As Canada absorbs the impact of freshly-implemented U.S. tariffs and braces for the impact of the soon-to-be-implemented counter tariffs, the Carney government is showing some signs that it’s not completely oblivious to all of the costs piling up for Canadian consumers and businesses.

It would be hard to deny that a trade war is a bad time to impose new costs on Canadians and it’s encouraging to see the government acknowledge this. Unfortunately, that logic only extends so far.

Earlier this week, the finance minister announced that the federal gasoline tax will not be re-imposed on Labour Day, as was previously planned. Instead, the tax holiday will be extended until the end of January, followed by a brief period of half the tax and full reinstatement on April 1, 2027.

François-Philippe Champagne says the government has flexibility, thanks to a resilient national economy and the additional government revenue generated by higher oil prices.

It remains to be seen just how resilient the economy will prove to be, especially in the face of a worsening and potentially prolonged trade dispute. Friday’s latest jobs report showed an unexpected loss last month of 42,000 jobs in the economy, so things may be a little more precarious than the government would like to admit.

Furthermore, while indeed higher oil prices have boosted government revenues, that’s very much a double-edged sword as that has also meant much higher costs for consumers. So while the gas tax holiday has provided some relief, it would have been quite a double-whammy to re-impose that tax just as new counter tariffs are kicking in.

Champagne’s announcement Wednesday coincided with the latest interest rate announcement from the Bank of Canada. While the bank’s benchmark rate is holding steady for now, Governor Tiff Macklem warned of a rising inflation risk, thanks to higher energy costs and the tariffs and counter tariffs spawned by this Canada-U.S. trade dispute.

It’s hardly breaking news that, as noted in the government’s press release, “affordability remains top of mind for families and businesses across the country.” In actuality, that’s been the case for quite some time now, even if this government is late to the party.

An affordability agenda, therefore, would certainly be welcome. The problem, though, is that this government’s agenda — scant as it is — is undermined by its own tepidness and by their own trade strategy.

In the government’s defence, the skyrocketing price of oil — and, by extension, gasoline and diesel — is due in large part to circumstances very much outside of their control. Furthermore, we didn’t ask for this trade war (even if it’s not entirely clear what led to this most recent breakdown in talks). We were content to live under the terms of CUSMA, and these new and unjustified U.S. tariffs arguably warranted some response.

But now we’ve got competing agendas operating at cross-purposes.

It’s hard to offer or deliver a credible affordability agenda — anchored in the premise that government-imposed costs are to be avoided and mitigated — while also pushing ahead with a new layer of government-imposed costs.

Look, the government may well believe that counter tariffs are necessary and that they serve the objective of ultimately arriving at a point where tariffs come down on both sides. But they should be more honest in acknowledging their belief that there are costs Canadians must absorb in pursuit of this goal.

All of which makes it more difficult to portray themselves as the guardians of affordability. The government seems to be picking and choosing when it matters or when it warrants a policy intervention.

That’s not to say counter tariffs should be off the table, even if there’s a case to be made for a Canadian response to be much much more targeted and limited. But it does mean that the government should live up to its own rhetoric.

If counter tariffs are essential in defending our national interests, and if affordability is still a priority, then much more can and should be done elsewhere to further mitigate the blow.

No, we can’t control what Donald Trump does, whether it’s his own trade agenda or his war in the Middle East. But there’s much that’s within the government’s control that impacts not only affordability but overall competitiveness and productivity: taxes (both personal and corporate), other tariffs and trade barriers, as well as regulations and red tape — just to name a few..

The extended gas tax pause is welcome but it should be merely the beginning of a broader government strategy to alleviate existing affordability pressures and to offset the additional pressures that now loom.

As much as we’d prefer a quick end to trade hostilities and a return to open trade between the U.S. and Canada, we can’t count on that. Things could actually get worse before they get better.

It’s pointing out the obvious to note that there are no cost-free trade wars. There’s never a good time for one, either, especially not in an environment of existing strains on affordability.

The government needs to acknowledge these realities. The moment calls for a much more ambitious and meaningful affordability strategy — one that matches both the government’s own rhetoric and the costs of their own policies.

