CBC News’ industrious Taryn Grant 

gives us a fresh occasion to peep at Nova Scotia

, that parched corner of Hades wherein it is currently forbidden to go for an invigorating saunter in the woods. A couple of weeks ago I discussed 

the controversial and suffocatingly broad travel restrictions imposed by the province

 in response to dangerous wildfire conditions. Nova Scotia, not content with everyday tools of regulation like campfire or vehicle bans, has 

almost totally denied its citizens

 access even to privately owned woodlands. When critics outside the province yoinked a few questioning eyebrows upward, they were told they failed to understand the precious communitarian spirit of Nova Scotia or its particular vulnerability to forest fire.

Well, let’s concede that the government of Nova Scotia is answerable primarily to the people of Nova Scotia. In our usual sunny, optimistic way, I scanned for the glint of a silver lining in the exotic, ambitious ban on walking in or through the forest. Perhaps, I remarked, it betokened a new no-nonsense approach to the regulation of public amenities.

“If ‘extremism in defence of public property is no vice’ is to be the new rule in Canada, we are surely going to see a lot of big changes to urban public parks and other land patches, which, for a decade, have been beset by nomadic tent-dwellers who make copious and inveterate use of propane tanks, electrical heaters, camp stoves, improvised wiring from hijacked power supplies, and open fires.”

Well, don’t hold your breath. The CBC has now inquired into the possibility that some members of the Wandering Fire-Bringer class may be testing the Nova Scotia fire ban. Turns out it’s made of vapour. The province’s Department of Opportunities and Social Development estimates that an estimated 137 rough sleepers are still living in the Nova Scotia woods and “cannot be convinced” to leave. They’ve been visited repeatedly by a team of “outreach workers” who themselves enjoy an exemption from the travel rules. A few of the tent-dwellers, worn down by social-worker nattering, agreed to move on or accept spaces in urban shelters. Most have stayed put as if they’d grown roots.

And the state turns out to be helpless, even though one fire may already have been started at an “encampment.” It seems to be generally agreed that there is no point in fining any of the fairy folk of the forest. The provision in the provincial fire proclamation that allows for $25,000 penalties is reserved exclusively for those who might conceivably have such a sum to cough up.

Well, what about the ordinary police powers of arrest and detention? After a fortnight of hearing Nova Scotians insist that the current forest-fire risks are unprecedented, and that the traditional mobility privileges of citizenship must necessarily shrivel into abeyance, I am suddenly assured by a legal-aid lawyer that anyone collared for being unlawfully encamped “would have to be quickly released, as the offence would not warrant being detained.”

This ultra-confident prediction leaves me confused. One struggles to understand, from outside N.S., how forest protection can be so important as to justify a ministerial fiat of extraordinary and unprecedented character — but not so important as to be at all enforced.

National Post

Free money alert: next Monday, the federal agriculture department will begin accepting

applications

for cash handouts that fund garden boxes, refrigeration units, greenhouses, ATVs, snowmobiles, tractors, hydroponic systems and more. But there’s a catch — anyone who receives these funds must use them to directly support “food production for equity-deserving groups.”

The program, called the Local Food Infrastructure Fund, expressly refuses to fund projects that “are not addressing food security for equity-deserving groups.” On the other hand, “Priority will be given to projects that predominantly serve equity-deserving groups, particularly those that are led by or focus on Indigenous and Black communities.”

Quite clearly, this is a discriminatory program — one of many that continue to exist in this new era of Liberal leadership.

It wasn’t always this way. Back when the Local Food Infrastructure Fund was first created in 2019, initially with a pool of $50 million to be given out until 2024, it was aimed at supporting the food security of “at-risk populations.” At least on its surface, it did not discriminate according to identity.

Applicants

back then

were asked to “include any available data on rates of food insecurity in the community where the project will be implemented” in their application forms. On the top end, multi-million dollar recipients

included

Food Banks Canada, the Breakfast Club of Canada and the Salvation Army.

From there, the Local Food Infrastructure Fund was

extended

for another three years. From 2025 until 2027, it will hand out $63 million in grants between $25,000 and $500,000 — now on the basis of identity. (This is not to be confused with the department’s

AgriDiversity grant

, which is also identity-based.)

