LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

A supporter of Ukraine holds a placard near the White House ahead of the meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, European leaders and US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2025. European leaders join Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in talks with US President Donald Trump on August 18, as they try to find a way to end Russia's offensive. The leaders heading to Washington on Monday to appear alongside Zelensky call themselves the

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s

visit

to Kyiv for Ukraine’s Independence Day was most welcome, continuing the admirable solidarity which Justin Trudeau showed on his four visits to Kyiv after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Carney’s visit came in the context of his visit to Poland, Ukraine’s staunchest ally — and now a serious military force in Europe. A century ago, Poland and Ukraine were recent wartime enemies. It is one of the great reconciliations of recent history that the Western Slavs (Poland) and Eastern Slavs (Ukraine) have so thoroughly reconciled that when millions of Ukrainians fled westward in 2022 there were no refugee camps in Poland. Ukrainians were housed by Poles in their own homes.

The 20th Century was an exceedingly difficult one for the Slavic peoples; mere survival, to say nothing of liberty and prosperity, was the dramatic challenge. Poland and Ukraine, the perilous places between Berlin and Moscow, were

characterized

as the “bloodlands” by historian Timothy Snyder.

Choosing a national day is easy for young countries. We have July 1, the date of confederation; the Americans July 4th, their declaration of independence. The millennium-old history of the Slavs, dating to their Christian baptism in the 10th Century, is rather more complex. Which date, which liberation, which independence to choose?

The Ukrainians observe Aug. 24, the date in 1991 when their national parliament declared their independence from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — later ratified by more than 90 per cent of the Ukrainian people in a referendum. For a people who date their origin to 988, 1991 was more than a thousand years into their story, but independence from Moscow was the pressing issue then, as it is now.

Next door in Poland, Independence Day is marked on Nov. 11, our Remembrance Day. At the end of the Great War in 1918, Poland was restored to the map of Europe. In 1795, Poland’s neighbours — the Kingdom of Prussia (Germany), the Habsburg empire (Austria), and Tsarist Russia — partitioned Poland into thirds and absorbed its territory. Poland ceased to exist cartographically and politically, but remained culturally and spiritually. It would survive 123 years as a nation without a state until the fall of the Prussian kaiser, Habsburg emperor and Russian tsar during the First World War. Their Nov. 11 Independence Day marks that remarkable act of survival, even more so than their defeat of Soviet communism in the 1980s.

During his visit to Poland in 1983, his countrymen then living under communist martial law — the regime at war with its own people — St. John Paul II made a visit to the national shrine of Our Lady of Jasna Góra in the city of Częstochowa. There he reflected upon the cost of national identity and freedom, a price the Slavic peoples have paid repeatedly in their long history.

“Tell me what your love is, and I’ll tell you who you are,” John Paul said to a gathering of young people. He then spoke of their shared love of their nation, their people, their culture, their love for Poland.

“(Each of us) feel(s) responsible for this great common heritage, whose name is Poland,” he said. “This name defines all of us. This name obliges us all. This name costs us all.”

“Perhaps sometimes we envy the French, the Germans or the Americans, because their name is not tied to such a price of history, and because they are much more easily free,” he continued. “While our Polish freedom is so expensive. I will not, dear ones, make a comparative analysis. I will only say that it is precisely what costs that constitutes value. Indeed, one cannot be truly free without an honest and profound relationship with values. We do not want a Poland that costs us nothing.”

We do not want a Poland that costs us nothing.

That declaration cannot be assumed. In the past century, the question was put in many places, as the cost of national identity, far from nothing, became terrifying, even overwhelming.

That question has been put these past three-plus years to Ukrainians. Do they want a Ukraine that costs nothing? The price has been high. Ukrainians have paid it and are paying it still. It merits our admiration.

Independence Day in Ukraine was observed with less fervour before the Russian invasion. Perhaps in 1991, the cost of freedom was not as evident. But in the bloodlands, the price eventually has to be paid.

That question faces all of Europe now, and its allies across the sea. Do we want an independent Ukraine only if it costs us nothing? Carney’s speech in Kyiv was a promise that Canada would help bear that cost.

Slavic independence days are, in history writ large, transitory markers. But they stake a claim in the present. It was a good thing that Canada was present this year.

National Post


The LNG tanker GasLog Glasgow arrives at LNG Canada's shipping terminal in Kitimat, B.C., to begin loading the first every export cargo of super-cooled liquefied natural gas for delivery to Asia, June 28, 2025.

Amid growing criticisms that Canada dropped the ball on exporting its natural gas to Europe, the Polish ambassador to Canada said in a recent interview that plenty of Canadian gas is indeed finding its way to Europe — but via the United States at a markup.

“Remember; some of the LNG that’s coming from the United States to Europe, to Poland, is also Canadian … but it’s being sold for a much higher price,” Witold Dzielski told CBC after being asked whether there was Polish demand for Canadian LNG.

Dzielski’s comment was swiftly highlighted by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who noted Dzielski’s wide smile during the statement, which Poilievre attributed to the ambassador “(stopping) himself from laughing at us.”

The statement also comes at the same time that Canada’s energy minister, Tim Hodgson, publicly criticized former prime minister Justin Trudeau for failing to prioritize the Canadian LNG sector.

“Unlike the previous Canadian government, which closed the door to LNG exports, Prime Minister (Mark) Carney’s government has opened it,” Tim Hodgson said this week in

prepared remarks

delivered at the Canadian embassy in Berlin, Germany.

