In the fight against antisemitism and in the defence of Israel, those of us on the front lines often find ourselves battered by the relentless nature of the struggle. Every day brings fresh assaults — graffiti on synagogues, distortions in the media, venom on campus, or institutional condemnations of Israel. And yet, sometimes, we must take a step back to recognize, celebrate, and thank those who have stepped out of their ordinary lives since October 7 to fight back.

The Jewish world — and indeed the wider world — is in crisis. Antisemitism is skyrocketing, and Israel is perhaps at its lowest point in terms of how it is being treated by the international community since its founding. We are under attack every single week. Just this week, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued a 72-page report falsely accusing Israel of genocide. As UN Watch

observed

, the report “selectively misinterprets statements by Israeli leaders, accepts unverified Hamas casualty figures, disregards Hamas’s systematic use of human shields, relies on unverified media reports (such as by Al-Jazeera), and assumes that civilian deaths in Gaza are only the result of deliberate targeting by Israel. Its omissions are equally striking.”

The problem is not confined to the UN chamber. In Canada, a Radio-Canada reporter was suspended after

alleging

that “is that it is the Israelis, the Jews, that finance American politics a lot.“ She continued, “There is a big machine behind them, making it very difficult for Americans to detach themselves from Israel’s positions. It’s really money here in the United States. The big cities are run by Jews, Hollywood is run by Jews…”

On our campuses, at Western University, private group chats tied to pro-Palestinian activists

surfaced

showing Hitler memes, pro-Hamas propaganda, and even chatter about hiding weapons at protests. Across our communities, hatred is spilling into action: in Halifax, multiple synagogues and Jewish sites were vandalized with swastikas and the

words

“Jews did 9/11” was spray-painted on a nearby building associated with the Chabad-Lubavitch. Overseas, in Venice, Italy, an American Orthodox Jewish couple was

attacked

by three assailants who shouted “Free Palestine.”

These are not isolated events. They are part of a global climate in which Israel is demonized and Jews are attacked both physically and ideologically. Even in the corridors of power, rhetoric often bleeds into something darker. Canada’s own prime minister

condemned Israel’s strike in Doha

while remaining silent on Qatar providing Hamas a safe haven. Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, released a statement

saying

, “Spain does not have nuclear bombs, aircraft carriers or large oil reserves. We alone cannot stop the Israeli offensive. But that doesn’t mean we are going to stop trying.” This rhetoric is so inflammatory it borders on incitement. Each statement reverberates, giving licence for hatred to trickle down to our streets.

And yet, for all this darkness, there are sparks of courage and light. Heroes are emerging everywhere — on social media, in city councils, in parliaments, in classrooms, and on university quads. Heroes come in all shapes and sizes: legislators who push for safe-access “bubble zones” around synagogues and schools; business leaders, police chiefs, faith leaders, and journalists who push back against distortion; community members who organize rallies and vigils; and leaders who work to protect the community.

As a runner, I know this is a marathon. It requires training, pacing, hydration, and an unrelenting commitment to finish. We cannot run it alone — we must recruit more runners into this race. When some of us tire, others must take the torch and carry it forward. The numbers against us are daunting, but we are not alone. Many friends from the non-Jewish community have joined us, lending their voices and reputations to the cause of justice.

From time to time, we must pause to acknowledge our heroes, to celebrate and to recharge. That’s why this year, as we enter Rosh Hashanah and embrace the spirit of renewal, The Abraham Global Peace Initiative decided to add the celebration of heroes to its roster of initiatives. They remind us that even as antisemitism rises and Israel is besieged, there are always those ready to fight back with moral clarity and resilience. This Rosh Hashanah, let us be inspired by them. Let us carry their example into the New Year, with renewed energy and unshakable faith.

The war of ideas will not be over soon. But with every hero who steps forward, we build not only resistance but endurance. Together, as we welcome 5786, we affirm that Israel and the Jewish people will never stand alone.

Shanah Tovah U’Metukah — may this be a year of strength, renewal, and courage.

National Post

Urban warfare is the most unforgiving form of combat. It is not fought by tank columns maneuvering across open deserts, but by small units clearing building to building, block to block, tunnel to tunnel. This is the reality facing Israel’s soldiers today. Their objectives are clear and consistent with the obligations of any state defending its citizens: rescue hostages, destroy Hamas’s military capacity, and ensure the group cannot reconstitute to carry out future massacres. To leave Hamas intact would guarantee endless cycles of rockets, shootings, kidnappings, and mass killings.