No longer do the program materials ask applicants to produce data about food insecurity. Nowadays, they’re

asked

to state whether they support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); whether they’re “Black-led or Black-focused”; whether they have a DEI staffing plan; which “equity-deserving” groups they serve; and whether they’re majority-owned by women and individuals whose gender is “gender outside of the ‘woman—man’ spectrum.”

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for Agriculture Canada downplayed the change over time, stating that the new focus on “equity-deserving groups” was a matter of complying with a new federal language guide.

Whether the fund targets “at-risk populations” or “equity-deserving groups,” the spokesperson added, the target has “always included” the same people. He provided a long list: non-white people, Indigenous people, women, LGBT, the disabled, “persons who are homeless or street-involved,” low-income families, rural and northern communities, “groups with social or employment barriers including literacy and numeracy,” new immigrants and refugees, youth, seniors and official language minorities.

On its face, that list doesn’t make sense: race alone doesn’t render a person “at risk,” nor does speaking French in non-Quebec Canada, nor does living outside a city. Typically, in English, that term is used to describe homeless and low-income people.

The agriculture department’s explanation isn’t reflected in the actual record, either. The applicant guide for the Local Food Infrastructure Fund presents a closed list of “equity-seeking groups” that a potential grant recipient can claim to help: Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, women, youth, 2SLGBTQI+, “Not applicable” and “Decline to identify.” The government (which actually prefers the term “equity-denied group” over “equity-deserving group) limits the scope of the

definition

to race, gender, sexuality, religion and disability.

What’s certain is that the scope of this grant program is unclear, and that public-facing documents are giving potential applicants the impression that food programs serving, say, low-income, country-dwelling white seniors of Saskatchewan aren’t deserving of government support. Neither would be a replacement freezer for a food bank serving the poor — regardless of race — in small-town Atlantic Canada. A curious choice for the minister of agriculture, Prince Edward Islander Heath MacDonald.

Meanwhile, a free set of raised beds for a community garden in an upper- to middle-class, predominantly non-white neighbourhood of Toronto would appear to meet the program’s stated criteria, even though such endeavours are largely recreational. Indeed, the same can be said for low-income communities. Neighbourhood gardens can’t achieve the economies of scale found in industrial farming or the year-round stability of the grocery store, which is why a local Loblaws or Metro does a lot more for food security than a few raised beds.

This is just one grant, but it’s emblematic of the whole federal government’s approach to public service. It’s not enough to support food programs for the poor; the feds must also support the gardening hobbies across the cultural mosaic. Similarly, it’s not enough to hire deserving students as youth employment

hits 20-year lows

; the feds must

select

their new hires on the basis of identity. It’s not enough that Supreme Court justices are highly competent in the law — instead, they must be half-decent at their craft, bilingual and be the first person with their combination of diversity characteristics to join the court.

To the feds, managing a diverse population doesn’t just mean ensuring that discrimination doesn’t happen — it means actively discriminating to redistribute the goods of society. Even something as essential as food isn’t immune.

National Post

• Geoff Russ: When reconciliation fails in B.C., David Eby will be to blame
• Terry Newman: Poilievre’s win means Carney’s cakewalk is over

After a three-hour summit meeting in Anchorage last Friday, which most observers described as a “big win” for Vladimir Putin, U.S. President Donald Trump met in Washington on Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and key European leaders for in a stunning display of high-stakes global diplomacy. Most significantly, they agreed to NATO Article 5-style security safeguards for Ukraine, involving European and possible U.S. monitors on the ground, as a key element in peace negotiations, a concept Trump claimed Putin had supported in principle in Alaska. The Russian foreign minister later walked back that claim,

stating

“Moscow won’t agree with collective security guarantees negotiated without Russia.”

Nevertheless, the consensus in Washington is that the two meetings are expected to lead to a trilateral (U.S., Ukraine and Russia) summit to discuss peace before the end of this month at a place still to be determined.

Trump’s position on Ukraine has oscillated widely since the early days of his administration. He has spent much time trying to woo Putin while occasionally chastising Zelenskyy for his perceived lack of gratitude, as in February’s

explosive meeting

at the White House. Trump often seems to have difficulty distinguishing the victim from the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, often acting as if he is a neutral arbitrator, not Ukraine’s backstop ally.

