

“These are really hard things to do. But if we don’t know what kids are exposing themselves to, and we’re not engaging with them, that stuff might not come out at home,” Cousineau said. “It might come out at school.”

“We have evidence in this country, and many other places around the world, of the most extreme form of these kinds of violent misogyny, and nihilistic violent misogyny, where young men go out and kill people because of these ideas,” said Cousineau.

Those acts of violence don’t come out of nowhere, Cousineau said. People grow into them. “All of the data we have about radicalized violence show us they develop over time,” he said.

“We need to be addressing it young and at source.”

Emelia Sandau, a master’s student at the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, co-authored the study.

National Post

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.


Charlotte Kates, a co-founder of Vancouver-based Samidoun, which has been declared a terrorist entity by the Canadian government, poses for a photo at the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in February 2025.

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.


A newly installed flag pole stands on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 18, 2025.

Now that Canada’s trade war with America has surged back into public consciousness like a blast from the recent past, a new poll suggests Canadian frustration with and mistrust of the U.S. remains high, despite a slight easing.

In March, for example, polling showed a dramatic realignment of Canadian attitudes toward its southern neighbour. Europe and Britain were suddenly the countries Canadians felt best about, and Canadians were starting to feel about America the way they felt about Russia.

But lately, with U.S. President Donald Trump’s attention mostly elsewhere, there are signs of a slight bump back from this low point, despite troubling news developments like the death of a Canadian citizen in U.S. immigration custody.

More than half of Canadians now say they “no longer feel welcome in the United States,” for example, and this sentiment is strongest among women and older people.

During the recent Canadian election campaign with its looming threat of crippling tariffs and annexation, there was a “worrisome intersection” in the Canadian mind of the American government and the American people, according to Jack Jedwab, president of the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies (ACS).

But in this latest poll, he sees a “healthy development” of Canadian anger and frustration being focused primarily on the American government, and less so the American people.

Back in April, barely one Canadian in five (21 per cent) said they trust Americans in a similar poll. But in the latest poll, that figure has rebounded to 34 per cent, which is historically normal, about the same as it was near the end of Trump’s first term, but still considerably lower than the 59 per cent it reached in October 2023, Jedwab said.

Asked if they trust the United States, the country as opposed to the American people, those numbers drop substantially. A majority of 53 per cent said the country could not be trusted, and only 21 per cent said it could. That distrust is greater among Canadians older than 65. It is also stronger among residents of British Columbia, and lowest among Albertans and Atlantic Canadians.

The poll was taken by Leger for the ACS between June 20 and 22, so it does not reflect Canadian reaction to Donald Trump’s latest cancellation of trade talks last weekend, which prompted Prime Minister Mark Carney to rescind a digital industries tax, which targeted American tech firms, in order to restart negotiations.

But the poll shows a silver lining in an otherwise gloomy picture of this longstanding national friendship, military alliance, and economic partnership.

“We just don’t trust the motivation behind the re-opening of trade,” Jedwab said. “We’re persuaded we’re the kindler, gentler nation, and we’re being bullied by their president.”

Overall, a majority of Canadians feel unwelcome in the United States, the poll suggests. They regard the borders as secure, but 45 per cent of Canadians say the United States is not a trusted security and defence partner, compared to just 32 per cent who say it is.

The poll also shows Canadians overwhelmingly feel Canada’s trade rules for the U.S. are fair, but the U.S. trade rules for Canada are unfair. Fully 75 per cent say American rules governing trade are unfair to Canada, whereas only 12 per cent feel Canada’s rules are unfair.

“I think that trust is the key predictor of Canadians feeling unwelcome in the United States and it also hampers our ability to fix perceived problems between our two countries,” Jedwab said. “The lack of trust a key indicator in trade negotiations and we will need to build or re-build trust if we re going to succeed. That won’t be simple because in effect the U.S. President is not perceived to be a trusted ally by Canadians.”

Despite all that, the poll also shows a majority of Canadians believe they have more in common with Americans than with any other people in the world.

This poll was conducted through an online panel survey, so a margin of error cannot be calculated. But a randomized poll of similar size, with 1,579 respondents, would be considered accurate to within 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

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.


OTTAWA — Canadian advocates are urging Ottawa to protect the 1997 treaty Canada brokered to stop the use of landmines, as six countries on Europe’s eastern flank move toward using the explosive weapons.

“I’m deeply concerned about this,” said Sen. Marilou McPhedran. “Thousands and thousands of lives have been saved because of this treaty.”

Global Affairs Canada says it’s in talks with countries moving away from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, often referred to as the Ottawa Treaty, which since 1999 has banned the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel landmines.

Since then, Canada has spent millions of dollars to help rid the world of landmines that overwhelmingly injure and maim civilians and children, including in Ukraine.