Jamie Heard, an executive with the Canadian natural gas producer Tourmaline, told National Post that “nearly all” of their LNG exports to the U.S. have ultimately wound up in Europe.

He said this has been good for them, as it does give Tourmaline a means to get Canadian gas across the Atlantic. But it’s also been good for the U.S.

Cheniere Energy, the U.S. exporter handling Tourmaline’s product, “is making a fair return on our business,” Heard wrote in an email, adding that this is translating into higher tax revenue for the U.S. government.

“The opportunity can grow with the addition of Canadian infrastructure,” he wrote.

Canada currently has only one operational LNG export facility, but it’s on the West Coast and it opened just two months ago.

In late June, LNG Canada’s $18-billion export terminal in Kitimat, B.C., loaded its first tanker, the GasLog Glasgow.

This is in sharp contrast to the world’s other major LNG producers. Australia has 10 LNG export terminals, while the United States has eight — all of them opened since 2016.

Canada remains one of the world’s largest LNG exporters, but aside from the new Kitimat terminal,

99.9 per cent

of that is sent into the United States via pipeline.

Since at least 2022, it’s been apparent that a lot of this Canadian gas was being shipped across the Atlantic in order to cover Russian gas supplies blocked by European sanctions.

“It appears that every spare cubic foot of Canadian natural gas that’s not being used for domestic consumption is being exported to the United States for LNG export,”

read a Deloitte oil and gas outlook from that year

.

“Are LNG exports to Europe being sold at a higher price than Canadian gas is sold to U.S. producers? Absolutely,” said Andrew Leach, an energy economist at the University of Alberta.

But Leach said the current disparity is not necessarily a sign that Canada willingly surrendered LNG profits to American middlemen.

Canadian gas exports into the U.S. are able to plug into a pipeline network that runs along relatively flat and industrialized terrain towards long-established petrochemical ports on the U.S. gulf coast.

A Canadian equivalent, by contrast, would involve thousands of kilometres of new pipeline running through mountainous terrain and servicing brand new export facilities on the Canadian Atlantic Coast.

Notably, even the U.S. Atlantic Coast hasn’t been able to get much of a foothold in the LNG sector with the Gulf Coast able to dominate the trade.

Of 13 U.S. LNG export terminals either operational or under construction, just two are located outside the Gulf Coast. The closest one to Canada is the Cove Point LNG Terminal located just outside Washington, D.C.

“It’s the Canadians that are capitalizing on the fact that the U.S. has built this infrastructure,” said Leach.

Nevertheless, the sheer fact that ships loaded with Canadian LNG are regularly finding their way into Europe has proved a compelling argument for ensuring that at least some of it can start being loaded at Canadian ports.

“We can grow an East Coast LNG business,” Heard told the Post. “It won’t start out cost competitive, but with additional scale, pipeline investment, we can narrow the cost gap over time.”


CBC Gem

Since it launched in 2018, CBC’s Gem streaming service has been a slap in the face to Canadians. Ottawa takes around

$1.5 billion

a year out of our pockets, ostensibly so the public broadcaster can provide reliable news and support the domestic film industry, but if Canadians want to watch CBC News Network without a cable package, or tax-funded programming without ads, they have to fork over an additional

$5.99 a month

.

If you’re wondering how many people are actually willing to pay to be fed a steady stream of anti-Israel, anti-capitalist, anti-Conservative propaganda, you wouldn’t be alone. Matt Malone, an assistant professor in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa, has been attempting to get subscriber numbers for CBC Gem through an

access-to-information request

.

Despite an order from the information commissioner to hand over the data, the public broadcaster, which is constantly crying poor, has chosen to spend its resources fighting the directive in court. It’s not a good look for a news outlet with a history of taking governments to task for being too opaque.

In 2018, for example, the broadcaster

went to court

to fight the Ontario government’s refusal to release ministerial mandate letters. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which last year

ruled

that the province was within its rights due to the longstanding principle of cabinet confidentiality. But as

Malone noted

in 2023, when it comes to “shielding materials from disclosure when they pertain to consultations or deliberations, the CBC itself is likelier than the Ford government to invoke such exemptions.”

When it comes to releasing its subscriber data, the CBC argued that it cannot be compelled to make information available that could “harm its competitive position by providing sensitive data to … competitors, allowing them to use it to be more aggressive in their attempts to lure paid subscribers from the Gem platform to theirs.” The information commissioner disagreed, saying that the broadcaster failed to “demonstrate that there was a reasonable expectation that these harms could occur.”

Indeed, it’s hard to imagine that simply knowing how many people subscribe to Gem would give an advantage to private-sector streamers like Netflix and Crave, especially when they can compete based on the fact that they have more content that people actually want to watch.

It’s more likely that the real reason CBC is willing to take its lack of transparency all the way to the Federal Court is because it doesn’t want to admit how much of a failure its streaming service has been. The CBC sent

some viewership data

to C21Media, an entertainment industry trade publication, last year, and the results weren’t great.

According to the broadcaster’s own calculations, based on Ontario viewership data compiled by Numeris between September 2023 and June 2024, YouTube was the most-watched streaming platform with 32.9 per cent of the market. Netflix led the big streaming services with 14.1 per cent, followed by Prime Video (13.6 per cent) and Disney+ (3.7 per cent). CBC Gem attracted a measly 0.35 per cent of viewers, and that includes both paid and unpaid subscribers.