When Putin arrived at a red-carpet welcome in Anchorage, the optics were all in his favour. The meeting seemed to be a chummy affair — due in part to the hasty preparations. There was little or no engagement on points of friction, or on leverage or Ukrainian interests. Putin offered no concessions on his basic objectives, rejected the notion of a ceasefire — which had been Trump’s sole objective — and continues to intensify his war campaign.

The Americans emerged from the Alaska summit essentially empty-handed. No ceasefire and “no tangible step toward peace,” which Trump’s Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, had earlier confidently predicted. Despite his failure to get a ceasefire Trump still described his meeting with Putin as a “10 out of 10.” He remains unwilling to use the enormous economic leverage the U.S. has, which could cripple Russia’s war-fuelled economy. In fact, he deferred yet again on further sanctions. Vacillation is the antithesis of former U.S. president Ronald Reagan’s motto “Peace Through Strength.” The only tangible example in Anchorage was the impressive flyover of a U.S. B-2 bomber and accompanying advanced fighter aircraft.

Both Putin and the European leaders shamelessly flattered Trump during the Anchorage and Washington meetings, albeit in different ways. Putin stated that the war would not have happened if Trump had been in office and, according to Trump, also said the 2020 U.S. election “was rigged.” The Europeans effusively stated that Trump was the “only person” who could initiate peace negotiations, strongly echoing his basic desire to “stop the killing.” All of this was music to Trump’s ears (and his hopes for a Nobel Peace Prize), and it worked in both sessions. (Although Canada’s prime minister joined the flattery queue in his

statements

to the media, he conspicuously was not invited to the session in Washington.)

Putin is a thug, an indicted war criminal and an international pariah. The Alaska invitation brought him in from the diplomatic cold, for which he paid no price. For more than his 25 years in office he has pursued his goal of restoring the Russian empire. That cannot happen if Ukraine remains a viable, independent nation. Putin is adamant that Ukraine has no claim to sovereignty, while Ukraine has fought valiantly for more than three years to safeguard its existence. That illustrates the wide gap on any peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Ukraine sees the war in moral and existential terms. For Putin, it is fundamental to his objective of resuscitating the Soviet empire. Underscoring that objective, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wore a T-shirt in Alaska emblazoned with the “CCCP” Soviet logo, evoking memories, particularly for Canadian hockey fans, of the former Soviet Union.

The Europeans have more directly at stake with Russia and they are less likely to be played by Putin. Especially those close to Russia fear that, if Russia wins in Ukraine, he will not stop there. Similarly, many Americans fear that, if Putin wins on Ukraine, Beijing will be emboldened to deliver on its aspirations regarding Taiwan.

While explicit security safeguards, backstopped by European troops on the ground and possibly the U.S. air force, are key to a successful peace negotiation, other major obstacles persist. Russia will not want to give up the territory it occupies and, in fact, wants more than the

19 per cent

of Ukraine it currently controls. The segment in Donetsk that it does not yet occupy, but which it is demanding, is crucial to the defence of Ukraine’s homeland. Ukraine may have to live with “de facto” but not “de jure” control of some of its occupied regions, but remedial efforts are needed, especially for the 20,000 Ukrainian children

kidnapped

by Russian forces.

The economic dimension is critical. Rehabilitation from the damage inflicted by Russia on the Ukrainian people and their civil infrastructure must be compensated. Frozen Russian funds provide a partial answer, but more will be needed.

The biggest question mark, however, will be Donald Trump and whether he is really committed to a just peace. He is obsessed with performance and headlines, not geopolitical strategy. His position fluctuates daily, operating more on impulse or whim, not the benefit of expert advice, especially when none is readily available. He changes tactics and goals on a dime, as his tariff terror campaign aptly demonstrates. Unlike in his first term, there are no anti-Russian hawks in his administration or in Congress willing to place guardrails on his behaviour. And he is not, at least not yet, constrained by the prospect of a third term.

The saving grace may be the new-found solidarity demonstrated by the Europeans in Washington. When the American position seemed to be deteriorating, they rallied swiftly to establish clear red lines for Ukraine and, together with their five per cent NATO pledge, established greater credibility with the U.S. administration. Whether their sudden, yet solid, unity with the U.S. will prevail if and as negotiations begin will determine whether we are witnessing a genuine breakthrough or a continuing stalemate.