In a statement provided on Wednesday, Global Affairs Canada spokesman Louis-Carl Brissette Lesage said Canada is aware countries are making “difficult and complex decisions” around the treaty, and has been in “ongoing dialogue” with them to emphasize Canada’s strong support for the Ottawa Treaty.

“Support for the Ottawa Convention and its universal adherence remains a core priority for Canada,” he wrote.

“We view the Convention as one of the most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, given its prohibition of anti-personnel landmines, which disproportionately harm civilians.”

But it’s starting to unravel.

On June 29, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a decree to withdraw Ukraine from the convention, though the treaty technically bars states from exiting while engaged in an armed conflict.

On June 27, all three Baltic countries — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — issued official notices with the United Nations that will have each pull out of the treaty in six months. That would be the first time any signatories had exited the treaty.

Poland and Finland are undertaking parliamentary moves to get to such a step.

All six countries have cited the growing threat from Russia to front-line states, including the fact Moscow uses landmines and isn’t a member of the treaty.

Mines Actions Canada condemned the “rushed processes” to pull the three Baltic countries out of the convention, and urged Ottawa in a statement “to speak up and engage with our allies in defence of the Ottawa Treaty.”

In an interview, the group’s head, Erin Hunt, said European countries are usually the staunchest supporters of international law, and demonstrate a double standard if they decide to pull back when under pressure.

“The Ottawa Treaty is one example of a global decision that there is limit to war. And to withdraw from that when there’s a threat of conflict does not speak very highly to our convictions, to make war safer for the people who are not fighting,” she said.

Landmines can kill or maim people even decades after a conflict ends, and can disproportionately harm civilians.

Research by the International Committee of the Red Cross shows that landmines aren’t useful in preventing war nor in actual conflict, which Hunt says is why the U.S. stopped producing those arms.

She argued the recent increase in drone warfare makes landmines even less useful.

McPhedran helped organize an advocacy event with Humanity and Inclusion Canada last month that featured Lloyd Axworthy, the former foreign affairs minister who helped broker the Ottawa Treaty.

McPhedran said the treaty has had “a hugely positive humanitarian impact.”

She noted that the Carney government has made protection of civilians a central part of its foreign policy, and has asked the government to host an event to mark three decades of the treaty in 2027.

Brisette Lesage wrote on behalf of Global Affairs Canada that Ottawa will continue to highlight the impact of anti-personnel landmines on civilians, and work with advocates “to assess the implications of this development and to explore ways to uphold and strengthen the critical norms enshrined in the Treaty.”

Axworthy said exiting the treaty could speed up the disintegration of the global order and the suspension of other arms-control measures, particularly as countries rush to boost their military spending.

He said Eastern European countries have legitimate security concerns, but have no demonstrable proof that using landmines will actually stem Russian aggression.

“Ukraine is already one of the most corrupted countries in the world, with landmines. And not just Russian landmines, but Ukrainian landmines,” he said.

“The level of destruction — of killing and maiming and wounding for the next 100 years is being sewn into those fields right now. And it’s not necessary.”

The international watchdog Landmine Monitor said in a report last year that landmines were still actively being used in 2023 and 2024 by Russia, Myanmar, Iran and North Korea.

Nearly three dozen countries have not adopted the Ottawa Convention, including some key current and past producers and users of landmines such as the United States, China, India, Pakistan and South Korea.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2025.

Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press


RCMP Sikorsky UH-60  Black Hawk helicopter, which is used for patrols along the Canada--U.S. border in southern B.C.

OTTAWA — The RCMP has renewed the contracts for three Black Hawk helicopters to patrol the Canada-U.S. border, despite

accusations by the industry association that the contracts

are the opposite of the government’s “elbows up” approach and that the choppers don’t meet the government’s own safety regulations.

RCMP spokesman Andrew DiRienzo confirmed that the federal police has decided to rehire the three helicopters for at least the next three months. The contracts for the second-hand helicopters, purchased by private contractors after the U.S. military decided to update much of its own fleet, kicked in on Canada Day.

The new contracts follow a National Post investigation that revealed that four Black Hawks were purchased by Canadian contractors who then signed patrolling contracts with the RCMP for three of them. The other was hired by the Alberta government.

The existing RCMP contracts for three of the choppers, worth an estimated $16 million, expired June 30.

Documents showed that the Canadian helicopter industry had accused Ottawa of breaking its own rules, for example, by allowing the used choppers to carry passengers or even flying over developed areas. The Black Hawks have been used mostly to patrol the border in search of illegal migrants, drug smugglers and other illicit activities.

Trevor Mitchell, chief executive of the Helicopter Association of Canada (HAC), said he was very surprised that the RCMP would sign another contract to lease the American Black Hawks, while Canadian manufacturers offer rival products that can do at least as good a job. “I can’t see how any of this transpires into an elbows-up policy, or a Canada-first policy.”