It’s no secret in the entertainment industry that subscriber data is generally only released when companies have something to brag about. This can be seen in boxing, as well. When a pay-per-view event does really well, promoters and networks are quick to release information on how many people bought the fight, in order to show how popular and successful their shows are. When that data isn’t made available, you can be pretty certain that very few people were willing to shell out their hard-earned money to watch it.

A general lack of interest in its programming is an issue that’s plagued our public broadcaster for many years. After all, why would it give a darn about catering to the wants of Canadians, when the government hands it a cheque each year, regardless of how many people actually see value in its programming?

And the truth of the matter is that the CBC has long had an inherent competitive advantage over its primary competitors — private television stations — because it competes for the same ad dollars but has access to an additional $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds. In more recent years, the Mother Corp has used this advantage to drive local newspapers out of business by offering similar online content without making people pay for it, while gobbling up scarce ad revenue.

Which begs the question as to why a Crown corporation should now be competing with large foreign streaming services like Netflix, and homegrown private ones, such as Crave? In an era in which cable TV is going the way of rotary phones, it’s understandable that the corporation would see value in making its programming available online. But given that nearly three-quarters of its revenue is pilfered directly from taxpayers, that programming should be made available at no additional cost and limited to Canadian content — no more using public money to line the pockets of Hollywood executives.

There’s likely little that can be done to curtail the CBC’s excesses after Prime Minister Mark Carney was elected on

a promise

to “build critical cultural institutions, such as CBC-Radio Canada.” Last month, CBC’s CEO wrote in an email to employees that the broadcaster is being forced to find $198 million in

annual savings

as part of the government’s general cost-cutting measures. But it will also receive the

additional $150 million

a year that Carney promised during the election campaign, so making the cuts shouldn’t be all that difficult.

Regardless, even the CBC boosters in cabinet should be able to admit that the state broadcaster’s public funding comes with some strings attached. One of those is that it must accept a higher level of transparency than companies operating in the private sector. Our tax dollars should not be used to fight court battles intended to give the Crown corporation a leg up over companies it has no business competing with in the first place.

National Post

jkline@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/accessd


Expect the Conservatives to come out swinging on immigration like never before when the House of Commons reconvenes next month.

Donald Trump gave the Liberals a

lifeline

to eke out another term in government in the spring, but the Liberals’ failure to get immigration under control is negatively impacting Canadians across the country.

In a statement

released

on August 25, the Conservatives pointed out that the government set an annual cap of 82,000 temporary foreign workers (TFW), but 105,000 had already been issued.

As for applicants to the International Mobility Program, they wrote 302,000 had been admitted by the first six months of the year in June, despite a promised cap of 285,000 permits.

“Moreover, their so-called caps on permanent residents were already among the highest in our history, yet they’re on track to exceed their own reckless targets, welcoming the equivalent of twice the population of Guelph and four times the population of Abbotsford,” read the statement, credited to Poilievre and Shadow Immigration Critic Michelle Rempel Garner.

This month, Poilievre

released

a series of

graphics

on social media highlighting the disparity between the Carney government’s promised targets, and how they are on-track to be exceeded.

This is a taste of what to expect for the fall session of Parliament, and Canadians will be receptive.

Sixty-two per cent

of respondents in a Leger poll conducted in July believe there are too many newcomers arriving in Canada, and just 42 percent think they can be trusted. The poll also found that there was

little disagreement

between immigrant and native-born citizens in this regard.

Last year, Abacus Data found that

53 per cent

of those surveyed had a negative view of immigration, and 72 per cent thought that the government’s immigration targets were “too ambitious”.

Abacus published the results of

another survey

earlier this month, finding that 25 per cent of Canadians now consider immigration to be the top issue facing Canada, and the Conservatives lead the Liberals 56 per cent to 15 per cent when respondents were asked which party was best equipped to handle the issue.

During the last federal election, young Canadians

swung heavily

towards the Conservatives, 44 percent to 31.2 per cent among 18 to 34 year olds, and with good reason.

Youth unemployment is the

highest

it has been since the late 1990s, with almost 15 per cent of Canadians aged 15 to 24 unable to find work before returning to school in the fall.

Employers have been

greatly incentivized

by the TFW program to hire foreigners instead of hiring and training their fellow Canadians.

The reliance on surplus foreign labour is dragging down

productivity

, while

suppressing wages

 and

per-capita GDP

. There is no long-term upside to flooding the country with low-skill labour that

pushes

Canadians out of the job market, and the short-term effects have been socially and economically undesirable.

Investigations by the Toronto Star in 2024 found that government officials in Ottawa told their staff to

skip fraud checks

on TFW applications. Predictable wrongdoing ensued, such as no confirmation with employers to confirm that posted jobs actually existed, while migrant workers paid up to $70,000 for fake jobs.

As of now, it is estimated that there is somewhere between 600,000 and over 1 million

undocumented

people within Canada, and federal and provincial agencies seem incapable of remedying the issue.

Expelling people from the country is not a pleasant task when so many people have been

duped

by villainous immigration consultants who sold them fake dreams. The job must still be done.

You cannot have trust in a government that fails to meet its own immigration caps and enforce deportations.

It is unfair to Canadians, and unfair to newcomers who went through the proper channels.

One of the most infuriating aspects of it all is that Canada should not have an immigration crisis. Our geography gives us the privilege of being generous, and up until 2015 we were more selective about newcomers.

Stephen Harper’s government ran a very

tight ship on immigration

, and this should be the expectation of every Canadian government, not an exception.