At the same time, Israel’s forces face immense moral and operational constraints. Modern warfare demands adherence to the laws of armed conflict, which require a balance between military objectives and humanitarian imperatives. This means precision targeting, advance warnings, and the creation of safe corridors when civilians are trapped inside combat areas. Israel has implemented these measures at a scale unmatched in modern conflict: dropping leaflets, sending text messages, placing phone calls, opening evacuation routes, handing out its own military maps, and conducting daily pauses even amid ongoing battles. Hamas, by contrast, punishes or blocks civilians who attempt to flee, revealing its central strategy of turning civilian suffering into a weapon. The group has embedded its infrastructure inside neighbourhoods, placing command nodes, weapons depots, and rocket launch sites in as well as beneath schools, mosques, and apartment buildings. Hamas is not simply an adversary on the battlefield, it is a militant governing entity that uses its own people as shields.

Against this backdrop, the UN commission led by

Navi Pillay

issued a report this week accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. This represents a profound misreading of both international law and the harsh realities of urban warfare. Genocide is the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a people. No credible evidence has been presented that Israel has adopted such an aim. The record shows the opposite: Israel’s objectives are operationally consistent and repeatedly stated, to rescue hostages, dismantle Hamas’s war-fighting infrastructure, neutralize its fighters, and prevent Hamas from regenerating. These are military imperatives, not genocidal ambitions.

Every practitioner of urban combat understands that when an enemy embeds its war machine within civilian areas and uses civilians as human shields, tragic losses become inevitable. This reality does not absolve Israel of its responsibility to minimize harm, but it makes clear that civilian suffering, however severe, is not synonymous with genocidal policy. By conflating the brutality of urban combat with the deliberate crime of extermination, the UN commission misapplies the gravest charge in international law and dilutes accountability for genuine atrocities elsewhere.

The report also erases the unprecedented humanitarian measures Israel has taken while fighting Hamas. Since October, Israel has facilitated the delivery of over two million tons of aid into Gaza, provided more than two million vaccinations, supplied 14 million litres of water daily, sustained electricity to desalination plants, supported hospitals, and transferred patients for medical care. No modern military has ever fought a war while simultaneously sustaining the enemy’s civilian population on this scale. To ignore these facts is to sidestep evidence that directly contradicts any claim of genocidal intent.

To accept this distortion of the word genocide is to strip it of its meaning, weaponize lawfare, and deny a nation the legitimacy of defending its people against an adversary committed to their destruction. That is a dangerous precedent. If Israel can be branded genocidal for dismantling Hamas, then any state defending its civilians against terrorist organizations could be similarly accused.

None of this means Israel escapes scrutiny. If investigators can prove that its forces deliberately targeted civilians or used starvation as a weapon against civilians, accountability must follow. But that is not what has been shown. What has been demonstrated, repeatedly, is that Israel takes extensive measures to mitigate civilian harm, measures that are virtually unmatched by any other military in comparable conflicts.

The international community too often refuses to see the other side of the ledger. It fails to acknowledge Hamas’s culpability for deliberately endangering its own people. It fails to recognize that Israel’s operational decisions reflect both military necessity and humanitarian responsibility. And it fails to grasp that the only way to reduce Palestinian suffering in the long term is to dismantle the organization that thrives on it.

The world should not confuse tragedy with genocide. The tragedy in Gaza is real and immense. But its primary author is Hamas, which keeps civilians in harm’s way to protect its fighters and sustain its war effort. Israel, for its part, is making reasonable and feasible efforts to protect civilians while dismantling the threat. That distinction matters. And if the international community is serious about accountability, it must finally recognize the brutal realities of urban war and the true source of Gaza’s suffering.

John Spencer is the executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute and co-author of Understanding Urban Warfare.