National Post

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

• Raymond J. de Souza: Trump pledged to end Ukraine war in 24 hours. How’s that working out?
• Adam Zivo: Zelenskyy meeting with Trump a resounding success

“Canada’s biggest airline is hiding a secret,” warned

unfaircanada.com

, a website campaigning on behalf of Air Canada flight attendants and their union during recent contract negotiations. “Their cabin crew is being forced to work for free during the most critical moments of your flight experience.” Except it

wasn’t exactly true

that they were being forced to work for nothing, and it was never a secret.

In the end, it didn’t matter that the Unfair Canada campaign wasn’t being completely honest. What mattered was that the union’s message — “Tell Air Canada and the Carney government unpaid work is a true crime” — had its intended effect on Canadians and their elected officials.

On Monday, before the labour dispute was resolved, Jobs Minister

Patty Hajdu said

that the flight attendants’ claim that they were forced to work for free when planes weren’t in the sky was “deeply disturbing” and

announced a probe

into “unpaid work in the airline sector.” If the inquiry finds the allegation to be well-founded, Hajdu pledged to introduce legislation to outlaw the practice.

Whether the announcement was simply a means of placating the labour movement after

Hajdu ordered

the Canada Industrial Relations Board to force the flight attendants back to work, prompting

allegations

that the Liberals were siding with management, is an open question. It’s very possible that the probe will be swept under the rug now that the airline is resuming operations.

But should the government follow through on its promise, it will find that Air Canada’s pay structure was

the industry standard

, and that the practice dates back around four decades. It only became an issue in 2022, when Delta Air Lines agreed to pay its cabin crews for boarding in a bid to prevent them from unionizing.

In 2024, the union representing flight attendants at American Airlines lobbied hard for a similar pay structure and

announced

last August that it had reached an agreement to become “the first unionized workgroup to lock in pay for boarding.” Workers at Alaska Airlines ratified a

similar collective agreement

in February.

Given this trend, it’s no surprise that the Unfair Canada campaign was launched late last year, months before the flight attendants’ collective agreement was due to

expire

on March 31. By making it sound as though your friendly stewardesses were being treated no better than the children at a Bangladeshi garment factory, the union knew it had a winning public-relations strategy.

It certainly helped that many press reports repeated the union’s claims verbatim. To bolster its cause and increase political pressure, CUPE also c

ommissioned a poll

showing that the majority of Canadians sided with the flight attendants (59 per cent) over the company (12 per cent), and that 88 per cent think “flight attendants should be paid for all work-related duties, not just time in motion.”

Yet no one should be shocked that the public tended to support the people who serve them drinks and clean up their children’s vomit over the company responsible for their cancelled flights and lost baggage. And some of the survey’s findings were based on some fairly loaded questions.

The one about compensation, for example, was setup as follows: “Some people say that because boarding, deplaning, delays and safety checks are all part of a flight attendant’s workday, they should be paid for that time. Others say flight attendants’ pay should only start once the plane is moving, as is current practice. Which is closer to your own view?”

It’s little wonder that only 12 per cent of respondents chose the latter. But although these positions may have represented the views of the parties at the bargaining table, it’s unlikely that too many Canadians were arguing in favour of unpaid labour at the dinner table. Nor does this question fully encapsulate how flight attendants were paid under the previous agreement.

According to a

press release

issued by Air Canada at the start of the month, “Time spent onboarding and similar tasks performed on the ground (are) captured within the formula pay defined by the collective agreement, which covers the duty period (commencing one hour prior to flight departure / ending 15 minutes after flight arrival). If the employee is requested to be on duty outside of these times or to perform service to passengers on the ground, the collective agreement provides for additional compensation.”

The

text

of the agreement also says that, “Where an employee is required to report for duty prior to or remain on duty following the termination of a duty period … s/he shall be paid at one-half of the hourly rate of pay.” Similar terms were offered when employees were required to “provide meal, bar or beverage service to passengers on the ground.”

Other parts of the agreement discuss hourly wages, which started at $25.13 for new hires and rose to $87.01 for some in-flight managers, along with meal allowances and incentives, such as discounted flights, pensions and health benefits.