This all started going downhill when Justin Trudeau became prime minister in 2015, and the numbers started climbing sharply. For example, his government

lowered

the benchmark for Express Entry from 866 out of 1200 points, to

just 75

.

Nearly five million people

have entered

the country since 2014, and few can say this country is fairer, more prosperous or more hopeful. Those who want Canada to continue as a welcoming country for new arrivals would do well to push for reform.

We are bordered by three oceans and an undefended border with the world’s most powerful economy. Our admission of newcomers is something we can control, and there is no reason why Canada should not have one of the most well-run, careful immigration systems in the world.

The idea that Canadians have been almost unanimously in favour of immigration since the Second World War is a pervasive myth. It has always been controversial among the public, but rarely has it been debated with ferocity in the House of Commons.

Canadians want a debate on current immigration levels to happen, and they will get their wish this fall.

Mark Carney will need creative excuses for why his government blew past its own caps,

did not release immigration data for months

, and presented no plan to end the economy’s dependence on cheap foreign labour.

For the Conservatives, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to finally turn immigration into an issue our politicians can openly and honestly debate.

The Liberals got us into this avoidable mess, and they must be held accountable for it.

National Post


Federal Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab.

Despite promises from the Liberal government that they would be curbing the sky-high immigration rates of the Trudeau era, new data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada shows that Canada is already on track to exceed its 2025 targets.

In the first seven months of 2025, Canada

accepted 246,300 new permanent residents

, according to data released last week by IRCC.

If this level of intake keeps up for the rest of the year, Canada is on track to bring in approximately 422,000 new permanent residents by year’s end.

This would be despite Liberal government promises that the intake for 2025 would only be 395,000, as part of a

new reduced immigration schedule

designed to avoid overwhelming “community capacity.”

With an average of 1,200 new permanent residents accepted in Canada every day, the country is still operating at a rate of immigration intake well beyond almost any other point of the last 100 years.

For comparison, when Canada admitted 260,400 new immigrants in 2014, Statistics Canada noted that the country’s immigration intake was

reaching levels not seen

since before the First World War.

The current intake, by contrast, is about 62 per cent higher. In 2014, an average of 21,700 permanent residents were accepted by Canada every month. In 2025 so far, the monthly average is 35,180.

And the missed targets are even more stark when it comes to categories of temporary migrants.

For the entirety of 2025, Canada was

only supposed to approve 82,000 entries

under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

Nevertheless,

Government of Canada data

shows that 105,195 Temporary Foreign Worker permits were awarded in just the first six months of 2025.

Temporary migration has been disproportionately responsible for the record-breaking population growth witnessed in Canada over the last four years. Since 2021, Canada’s population has grown from 38 million to 41.7 million. This represents an average annual increase of 900,000, which puts Canada well beyond the population growth rates of any other G7 country.

In late 2024, Statistics Canada estimated that

the country was home

to an unprecedented three million “non-permanent residents,” be they international students or temporary foreign workers.

Temporary migration is also the category on which Ottawa has promised to crack down hardest. Late in 2024, when then prime minister Justin Trudeau announced plans to “turn off the taps” on immigration, temporary migrants represented seven per cent of the overall Canadian population.

The new Liberal targets anticipated shrinking this to five per cent by the end of 2026.

Nevertheless, in the Temporary Foreign Worker category, the intake is set to remain almost exactly the same as last year. In the first six months of 2024, the number of approved temporary foreign worker permits stood at 109,310, as compared to the 105,195 seen in the first six months of 2025.

Immigration has rapidly become one of the most distinct points of difference between the Liberals and the opposition Conservative Party.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was critical of federal immigration management during the spring election campaign, and pledged to set immigration targets in line with homebuilding rates.

But in recent months Poilievre has turned towards placing “severe limits on population growth,” and

ensuring that Canada

has “more people leaving than coming for the next couple of years.”

All the while, polls continue to show that Canadian support for immigration — which has stayed positive for much of the last two decades — is in rapid decline. Just last month, a Leger poll commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies found that

a clear majority

thought Canada was admitting too many immigrants.

Notably, the sentiment was almost exactly the same among immigrants themselves. Of respondents born in another country, 57 per cent thought Canada was bringing in too many immigrants, as compared to 60 per cent of non-immigrants.


Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada addresses a press conference with Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina after their meeting on August 26, 2025 in Riga, Latvia. (Photo by Gints Ivuskans / AFP)

Mark Carney’s visit Tuesday to the shipyard of ThyseenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) in Kiel Germany, confirmed it and South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean Co. as the two leading bidders to fulfil the requirement of 12 submarines under Canada’s Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).

Carney’s visit to Ukraine, Poland and Germany comes as Canada seeks to signal its intent to rebuild an atrophied set or defence assets and defence industrial base. It also signals Canada’s desire for strategic autonomy from the U.S. as it builds hard and soft power links with other western allies.

This procurement, one of the most important in Canadian history since the Cold War, will define Canada’s capability and capacity to protect and defend its sovereignty in the Arctic — an increasingly contested geopolitical theatre of operations.

It will also be crucial in helping to rebuild Canada’s defence industrial base which, despite the 2010 national shipbuilding strategy only has three ship building yards (Halifax, Chantier, Que., and Vancouver). None of them have the capability to build submarines.

Canada’s recent history of submarine procurement has not been a happy one. In 1998 it purchased four Upholder Class diesel-electric submarines which were deemed superfluous to the U.K.,’s requirements. Renamed the Victoria Class and entering service from 2003, one of the four suffered a serious fire during transit from the U.K.