• Carson Jerema: Has Sean Fraser even read the Criminal Code?
• Neil Seeman: Charlie Kirk was an intellectual throwback to a more civilized age

The hateful anti-Israel protests that celebrate terrorism and have plagued Canadian streets since the October 7 massacre could be contained if this country’s political culture included respect for the rule of law and for our shared history. But, as the Liberal government has respect for neither the law nor Canada’s traditions, the only solution proposed is to table hate-speech legislation that would at best make things illegal that are already illegal and, at worst, criminalize those defending Israel. The only saving grace is that police are unlikely to enforce any of it.

Nearly every

element

that Justice Minister Sean Fraser

said

earlier this week will be included in his coming hate-speech bill either targets problems that can be addressed with existing laws, or targets political speech that will not be confined to the hateful mobs cheering for the murder of Jews. For one, criminalizing “intentionally and wilfully” obstructing access to places of worship, schools and community centres,

as the Liberals aim to do

, is already

doubly

illegal in Canada.

Under the Criminal Code, it is currently an offence

(mischief)

to obstruct, interfere or interrupt “any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.” This would include impeding access to any building or structure, as well as interfering with the use of roads and sidewalks. And, in

2017,

the Liberals made it specifically a crime to interfere with the use of “religious property.” But perhaps making it triply illegal will make a difference.

The Liberal election platform also said the party plans to make it illegal to “intimidate or threaten” people attending places of worship, which makes one wonder if anyone in the government, including the justice minister, has even read the Criminal Code, as intimidation

is already an offence.

It is entirely appropriate for laws to regulate the use of public and private property, but designing those laws to target political speech, no matter how vile, should have no place in a free society. Tolerating speech we don’t like is part and parcel of the liberties we enjoy. We are forced to confront bad arguments with better arguments, and it is preferable for the hateful to express themselves in the open where we can all clearly see who the terrorist supporters are, rather than turning them into free-speech martyrs or forcing them underground.

Targeting hate speech also runs the risk of the subjective and unequal application of the law. How long before someone is arrested for defending the right of Israel to exist? This is not merely a hypothetical,

as members of the Liberal caucus

want the government to adopt a definition of “anti-Palestinian racism” that

could be broad enough

to include defending Israel’s existence and right to defend itself, or accurately arguing that there is

no

genocide occurring in Gaza. Historically,

as my colleague Jesse Kline once argued in an essay for the Canadian Jewish News,

censorship laws have been used to silence Jewish voices.

Fraser would also make it a crime to use terror symbols to promote hate. It is not clear what the government is aiming for here, as it is already a crime to recruit to a terrorist cause and to counsel terrorist acts. Outlawing the promotion of political symbols, even repugnant symbols, is inconsistent with the values of a country with a long tradition of free expression. And, again, how long before the Israeli flag is considered a terrorist symbol? How many in the Liberal caucus might agree?

Besides, there are criminal hate-speech provisions that already make the

“wilful promotion of hatred” a crime.

At the moment, the bar for being arrested under those provisions is, quite rightly, extremely high. But Fraser aims to change that, first by removing the requirement that the attorney general (himself) consent to a charge; and, second by defining “hatred” in legislation to assist police. The latter provision is potentially quite damaging to free speech.

The

Supreme Court

has confused the matter by defining hatred as “representations” of an identifiable group that go “beyond mere disdain or dislike,” and would expose those groups to the apparently more intense feelings of “detestation” or “vilification.” If this is the definition Fraser plans to introduce into Parliament, it’s hard to imagine that prosecutors and lower court judges, never mind police officers, will be able to consistently distinguish between “disdain” and “detestation.”

Given that more hate-speech legislation is unlikely to solve the problem of growing antisemitism, and other forms of discrimination, and may cause other problems, what can be done? For starters, the federal government can send a clear signal to police that they will be supported if they enforce existing laws. Politicians cannot direct police to arrest specific people, but they can state clearly that they expect mischief and intimidation laws to be consistently enforced. The challenge here is that the Liberal party has a history of encouraging, or discouraging, the policing of illegal protests based on the politics of the protesters.

Another action that could be taken would be for the government to be more judicious in funding universities. Professors who study questions like how capitalism is behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and other such nonsense, and the far-left antisemitic atmosphere this creates, have no business being funded by any level of government. Finally, immigration policy should be amended to deny entry to any newcomer with terrorist sympathies, no matter how small.

The actual solutions require work, commitment and the expenditure of tremendous amounts of political capital. No wonder the Liberals just want to keep criminalizing things that are already illegal.