Being a stewardess is certainly not the most lucrative career, but painting them as destitute labourers forced to dumpster dive for food is a bit of a stretch. And although flight attendants can be forgiven for wanting a better deal, let’s not pretend as though they didn’t agree to the pay structure outlined in the last agreement, or the ones before that.

The risk for flight attendants, however, is that if they get too greedy, many of their jobs could one day be automated, at least as soon as someone realizes that much of what they do could be replaced by a vending machine strapped to a Roomba and sent down the aisle to serve food and drinks. Heck, the service on some flights may even improve!

Perhaps the solution is to allow them to accept tips. I’m fully aware that we’re all sick of being asked to tip every time we reach for our credit cards, but I’d certainly be willing to chip in a few extra bucks if it meant someone would actually come when I press the flight attendant call button and stop giving me excuses about why they can’t pour me a double gin and soda.

Ultimately, the workers and management settled on

a tentative deal

that will reportedly guarantee at least an hour of ground pay at half their hourly rate for each flight, with a pay bump of five per cent per year. Which sounds fair enough. But such decisions should always be up to those who are being hired to perform a specific task and the people who are hiring them. Patty Hajdu and her Liberal colleagues should stay on their own runway.

National Post

jkline@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/accessd

David Eby appears determined to become the funeral director of reconciliation in British Columbia. Once touted as a worthy cause, reconciliation under Eby has become divisive and suspicious.

British Columbians never voted for extreme secrecy, heavy-handed decisions, and one-sided governance, but they are getting hit with all of it whether they like it or not.

Regular people and families are now wondering if the homes they saved for are truly theirs, or if they will wake up to find the name of their

community,

or

street

changed, or

unable to camp

at their favourite spots in the province.

Ninety-four per cent of B.C. is Crown land,

making the province ground zero for the collision of Aboriginal title, Crown land, and private property. Earlier this month, B.C. caught the attention of people across Canada following the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision.

The B.C. Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared that a number of Crown land grants in Richmond were

“defective and invalid”

because they unjustifiably infringed Cowichan Aboriginal title, raising questions about the status of surrounding privately-held fee simple properties.

Justice Barbara Young found that Crown grants that had enabled the land sales were “unjustifiable infringements.” Premier Eby’s own Attorney General Niki Sharma even admitted that Justice Young’s decision could have “unintended consequences for private property rights.”

It is not just private owners who have been upended by the Cowichan decision. Even local First Nations with their own claims to the land in question are furious, with the Musqueam calling the

ruling offensive.

The shock and awe that followed the decision might have been mitigated had the B.C. NDP approached decision-making with openness and honesty when it came to land use and Aboriginal title.

Instead, the provincial government has spent the last two years deliberately dodging public debate and consultation with all British Columbians on an issue that is shaking the foundations of their society.

Take the shíshálh Nation Agreement for example.

Signed behind closed doors in 2024, it

handed over

$104 million in payments, transferred six square kilometres of public land, and committed the province to negotiate recognition of Aboriginal title and to explore exclusive decision-making powers for the Nation within five years.

It was only revealed after the 2024 provincial election, with local residents furious at learning they had been left in the dark. Even the freshly elected NDP MLA Randene Neill admitted she too had no idea of the deal while running.

For the B.C. NDP, subterfuge is often the rule, not the exception.

At the most basic level, this is exemplified by the fact that they have choked off access to public information by charging $10 per ministry for Freedom of Information requests. Because the province treats its 28 ministries and agencies as separate “public bodies,” a single cross-government request now

costs $280

just to make a request. It is an unambiguously undemocratic policy that turns transparency into a privilege for those who have the means.

The Eby government’s application of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) is another way by which ordinary British Columbians have had the rug pulled out from underneath them. Passed in 2019 by the provincial legislature, DRIPA commits the provincial government to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a non-binding document adopted by the UN in 2007.

In March, residents of Okanagan Falls

voted

by 53 per cent to incorporate and become the province’s newest municipality, and learned what DRIPA could mean for them.

It was only well after the vote that the NDP asked the people of Okanagan Falls to

consider

a change of name to align with local Indigenous wishes, and to

possibly

surrender certain Crown land located within their proposed borders.