The submarines, which had sat mothballed in U.K. dry dock for years after effective decommissioning by the Royal Navy, have been beset with reliability problems and Canada has struggled to maintain a continuous-at-sea presence. This has left Canada reliant on the U.S., U.K. and other NATO countries to protect its own sovereignty in the Arctic.

Ottawa felt snubbed in 2021, after Australia, the U.K. and U.S. announced the AUKUS partnership to supply Australia with nuclear powered submarines to further contest China’s strategy to push the West out of the East and South China seas.

Canada, itself a Pacific power, was effectively bypassed, something that should have wrung many alarm bells in Ottawa long before Donald Trump’s latest protestations that Canada has an ineffective military posture in the Arctic.

While the U.S.’ Virginia Class submarine and eventual new AUKUS Class of nuclear submarine might not have been the right fit for Canada’s needs, the often overlooked aspect to AUKUS is the informational and technological transfer in cyber and quantum computing between its participants. This remains an enormous opportunity for Canada to still try to involve itself in.

Today’s announcement confirms Canada’s intention to deliver up to 12 diesel-electric (SSK) hunter-killer submarines, with the first entering service in the 2030s by which point the current Victoria Class will be well past its “use by” date.

Canada faces a pernicious challenge to both meet urgent defence requirements — with the Arctic being the key priority — while it seeks to ensure deals like this help to rebuild Canada’s defence industrial base.

Both TKMS and Hanwha’s proposed SSK submarines offer a superior class of submarine. Both would allow Canada to project force in and around the Arctic as part of a developing a strategy to manage Russian and Chinese competition and contestation of the artic as more sea lines of communication (SLOCs) open up with the melting of the polar ice cap.

TKMS’s Type 212CD variant offers NATO interoperability, with both the German Navy and Norwegian Navy — a fellow Arctic state — using the platform. Hanwha’s KSS-III model offers the potential for vertical Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) a capacity few non-nuclear navies possess.

However, with no capacity to build any of the submarines in Canada, the project will initially be one which is entirely an off the shelf defence procurement. While both companies have signalled and signed agreements for future maintenance around the submarines, the simple fact is that they will have to be built entirely in Germany or South Korea.

This neither helps develop Canadian submarine expertise and sees a significant outflow of money from Canada rather than reinvestment in its own industrial base and economy.

A model which Canada should be considering is the recent agreement by Poland to buy up to 1,000 of the South Korea K2 Black Panther main battle tanks. The first 120 or so tanks will be built by Hyundai Rotem in South Korea, with the next 63 produced in Poland and future subsequent variations also built there.

This is a win-win contract for Poland as it urgently plugs a hole in its need to deter Russian aggression beyond Ukraine. It also builds Polish expertise and capacity to produce these state-of-the-art main-battle tanks.

While we wait to see who the eventual winner for Canada’s CPSP will be, there are scant details on the potential for this to be part of Canada’s forthcoming Defence Industrial Strategy which is widely expected in the fall.

The urgency of response by bidders to deliver the submarines will be a critical requirement, but Canada must also ensure that it does not miss the opportunity to deliver for Canada inc.

David Oliver is a geopolitical strategy expert and founder of Minerva Group.


Mark Carney, left, reacts after missing a shot during a road hockey game with local kids at a campaign event in Truro, N.S., on April 21.

Canadians elected Mark Carney believing he was a strong leader who could go toe-to-toe with U.S. President Donald Trump. But instead of a knight standing on guard for thee, they got the victim of an abusive relationship.

Not even half a year has passed since Carney appeared in

a campaign ad

with comedian Mike Myers telling Canadians to put their “elbows up,” a reference to the type of hockey people of a certain age were accustomed to before the NHL removed most

of the violence

— and the fun — from the game.

Yet the prime minister’s

now saying

that although “there is a time in a big (hockey) game, and this is a big game, when you go hard in the corners, you elbows up,” there’s “also a time in the game when you want the puck, you want to stick-handle, you want to pass, you want to put the puck in the net. And we’re … at that time in the game.”

Which begs the question: what changed? Has Trump agreed to abide by the trade deal he negotiated and signed during his first term? Has he realized that tariffs were a bad idea and apologized for threatening to turn Canada into the 51st state? Of course not.

Since Carney was elected on April 28, Trump has

upped the ante

almost every month, increasing steel and aluminum tariffs to 50 per cent in June, boosting the levy on non-CUSMA compliant goods to 35 per cent in July and tacking a 50 per cent surcharge on some copper products at the start of this month.

And what does the man who ran on an “elbows up” platform do in response? Like the victim of an abusive relationship who keeps coming up with excuses, Carney now says that the situation Canada faces is “still better than that of any other country,” and that we must “do everything we can to preserve this unique advantage.”

He thus removed roughly half of Canada’s counter-tariffs, covering CUSMA-compliant goods other than steel, aluminum and autos.

This makes some sense. Though Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars are in clear violation of our trade agreement, he has allowed other CUSMA-compliant products to continue to flow freely across the border. Doing the same helps preserve what little significance the agreement has left.

But such reciprocity should have been accompanied by increased duties on steel and aluminum, along with a blanket 35 per cent tariff on non-CUSMA U.S. goods, to match the rates charged on our products.

It’s possible that such a move would have angered the president. But exempting CUSMA products would’ve softened the blow, and it would have allowed us to argue that our trade barriers were simply designed to mimic those south of the border, thus giving Trump the opportunity to deescalate once he realized Carney wouldn’t blink.