National Post

• Jamie Sarkonak: The Liberal plan for crime? More illusions of change
• Caroline Elliott: B.C. NDP misleads the public to further its shadowy ‘reconciliation’ agenda

The B.C. government’s secretive and exclusionary approach to “reconciliation” took a sordid turn recently, with the ministers of Indigenous relations and forests both caught in blatant and readily disprovable attempts to mislead the public. Meanwhile, British Columbians have yet again been left on the outside as huge tracts of land are signed away, one-sided “consultations” are held in secret and the public interest is ignored.

On Sept. 5, the B.C. Supreme Court issued an order granting Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii, including private property and all Crown land. The declaration was supported by the B.C. and federal governments.

While the Haida Nation have openly

celebrated

the monumental nature of the judicial order,Victoria and Ottawa have yet to issue any official statement at all, apparently preferring to keep the public

in the dark

about their crucial role in the matter. Haida Gwaii property owners and other directly impacted stakeholders do not appear to have been represented at all in these proceedings.

The judicial order is based on B.C.’s

Haida agreement

(and a similar

federal agreement

signed last year), which was approved in a referendum held only for Haida members, despite the fact that

half the residents

of the region are non-Haida.

The agreements’ recognition of Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii, including private property, has raised major concerns based on its potential impacts on

democracy

, the constraints placed on the ability of future governments to act in the public interest and uncertainty around

private property rights

. While there have been assurances made that private property interests will be honoured by the Haida Nation, significant worries remain.

As Aboriginal law experts Thomas Isaac and Mackenzie Hayden

explained

, “The rights in land which flow from both a fee simple interest and Aboriginal title interest … include exclusive rights to use, occupy and manage lands. The two interests are fundamentally irreconcilable over the same piece of land.” Moreover, Aboriginal title is protected by the Constitution, while private property rights are not.

The issue is of even greater concern today than when the agreements were signed, given the B.C. Supreme Court’s recent Cowichan decision recognizing Aboriginal title over part of the city of Richmond. In that case, the judge

troublingly stated

that certain fee simple land titles — the typical form of private property ownership in Canada — in the area are “defective and invalid,” on the basis that the Crown had no authority to issue them in the first place.

As constitutional law professor Dwight Newman

pointed out

, if past fee simple grants in areas of Aboriginal title claims are inherently invalid, “then the judgment has a much broader implication that any privately owned lands in B.C. may be subject to being overridden by Aboriginal title.”

This ought to have given the federal and provincial governments ample reason to rethink their support for a judicial declaration of Aboriginal title in the Haida case. Instead, they persevered. And now, with Aboriginal title officially recognized by the court, the problematic provisions of the Haida agreements have graduated to an effectively irreversible right under the Constitution.

Given the massive implications, one might think the federal or provincial governments would have found time to notify the public. However, despite scores of news releases issued between them since the declaration was made, not a single one mentions the judgment. If not for the Haida Nation news release, citizens would be totally in the dark.

Worse yet, in a belated response to growing pressure on the issue, Indigenous Relations Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert attempted a “nothing-to-see-here”

post

on social media. But in doing so, he knowingly attempted to mislead the public — and

got caught

.

“On Friday, the B.C. Supreme Court officially accepted B.C. and Canada’s historic agreements negotiated with the Council of the Haida Nation. In April 2024, all parties present in the Legislature unanimously supported the ‘Rising Tide’ legislation, rightly celebrated by all,” read his post (with the comments turned off lest he hear what British Columbians really think).

The truth is that the legislation adopting the Haida agreement was not “unanimously supported” — not even close. In fact, the

official record

shows it was opposed by 25 MLAs, something the minister knows full well, given that he was not only present for the final vote, but was fully aware of the outcomes of bills in his then-role as deputy speaker. He even personally presided as committee chair during some of the contentious debates.

In a similar incident, Forestry Minister Ravi Parmar

was caught

in in a separate effort to mislead the public on a related file.

Under fire for its secrecy around proposed UNDRIP-related amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act, the B.C. government was called out by Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer for forcing local government officials to sign non-disclosure agreements before they could access the full scope of the proposed changes. Parmar’s vigorous denials of these NDAs were exposed as misleading given that Palmer had been shown a copy of one of them.