According to the government’s Canadian Civil Aircraft Register, the four Sikorsky Black Hawk UH 60As were imported into Canada between 2022 and last year. They were granted highly unusual special exemptions by Transport Canada that, according to a series of letters to senior government officials from the Canadian helicopter association, allowed the four choppers to do non-military jobs in Canadian air space.

In a March 20 letter to Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland, the association said even the conditions attached to the exemptions have not been followed. “We urge you to direct your department to ensure the safety restrictions attached to these aircraft are strictly enforced for the balance of the RCMP’s contract and that the Force be urged to select a certified aircraft before the contract expires.”

HAC also says that the twin-engine Black Hawks didn’t come with “type certificates,” which act like recipe books for new owners in that they provide details about the aircraft’s parts and how it should be maintained.

Freeland has not responded to interview requests on this subject for the last three weeks. A spokesperson has not responded to specific questions but instead released a prepared statement that emphasized the importance of safety. The statement also said that the exemptions from Transport Canada allowed the aircraft to operate in Canada in specialized roles “subject to strict conditions,” such as not being allowed to carry fare-paying passengers or cargo.

Despite its reluctance to discuss the matter, the federal government is well aware of the situation involving the Black Hawks and the industry’s concerns.

 An RCMP Black Hawk helicopter patrols the border in Emerson, Manitoba in January.

In the spring of 2024, following interactions with HAC, former Transport Minister Pablo Rodriguez directed his officials to pause the issuing of special exemptions for the Black Hawks. But in September of that year, Rodriguez resigned from the federal cabinet to run for leader of the Quebec Liberal party.

He was replaced at Transport for about seven months by Anita Anand, now the Foreign Affairs minister. She was then replaced in the new year by Chrystia Freeland, after Mark Carney became prime minister. Neither Anand nor Freeland has clarified the government’s view of the situation or publicly commented on the special exemptions for the Black Hawks.

Although the Black Hawk contracts pre-date the re-election earlier this year of U.S. President Donald Trump, Canada’s enhanced border patrol is in sync with the White House’s escalation of concern about illegal migrants and illegal drugs entering the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and elsewhere.

But it’s not like there aren’t other – even domestic – options beyond Black Hawks.

Mitchell says Canada has about 200 companies that offer helicopter services and pilots to fly them. Their collective fleets comprise about 1,700 choppers, many of which might be better suited than Black Hawks for patrol duties because they’re smaller and equipped with infra-red cameras that allow them to work in the dark.

The military and the RCMP also have their own fleets. But if the RCMP’s own helicopters weren’t enough, Mitchell said, it would have no problem finding private contractors to help them patrol.

Helicopters are valued for their versatility and mobility. In Canada, they’re mostly used for search and rescue, fighting forest fires, helping combat floods, and commercial applications in remote areas such as mining and electrical lines.

But five-seat helicopters are typically used for patrol because they’re more nimble and cheaper to operate than a larger, 14-seater such as Sikorsky’s Black Hawk.

According to a February 10 letter by HAC to RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme, the choppers have not been approved by Canadian or American authorities for civilian purposes.

The RCMP’s Black Hawk contracts overlap with Carney’s vow to increase Canada’s military spending so that it reaches the NATO target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Carney has also vowed to do more to support Canadian business and to rely less on the U.S.

Industry sources say the older Black Hawks were selling in recent months for about $1 million each, as the market became flooded with supply. The market for used helicopters has grown in recent years as the U.S. military has modernized its fleet, including the purchase of a newer model of Black Hawks, called the UH-60M.

That has pushed a number of older, but still functional Black Hawks to the second-hand market. Prices of new and used aircraft vary widely, depending on a range of factors. But a new five-seat helicopter, including those made in Canada, sells for about $6.5 million, while a new 14-seater, similar in size to the Black Hawks, goes for about $12 million.

Bell Textron, a subsidiary of Fort Worth, Tex.-based Textron, makes commercial helicopters at its Mirabel, Que. facilities. Its lineup of models includes the Bell 412, which could be used for border patrol.

Airbus Helicopters Canada, formerly MBB Helicopter Canada, has a 300-employee site at Fort Erie, Ont. That location focuses largely on sales, repair, engineering and composite manufacturing.

The Black Hawk, made by Sikorsky Aircraft, is a four-blade, twin-engine, medium-lift chopper in the “military utility” product niche. Stratford, Conn.-based Sikorsky was founded by the Russian-American aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky in 1923.

Carney, meanwhile, issued a statement earlier this month saying that Canada plans to boost its defence spending by $9.3 billion to $54.3 billion. The money will be used on a range of items, including submarines, ships, armoured vehicles and aircraft, as well as new drones and sensors for monitoring the Arctic and seafloor.

In the government’s latest signal that it intends to create some distance from the U.S. since Trump imposed a wide range of debilitating tariffs on Canadian exports, Carney said Canada wants to reduce how much of its defence budget goes to purchases of American equipment. The prime minister has said that about 75 per cent of Canada’s capital spending on defence heads to the U.S.

National Post

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.