Yet Carney did blink, choosing to put his elbows down and lining up behind virtually every other world leader to

kiss Trump’s butt

in the hopes of securing a deal that may be

sub-optimal

, but has the potential to prevent our much larger neighbour from picking on us for the next four years (or longer, if Trump gets his way).

Before you accuse me of being an anti-globalization leftist or a tariff-happy MAGA supporter — which these days aren’t all that different — I will say that I’m not a fan of trade barriers of any kind.

The Americans have good reason to be upset about Canada’s unfair trade practices — namely, the unconscionably high tariffs placed on foreign dairy, egg and poultry products to protect our system of supply management. But this is no reason to upend a free-trading relationship that has benefited both countries for over 36 years.

And although many Canadians could use the dose of humility that comes with realizing that we are not, and never have been, a world power of any consequence, we also don’t want to come across as a nation of wimps who are unwilling to fight fire with fire to protect our sovereignty.

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have any tariffs at all. But, using Carney’s hockey analogy, you can’t promise not to hit the opposing team and hope to get very far in the game — especially when your opponents play dirty and hit you every chance they get.

As Trump’s

trade war

with China showed, it’s possible to get a bully to back down by standing your ground. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods have dropped to 30 per cent, from a high of 145 per cent in April, simply because Chinese President Xi Jinping wasn’t willing to get pushed around.

While most Canadians, aside from former prime minister Justin Trudeau, don’t admire China’s “basic dictatorship,” a plurality voted for what they thought was a strong leader who campaigned on being the best man to take on Donald Trump. Instead, we got a leader who keeps getting punished, and coming back for more.

National Post

jkline@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/accessd


Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during a news conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy following talks at Mariyinsky Palace in Kyiv on August 24, 2025.

In a surprise visit to Kyiv on Sunday, Prime Minister Mark Carney gave further details of Ottawa’s latest military aid package to Ukraine and suggested that Canadian troops

could be sent

to the country to enforce an eventual peace deal. Considering that Russian expansionism directly threatens Canadian interests,

particularly in the Arctic

, Carney’s firm support for Kyiv is both morally and strategically commendable.

Carney first announced this $2 billion aid package

two months ago

at the G7 summit in Alberta but did not provide particulars at the time. However, during last weekend’s Kyiv trip, which coincided with Ukraine’s National Day of Independence, Ottawa

published a rough breakdown

of how this money would be allocated.

$835 million will be spent on procuring critical equipment, such as “armoured vehicles, medical equipment, spare parts, small arms, ammunition, and explosives, as well as additional drone capabilities…” Although it is unclear to what degree this budget will go to domestic manufacturers,

past donations suggest

that there will be

significant involvement

of Canadian industry.

Approximately $500 million will be spent on purchasing military equipment from the United States,

using NATO as an intermediary

, with a focus on strengthening Ukraine’s air defences, presumably to keep Ukrainian cities safe from Russian bombing.

With respect to multilateral cooperation, $165 million will be spent on supporting Canada’s work in the

Ramstein Group

(a 57-country alliance that coordinates military aid for Kyiv) and $100 million will be spent on procuring ammunition and explosives from international partners through an initiative

organized by the Czech Republic

.

Finally, $220 million will be allocated for “drones, counter-drone and electronic warfare capacities,” which will include investment into joint ventures between Ukrainian and Canadian manufacturers. The co-production of this defence material will be governed by a new Letter of Intent,

signed by Ottawa and Kyiv on Sunday.

Collectively, these investments will increase Canadian military aid to Ukraine by roughly 50 per cent to

$6.5 billion

. This represents about a third of Ottawa’s overall Ukrainian aid —  currently estimated at around $22 billion — with non-military support primarily taking the form of loans which Kyiv will have to eventually repay.

At a Sunday press conference, Carney further announced that Ottawa is working with international allies to explore how it can provide Ukraine credible security guarantees, which he

framed

as being essential to regional stability: “We need not to trust and verify, but deter and fortify. And the fortification, the deterrence, is anchored in those security guarantees.”

The Prime Minister

said

that Ottawa does not believe that it is “realistic” to expect Ukraine’s military to deter future Russian aggression by itself, and that he “would not exclude the presence of troops” to “buttress” and “reinforce” Ukrainian forces in the aftermath of a peace deal.

Were such a deployment to occur, it would be done in partnership with the

Coalition of the Willing

, an informal alliance of Western nations. However, Carney also stated that he opposes attempts to exclude Ukraine from pathways to eventual EU or NATO membership, signalling an openness to more traditional instruments of collective defence.

Justifying his support for Kyiv, Carney referenced shared democratic values, calling attention to the

1.3 million people of Ukrainian descent

who call Canada home. But foreign policy shouldn’t be driven by diaspora politics, and shared values are insufficient grounds for expensive international entanglements. Instead, Carney should have tactfully, but explicitly, pointed out that Ukraine’s survival is also in Canada’s best interest.

For decades, Canada faced no substantial security threats, allowing its military to decay while sponging off protections provided by the United States. We became weak and complacent, and now our allies no longer consider us a credible voice on the international stage.

But the world is becoming a more dangerous place, generally speaking, and, among other things, military competition is

intensifying in the Arctic

. Both Moscow and Beijing aspire to dominate the high north and are growing their military capacities accordingly, which may pose a threat to Canada’s sovereignty in the foreseeable future.