These are but the latest examples of how B.C.’s NDP government is steadily

eroding public trust

in a reconciliation agenda that’s already viewed with

deep skepticism

.

National Post

Caroline Elliott is a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and sits on the board of B.C.’s Public Land Use Society.

• Caroline Elliott: B.C. Supreme Court takes an axe to private property rights
• Geoff Russ: When reconciliation fails in B.C., David Eby will be to blame

According to
a poll
released last week by the Angus Reid Institute, Quebec Premier François Legault is by far the least appreciated of the 10 premiers in their respective provinces, with only 22 per cent of Quebecers approving of his performance. Considering that five years ago, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Legault’s appreciation score was close to four times that (77 per cent), his downfall is nothing but spectacular. 

Philippe J. Fournier, creator of the seat projection model

Qc125

, has computed that if an election were held this week, Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) would go from their present majority of 84 seats (out of 125) in the National Assembly to a total of… zero seats. In a

by-election

last month in the riding of Arthabaska, the party’s score crashed from 52 per cent in 2022 to a mere seven per cent. The disappointment felt towards Legault personally and towards his government has reached historic proportions.

Thankfully for the CAQ, the next provincial election will be held a year from now, on Oct. 5, 2026. The premier therefore has some time to turn things around. Most political commentators believe that Legault’s defeat is a foregone conclusion. However, in politics, nothing is ever certain. Former premier Robert Bourassa

used to say

that in political life, six months is an eternity. What happened last spring at the federal level should serve as a warning to all political analysts.

Premier Legault proceeded last week to make

a major cabinet shuffle

. Most importantly,

he announced

his government’s ambitious plan for the next 12 months, centred around four priorities: the economy and the cost of living, “shock therapy” to make the government more efficient, public safety and Quebecers’ identity.

There is no doubt that those priorities address Quebecers’ major concerns. The question is whether the province’s voters are still listening to what Legault has to say, or if they have simply tuned him out. Will Quebecers forget the mismanagement of the province’s economy and budget, and the numerous policy flip-flops regarding, most prominently, the construction of a new $10 billion bridge to link Quebec City and its south shore (the

“third link”

)?

The plan that Legault unveiled last Wednesday is very similar to the one he sold to Quebecers when he was first elected premier in 2018. Many will wonder why he would succeed in implementing those priorities in the next 12 months when he could not do so in his first seven years in government. That is a fair comment, but Legault looks more determined now than he ever was, and he has nothing to lose. Changes are indeed forthcoming, and they may please many voters. Besides, the CAQ is a wealthy political party; they have already launched

an advertising campaign

on prime-time television to remind voters of their most popular policies.

The premier will continue to use the “identity” file in an attempt to whip up his popularity. That means new legislation extending the ban on religious signs and introducing a ban on prayers held in public, more criticism of immigration (Québec is overwhelmed by an “immigration explosion,”

said Legault

last week), and increasing infringements upon Quebecers’ fundamental rights. For those of us who are liberal (in the philosophical, non-partisan meaning of the word), all that is unbelievably sad. But most people here love it.

Any election is a matter of choice. Next year, Quebecers will have to decide whether to vote for the separatist Parti Québécois (PQ), currently ahead in the polls; or whether to mark their ballot for one of the four other parties, all of which promise to address the serious problems the province is facing.

Presently, polls put the Quebec Liberal Party, led by former federal minister Pablo Rodriguez, in second place, significantly behind the PQ. Since he was chosen leader last June, Rodriguez has failed to make a strong impression with voters, especially francophone voters (80 per cent of the province’s electorate). He and the liberals know that they have a lot of work to do before Quebecers see them as a credible alternative to the current government.

The Conservative Party of Quebec remains relatively marginal, although they will probably win a few seats next year (they currently have none). The leftist Quebec Solidaire, once the media’s darlings, are badly trailing.

In a context where none of the opposition parties, except the PQ, stand out from the crowd, the CAQ, notwithstanding its poor performance since 2018, may appear to many as a safer choice than voting for a party that will rush the province into a separation referendum campaign. Legault’s odds are certainly long, but we should not count him out just yet.

National Post

With Parliament resuming after

a long hiatus

, people

are wondering

whether Prime Minister Mark Carney will finally start keeping his promises. No, of course not. Have you ever really listened to the man talk?