Some fear this could mean losing access to popular hiking trails and other attractions, and those in Okanagan Falls who have pushed to become a municipality rightfully feel cheated.

The province has promised further meetings and updates, but precedent suggests residents shouldn’t hold their breath. Reconciliation will not work unless it is a three-way process between Indigenous people, non-Indigenous people, and the Crown.

Historically, British Columbians could take it for granted that once they bought land, it was their property until they chose to sell. Courts are now

questioning

the relationship between

Aboriginal title and fee simple rights

, raising new doubts about the security of land ownership in B.C.

Even the NDP have been rattled by the Cowichan decision, given the implications, and have appealed the ruling. If reconciliation was ever a unifying cause in B.C., it is no longer, and the NDP are responsible.

Polling by Research Co. in 2023 found that while 65 per cent of British Columbians approved of reconciliation in principle, only half supported “economic reconciliation.” Changes to the B.C. Land Act, which dictates title and land use, have proven especially controversial.

Angus Reid

found

that 94 per cent of British Columbians agreed that changing the Land Act was a “major transformation,” while 75 per cent wanted a referendum on the matter, and with good reason.

The Land Act,

“provides for the application for and disposition of Crown land and for the cancellation, amendment, and abandonment of dispositions,” and has been greatly affected by DRIPA and Aboriginal title cases.

No British Columbian ever voted in a referendum for DRIPA. They never voted for the fundamental rules of their democracy to be altered, and they certainly never voted for private property to be thrown into question without their consent. The NDP do not make court rulings, but they have fostered a climate of mistrust, and have no roadmap to deal with the consequences of decisions like Cowichan.

David Eby and his NDP government have no mandate to keep behaving like they have no obligation to be honest and transparent with the public.

National Post

• Jamie Sarkonak: This is what reconciliation looks like — the end of property rights
• Caroline Elliott: B.C. Supreme Court takes an axe to private property rights

Canada’s legal toolkit is outdated, inadequate and built for an era that bears no relation to today’s sophisticated criminal landscape. The head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Thomas Carrique,

reinforced

this grim reality last week.

Carrique warned that “geopolitical instability and social unrest” have forced law enforcement to try to combat transnational crime, extremism, drug trafficking and online exploitation with tools never designed for such challenges.

Loopholes as trivial as the inability to secure a warrant for a Canada Post parcel under 500 grams — despite its capacity to hold lethal fentanyl — highlight the disconnect between legal thresholds and criminal realities.

Police have been flagging these issues for 30 years, but warnings went unheeded. Now, like several other issues, it has taken unpleasant pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to wake Canadians up to these issues. Bill C-2, the

strong borders act

, is only a start; real reform requires we go much further.

Today’s threats are not limited to the Hell’s Angels or traditional mafias. Foreign

state actors

 now exert unprecedented influence over organized crime 

in Canada

 and

the United States

, exploiting criminal networks as tools of hybrid warfare.

Whether it’s

raging antisemitism

,

hate crimes

and violent protests,

opioid supply chains

and illicit drugs,

surging auto theft

or

violent crime

and gang-related violence, foreign-influenced organized crime is increasingly interwoven into our public safety challenges. Yet our laws treat them as isolated domestic crimes, leaving police and prosecutors hamstrung.

Canada’s high thresholds for searches, surveillance and due process exist to protect rights, public trust and human dignity. But modern threats demand targeted carve-outs for organized crime and national security — preserving core rights while removing the handcuffs from those tasked with defending them.

Canada’s legal architecture has failed to keep pace with the evolving reality of hybrid threats and transnational organized crime. We impose high thresholds for surveillance and digital data access, even in serious organized crime cases, under Section 8 of the Charter.

Landmark cases such as

R. v. Tse

and

R. v. Spencer

restrict even emergency wiretaps and access to internet subscriber data, respectively, without prior judicial authorization. Other democracies, like the United Kingdom, allow

bulk data access

in comparable contexts.

Immediate access to counsel can

prematurely halt interrogations

in high-stakes cases — where the

United States

and

Australia

permit limited, supervised delays in terrorism and organized crime investigations.