Ottawa has already grasped this grim reality, judging by the new

Arctic Policy

it published last year. Yet, securing the north will take incredible amounts of money and time — it will take

billions of dollars

, and many years, to build a single icebreaker, for example. With adversaries like Russia and China, Canada will also inevitably require the support of larger allies to deter intrusions into its remote territories.

In this context, it is prudent to arm Kyiv today and, if the opportunity arises, to eventually send Canadian peacekeepers to deter further Russian revanchism in Eastern Europe. Undermining Moscow will give Ottawa more time to solve its arctic sovereignty problem, ultimately saving money (and possibly even lives) in the long run. It would also demonstrate to our allies that we are a reliable partner, making it easier for us to call for help in the future should we need it.

In the face of global instability and a looming northern threat, Canada is significantly increasing its defence spending to

5 per cent of its annual GDP

(around $100-150 billion per year). Sending a few billion dollars in military supplies to Ukraine  is a manageable investment when put into this perspective. Neither national defence nor international alliances are free.

By standing up for Ukraine, Carney is not only showing moral clarity, he is helping Canada become a stronger, prouder, more secure and, ultimately, more self-reliant player on the international stage.

National Post


Canada's combined federal-provincial debt costs are almost three times what the federal government currently spends on national defence.

Canada’s public debt – and the cost of maintaining it – is increasing so quickly that it is now costing $2,000 per Canadian, per year just to cover the interest charges.

According to a new analysis published by the Fraser Institute, the cost of servicing Canada’s combined provincial and federal debt hit an unprecedented $92.5 billion in the 2024/2025 fiscal year.

This makes debt servicing one of the fastest growing shares of Canadian government spending. And with large deficits and high interest rates set to continue into the foreseeable future, that trend is set to continue.

Of every tax dollar collected in the 2024/2025 fiscal year, the Fraser Institute found that eight cents of it was spent merely to pay the interest charges on public debt, be it the $1.3 trillion in debt held by the federal government, or the $1.1 trillion in debt held collectively by all 10 provinces.

The situation was most acute for taxpayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Like every other Canadian, Newfoundlanders saw 10 cents of every federal dollar diverted into debt servicing. For every tax dollar they sent to the provincial government, meanwhile, 11 cents were immediately consumed by interest charges.

On average, Canadian debt servicing costs now consume more government spending than the combined annual cost of K-12 education. The debt costs are also

almost three times

what Canada currently spends on national defence.

In 2024/25, the federal government alone spent a record $53.8 billion on debt interest. This was more even than what is traditionally one of the largest single chunks of federal spending; the Canada Health Transfer (CHT). In that same fiscal year, the cost of the CHT only hit $52.1 billion.

Even in B.C., which maintains a relatively low public debt burden, taxpayers are now paying more to maintain public debt than they are on infrastructure upgrades. In the 2024/2025 fiscal year, the province of B.C.

spent $10.4 billion

on new hospitals, schools, transit and public housing.

That’s slightly less than the estimated $11.6 billion in B.C. tax dollars that got consumed by federal and provincial debt payments in the same period.

The cost of debt servicing began to increase dramatically in the immediate wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, when interest rate hikes had an outsized impact on Canadian governments.

In 2023, stats showed that Ottawa was suddenly

spending 37 per cent more

on interest charges compared to the year prior. By the next year, federal debt costs had surged so high that

they cancelled out the combined revenue for the GST.

 The federal government collected about $54 billion in GST revenue, and paid out about $54 billion in interest charges.

Just five years ago, in 2020, the Fraser Institute’s annual tally of Canada’s public debt servicing costs arrived at a figure of $54.8 billion, as compared to the $92.5 billion in their most recent tally. At the time, the combined provincial-federal debt stood at just $1.5 trillion, as compared to the $2.3 trillion of today.

That debt burden is only set to increase, with both federal and provincial governments dramatically hiking deficits for the foreseeable future.

The federal government alone is

planning to accumulate $225 billion in new debt

over the next four years. In B.C., provincial debt has risen by 50 per cent in just the last two years. Even Alberta, which was the only province posting budget surpluses as recently as last year, has

now veered back into deficit territory.

Canada generally still comes out in good shape when its federal debt load is compared to that of peer countries such as France or the U.K. The Government of Canada often boasts in official literature that “

Canada has the lowest net debt in the G7

.”

However, Canada is somewhat unique in allowing high levels of public debt to be accumulated at the subnational level. In the U.K., for instance, almost all public debt is carried by the national government, with borrowing kept extremely limited among subnational governments.

This is why, when Canada’s various provincial and federal liabilities are lumped together as “general government” debt, the country quickly ranks among the most indebted on earth.

The most recent IMF ranking of countries by “general government debt” had Canada at 107 per cent of GDP, higher than the U.K. (101.1) and Spain (105.03), and rapidly approaching the famously indebted French (110.6).


Gordon Guyatt

By his own admission, Gordon Guyatt, one of this country’s most eminent doctors and an inductee in the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame, is a little naive.

Guyatt has found himself under fire from both sides of the trans debate after publishing studies about

puberty blockers

and

hormone therapy

being used in gender-affirming care.

One critic accused Guyatt of bending a knee to trans ideology, while on the opposite side he and his colleagues found themselves accosted by trans activists while at a workshop.

So vitriolic is the trans controversy that some of his colleagues refused to sign a letter he wrote adding context to the studies. “Everybody’s been kind of frightened,” Guyatt said in an interview with National Post.

Part of Guyatt’s claim to fame is coining the term “evidence-based medicine,” and being one of its “most effective champions,”

according

to the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame.