If so, and it’s remarkable how many people including journalists seem not to have tried hard, it’s very troubling. It’s not easy given his soothing, even soporific way of saying nothing deceitfully. But his habit of fudging details while soaring into cosmic incoherence on the big picture and erupting if questioned is no recipe for competent government let alone the transformative kind.

An obvious case in point is the promised “austerity and investment” budget. So he’s tackling overspending while stimulating economic growth, right? As in increasing spending while cutting it. Which he won’t achieve not because it’s hard politically, actuarially or intellectually but because it’s literally impossible.

It’s a square circle, a contradiction in terms. We should not nod and smile at it. Especially not when he routinely promises such marvels, including fast-tracking major projects while still requiring that they meet all his exotic climate concerns plus some unspecified Aboriginal-approval process.

It works politically, as a substantial low-information middle-aged Laurentian voting demographic thinks, “Thank goodness that well-dressed dreamboat is in charge! We’re in good hands.” But we’re not.

On the fiscal details, Carney was recently asked about the deficit and admitted it would be “substantial.” Well, duh. Last year

it was projected

at around $40 billion but actually hit $61.9 billion. Yet without offering a specific number, he

vapours on

that, “It’ll build a much stronger Canada moving forward.” Which somehow, and characteristically, combines vaulting ambition with misleading vacuity.

Likewise, when he speaks of finding efficiencies, it sounds reassuring. But the implicit promise that he knows how to do such things, that he has a record of doing them, is false. Trivially, his idea of cranking up the economy with those famous “nation-building” projects is to erect yet another bureaucracy and

pay the head of it

over half a million a year to approve things

already approved

.

Non-trivially, his soaring ambitions glide past the ear and conscious mind and induce opium dreams in the subconscious. Like his election-night pledge “to do things previously thought impossible at speeds we haven’t seen in generations.” Raaaahr! Except, um, what things? How? Instead he sauntered off for a break and some foreign trips.

Oh, and here’s

one from Sunday

: “Today, we launched Build Canada Homes — a new federal entity that will supercharge housing construction across the country. It’s part of our mission to double the rate of homebuilding over the next decade, and create an entirely new housing industry in Canada.”

The doubling promise alone would be a problem, perhaps sufficient to cause trouble over acerbic practical questions including: if the government knows how, why didn’t it do it already? But such concerns are vaporized by words like “supercharge” and “

turbocharge

” that sound both exciting and reassuring yet actually mean nothing. And what has Carney ever “turbocharged” except inflation while head of the Bank of England?

Much of it resembles what I call “airport paperback” economics, after books from the 1980s with names like “The New Economy,” where stodgy old free markets were barely good enough for our grandparents and now the government would create investment superclusters, steer not row and generally do we knew not what we knew not how. It was tried under Bill Clinton and Tony Blair and there was no there there. But Carney has hit the afterburners and the haze obscures everything.

For instance what is “an entirely new housing industry in Canada”? One where robots assemble glass tetrahedrons into underground cabanas? Nobody knows. And on

Sept. 5

, a press release from the Prime Minister’s Office said, “Canada’s new government is building a new industrial strategy to meet this moment. This will transform our economy.” No it won’t. And if it did, into what?

Supposedly “from one of reliance on specific trade partners to one that is more resilient to global shocks, built on the solid foundation of strong Canadian industries, and bolstered by diverse international trade partners.” Marvellous. But empty and false on its only detail, since the U.S. will still account for the majority of our trade.

A review of a Chrystia Freeland biography in the Dorchester Review denounced soft trendy “aspirational progressivism” that amounts to “a confection of tasteful platitudes that signify status.” But Carney has taken it up 17 levels.

If you do manage to listen closely, his rhetoric is grandiose to the point of narcissism. He truly believes that, without breaking a sweat, he can transform everything into some other thing he can’t describe that will be marvellous. But a classic “tell” for narcissists is a strong sense of mission they struggle to articulate, coupled with extreme irritability if challenged.

Which is exactly why it’s past time to challenge it.

National Post

• Jesse Kline: Carney’s statist plan to fix the government-caused housing crisis
• Terry Newman: Carney follows Trudeau with hollow boast about female Liberal MPs