The Jordan framework is a set of legal principles that determine whether a criminal trial has been delayed unreasonably, resulting in a rights violation. It enforces strict trial timelines of

18-30 months

, forcing the dismissal of complex cross-border cases that in the U.S. could proceed under exceptions in the

Speedy Trial Act

.

The

Stinchcombe

disclosure rule requires the Crown to share virtually all evidence publicly, deterring the use of intelligence from our allies in court for fear of compromising sources. Our allies employ measures like

public interest immunity

or classified information procedures to protect sensitive data.

Our organized crime provisions are similarly out of step. The Criminal Code sections pertaining to organized crime

(467.1–467.13)

require proof of a rigid organizational structure and a benefit motive, a framework ill-suited to the decentralized, cell-based and digital networks driving today’s transnational crime. In contrast, the

U.S. RICO Act

targets patterns of criminal behaviour, allowing prosecutions of crime leaders and facilitators in loosely co-ordinated syndicates.

Financial enforcement is equally weak. Between $45 billion and $113 billion

is laundered

in Canada each year, with British Columbia’s

Cullen Commission estimating

that upwards of $5.3 billion is laundered through B.C. real estate every year.

The absence of a robust beneficial ownership registry leaves shell corporations and trusts as attractive vehicles for “

snow-washing

” illicit funds. FINTRAC’s limited proactive authority contrasts sharply with the U.S.

FinCEN

’s ability to issue geographic targeting orders, freeze assets and compel cross-jurisdictional disclosure.

Jurisdictional gaps and enforcement silos further undermine our defences. Ports, airports and rail hubs often fall

outside the authority

of municipal and provincial police unless complex memoranda of understanding are in place, leaving vulnerabilities that organized crime exploits.

Intelligence is likewise siloed, with

CSIS unable

to readily convert its intelligence into admissible evidence — a problem the U.K. mitigates through

closed-material proceedings

.

Canada also lacks the means to compel internet service providers, payment processors and banks to sever support to foreign criminal enterprises, while the European Union’s Digital Services Act — an overly restrictive act we should not strive to emulate overall — contains important elements, such as provisions

empowering member states

to force takedowns of criminal platforms.

To address these gaps, Canada should introduce targeted carve-outs to the Stinchcombe disclosure requirements and the Jordan timelines for organized crime and national security cases and create secure protocols for using allied intelligence in prosecutions.

The Criminal Code’s organized crime sections should be modernized to include enforcement against decentralized networks alongside stronger wiretap and production order powers for digital and offshore data.

Financial transparency must be improved through a more robust and enforceable beneficial ownership registry and expanded FINTRAC powers.

Jurisdictional loopholes when dealing with federally controlled infrastructure should be closed by granting local police authority and embedding integrated intelligence-law enforcement prosecution teams.

Finally, Canada should adopt a closed-material procedure framework to enable the use of CSIS intelligence in court without compromising national security.

The strong borders act is a start, but it leaves our deep-rooted vulnerabilities untouched. Hybrid threats are already entrenched in our communities, financial systems and infrastructure. Without legal modernization, organized crime will continue to run roughshod over the sovereignty of our nation and the safety of Canadians.

National Post

Peter Copeland is deputy director of domestic policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Cal Chrustie is a former RCMP senior intelligence officer with deep experience in national security and transnational crime.

• NP View: Progressive criminal justice policies have made Canada less safe
• Canada has become a hub of Islamist terror financing: Full Comment podcast

Despite naysayers and a longest ballot committee, Pierre Poilievre handily won his seat in Battle River-Crowfoot Monday, which means he will be returning to Parliament in September.

Up until this point, Prime Minister Mark Carney has had it easy.

The Liberals haven’t faced the Conservative leader in the House of Commons since December. And due to Poilievre’s loss of the Carleton riding in the federal election, Carney has never had to face the opposition leader’s razor-like questioning in Parliament. That respite will be over soon. Poilievre’s return means Carney and the Liberal party’s cakewalk is over.

So far Carney has enjoyed public support for his policies and proposals, but Poilievre could be returning to the House at precisely the right time, as it becomes increasingly obvious that this country’s problems, from the gigantic deficit, to housing affordability to our relationship with the United States, are not so easily solved. With the Conservative leader grilling the prime minister day in and day out, these problems will only be magnified.