Earlier this year, he and his team published two systematic reviews assessing the science on puberty blockers and hormone therapy. In both cases, Guyatt found that there was not enough evidence to say whether the treatments were either good or bad.

“The best available evidence reporting the effects of puberty blockers in individuals with (gender dysphoria) was mostly very low certainty and therefore we cannot exclude the possibility of benefit or harm,” read one of his studies.

The study on hormone therapy concluded that the evidence “does not exclude the possibility of benefit or harm.”

Guyatt, a professor in the department of health research methods, evidence and impact at McMaster University, said, “The information is limited, that’s the bottom line.” But that did not stop trans activists from making their concerns known in what he describes as “rather obnoxious ways.”

He said he was “holding a workshop at McMaster and the people showed up, took videos of us coming in and confronted us. Then they had to be asked to leave and then subsequently (they) posted things on the internet, as well as writing letters to the university.”

He says he also started seeing his work misinterpreted in articles and being used as a rationale to deny people access to care. “I have spent my career thinking that if I do good science and put it out there, that that was my job,” he said, adding that he was perhaps “naive.”

In hindsight, he said, “What we should have done is put in the discussion of the paper our vivid position that the reason for this work is not to deny care to people, it’s to inform decision-making by the people who are making the decisions.…

“My participation in these (studies) is to make sure the systematic review methods are done properly and I don’t worry too much about the content.”

However, Guyatt must have realized he was stepping into a minefield. The study on puberty blockers mentions that the treatment is controversial and says, “While originally considered fully reversible, concerns have emerged about the potential long-term effects and partial irreversibility.”

To set the record straight about his studies, Guyatt asked the university — which had already been approached by trans activists — to publish a letter. In the

letter

, Guyatt and four of his colleagues say that despite “low certainty” evidence about the treatments, patients’ autonomy should be respected.

“It is unconscionable to forbid clinicians from delivering gender-affirming care,” they wrote. “The high respect for autonomy becomes particularly important when the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.”

In the interview, Guyatt said judgment had to be used when weighing the possible benefits and harms, particularly when it concerns children and adolescents.

“It seems to me that this is something where one must be very cautious and there should be professional teams evaluating, as we do in other situations,” he said.

“You’d have to have very careful evaluation to ensure that the patients, and presumably their family, are very well informed about their decision, that somebody assesses the psychological status and the understanding of the individuals involved and so on. So, it would have to be done carefully and cautiously given the possible harms.

“But having put all those things in place then, when the judgment is that the person understands well enough the evidence and they have the maturity to make the decision, then you need to respect their autonomy.”

Guyatt said the whole purpose of his studies is to help people make decisions: “That’s the purpose of our reviews to say, ‘Look, be aware that you may feel like this is going to feel a whole lot better after.

“This may change your life in a positive way. But be careful, the evidence is not there to be confident that that’s what’s going to happen.’ ”

Guyatt has come under considerable fire from critics who say that prioritizing autonomy betrays the principle of evidence-based medicine.

“The quality of evidence is meant to inform the strength of medical recommendations,”

wrote

Eithan Haim, a Texas surgeon who exposed a secret transgender program at Texas Children’s Hospital.

“Dr. Guyatt is claiming that a patient’s choice to pursue a medical intervention is most important precisely when there is no clear evidence the intervention has any benefit.”

Guyatt’s letter “bends the knee to the most radical faction of trans activists,” wrote Haim.

Guyatt dismissed the accusation of bending the knee as “nonsense.”

On the weekend, National Post columnist Amy Hamm

wrote

that Guyatt’s argument “blatantly ignores the largest ethical issue in pediatric gender-affirming care: that minors are not capable of providing informed consent for this type of treatment, and their advocates (parents, usually) have been woefully misinformed about its benefits.”

Meanwhile, the university was obviously feeling the heat from activists. “The university, as far as I can tell, is very nervous about its image around this whole thing, and the PR people within the university are very uncomfortable with being put in this position,” said Guyatt.

“The general PR stance is, ‘Be quiet. Don’t say anything. Anything you say will get into more trouble. Just be quiet. It’ll blow over.’ That’s the general PR stance.”

However, in this case, the university was happy to publish Guyatt’s letter and concede to a request from trans activists that the study’s authors make a personal donation to Egale Canada. “And I was completely comfortable with that,” said Guyatt.

But making that donation was a mistake. It is already being used by Guyatt’s opponents, who claim it demonstrates that he has succumbed to pressure from the trans lobby and betrayed his own findings.

If Guyatt wanted to protect his impartiality, he should never have made a token donation to Egale Canada, an LGBT advocacy group committed to making puberty blockers and hormone therapy available to young people despite the low quality of evidence regarding their safety.

“Puberty blockers have no known irreversible effects and are considered very safe overall,” says Egale Canada on its website, a position that clearly contradicts Guyatt’s findings.

In his letter, Guyatt also distances himself from the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), which funded some of his research studies. Guyatt said he would no longer accept funding from SEGM and added that, “The organization appeared to us as non-trans, cis-gender researchers to be legitimately evidence-based,” implying that it is not evidence-based.

This characterization would almost certainly be rejected by SEGM, which states on its website: “The first and most fundamental principle of evidence-based medicine (EBM) is that medical decision-making must be based on the best available evidence, which comes from systematic reviews of evidence.”

What Guyatt has discovered is that in the trans controversy there is no middle ground. “It’s back to the naivete. I was not as vividly aware as to what an extreme political environment it is,” he said.

National Post