In fact, even out of Parliament, Poilievre has been successful at spotlighting criticisms of the Liberals EV mandate which he’s

described

as akin “to banning rural way of life.” The Conservatives are planning a nationwide campaign targeting the mandate, which a poll has suggested that Canadians think is “unrealistic” and should be shelved.

And there appears to be much more where that came from.

Earlier this month, Poilievre

challenged

Carney to “get shovels in the ground” for at least two energy projects by March 2026, a year after his swearing-in as prime minister. Carney campaigned on being committed to fast-tracking major project approvals in order to boost Canada’s economy against tariff threats from Trump.

Both the “

One Canadian Economy

” and “

Building Canada Act

” passed on June 26, but so far, no energy projects have manifested under Carney who is placing great emphasis on advancing the interests of clean growth and climate change. Poilievre has also repeated requests for Carney to repeal the industrial carbon tax and Impact Assessment Act in order to speed up private projects. Carney has explicitly

refused

to repeal both.

Carney positioned himself as the best man for the job to fight Trump’s proposed 25 per cent tariffs, later increased to 35 per cent, and to secure a new trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump. Carney

failed

to reach a deal with Trump first by July 21 and then by Aug. 1. Carney claims negotiations will continue, but the elbows up facade has faded, providing more opportunities for Poilievre to criticize and differentiate his party.

Carney has made clear on many occasions that he isn’t a fan of being questioned, but, unless the prime minister refuses to show up to work, Poilievre will be there waiting to pounce, providing news reporters with regular punchy, quotable attacks.

It will much more difficult for Carney to defend obviously poor decisions such as his controversial

statement

that he intends to recognize Palestine as a state in September based on conditions that are not likely to be met that “Hamas must disarm; and that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine.” Carney hasn’t explained why a terrorist organization would suddenly choose to disarm after 18 years… for Mark Carney.

The real test will ultimately be public opinion, and Poilievre’s record of tearing apart Liberal policies will ensure September Parliament will be a trial by fire for Carney.

The prime minister’s polling numbers won’t remain positive indefinitely. Despite a survey from early August showing Carney’s

approval rating

at a somewhat-positive 56 per cent, only 36 per cent of Canadians seem to think the country is heading in the right direction.

And of course they don’t. All of the same problems that existed under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are not only still there, and they appear to be getting worse.

As Post columnist Tristin Hopper

points out

, capital is fleeing the country, government is collecting more tax than ever before, never before has the gap between Canadian and U.S. GDP been wider, insolvencies haven’t been this high since the Great Recession, housing is still unaffordable, and somehow, there are more bureaucrats on the government payroll than ever.

Some might argue that this was all a product Trudeau’s leadership, even though Carney advised the Liberals on economic policy informally during COVID and formally, since September 2024 when they

appointed

him as the Chair of the Liberal Party’s Task Force on Economic Growth until he became leader of the party.

This problem will be two-fold for Carney in September. Not only will he have to face questions about policy decisions since he has become prime minister, but his relationship with Brookfield means that some of his personal interests and business relations may also be a subject for debate once Parliament convenes in the fall.

Poilievre, on the other hand, is a much better known quantity — often attacked for being a “career politician.” One of the benefits of being a career politician is that everyone already knows where he stands, and they already know his life story. It would be strange for a skeleton to suddenly emerge from Polievre’s closet at this point.

Carney came in as a fresh face, but the party itself, especially notable cabinet ministers, didn’t change much, they were just shuffled — Joly, Miller, Guilbeault, Freeland, Anand, Hajdu, Champagne and Fraser — just shifted around in a game of political musical chairs, as if these ministers would suddenly perform better in their latest positions.

This all spells political trouble for Carney. And it begs another question: Which Carney can Canadians expect in House of Commons in the fall? Brookfield Carney? Former bank governor Carney? Climate Carney? Elbows up Carney?

Who knows where those elbows have gone. They certainly haven’t solved trade issues with Trump nor were they invited to what is being referred to as a successful meeting in Washington, D.C. about the future of Ukraine.

It looks like Carney’s going to need some elbow grease to explain this and more to the returning Opposition leader in the fall.

@TLNewmanMTL

tnewman@postmedia.com