Rob Breakenridge is a Calgary-based podcaster and writer. He can be found at robbreakenridge.ca and reached at rob.breakenridge@gmail.com

• Amy Hamm: Biological males dominating in women’s golf in B.C and Alberta
• John Carpay: Hamilton mayor, police violate Charter in crusade against anti-immigration group

Thirty years ago, women’s golf was scandalized when CBS sports commentator Ben Wright allegedly claimed that women were “handicapped” by virtue of having breasts, which, he stupidly claimed, would “get in the way” of their golf swings.

At the time, many offered a low-hanging retort to Wright: that male anatomy should, by his logic, prevent men from being effective runners. The world had a laugh, and women’s golf emerged unscathed. (While Wright ultimately lost his job over this, plus other offensive comments.)

Considering what scandalizes women’s golf in 2026, one can fondly recall the Wright incident as a quaint scuffle that preceded the real battle of the sexes in sports: namely, the invasion of the female category by biological males.

This summer, two transgender-identifying golfers Veronica Ivy and Rachel Elser, won five women’s golf championships in Alberta and British Columbia. Collectively, they’ve taken the Fort McMurray Club Championship, the 2026 Miskanaw Ladies Open, the Chilliwack Golf Club Women’s Mid-Amateur, and Women’s Mid-Master, and one unidentified club championship .

Ivy previously competed in women’s cycling under the name Rachel McKinnon — and won the women’s World Masters title for 2018 and 2019. At the time, McKinnon accused those who called the wins unfair of engaging in “hate speech” and “transphobia.” More famously, Ivy also told female detractors to “die in a grease fire.”

Addressing detractors after the recent golf wins, one of Ivy’s social media posts from last month reads : “To the bigots: stay mad, and get a better hobby. You’re deeply unwell and you’re obsessed with harassing a stranger. You’re not going to make me stop existing and succeeding. I feel really sorry for you. You have my pity.”

Ivy and Esler are only partly to blame for their unfair wins. They were enabled by a 2025 Alberta Golf policy change that allows golfers to compete in the category corresponding with their professed gender, rather than their sex.

The policy stipulates that adult males “who have undergone gender reassignment after puberty” can compete as women after one year of hormone therapy, with medical documentation. Females, by contrast, can begin to compete in the men’s category at any point after providing medical documentation. Finally, “(a)ny transgender Golfer who is not taking hormone treatment related to gender reassignment may participate in sex-separated events in accordance with their assigned birth gender,” the policy reads.

By virtue of creating different rules for males and females who identify as trans, including those who’ve not taken hormones, Alberta Golf has conceded that there are biological differences in sport performance between the sexes. Despite the attempt at nuanced rules, their policy does not mitigate biology — and is still grossly unfair to women. There is a reason that not a single female-to-male transgender athlete has ever dominated in male sports. That reason is obvious to anyone who practices intellectual honesty.

Incredibly, British Columbia Golf has even more permissive policies, allowing persons to play in whatever category they choose and with no documentation required. “All identifications of Gender Identity or Gender Expression by Athletes are believed to be made in good faith and do not require further disclosure or documentation,” reads their policy . “British Columbia Golf recognizes that discrimination, prejudice and victimization based on Gender Identity and Gender Expression is a violation of human rights and will not be tolerated.” The swing width on this policy can only be marvelled at.

Going back to 1995, was Wright’s comment about women’s breasts meant as obtuse commentary on the male sporting advantage? Who knows, but there’s no denying that males have one — even before puberty hits, and even for men who take female sex hormones or suppress their natural testosterone. One 2024 academic article , appearing in the Journal of Applied Physiology, describes the “profound sex differences in human performance in athletic events determined by strength, speed, power, endurance, and body size such that males outperform females.” It goes on to conclude that “(t)estosterone suppression among male (XY biology) athletes who have undergone male puberty reduces performance but much of the male advantage is retained.”

All of this is intuitive — at least to those who’ve not been bamboozled by the claim that one’s inner, metaphysical “gender identity” overrides the physical body. Yet despite having both common sense and science on women’s side, we are caught in an infuriating, multi-front battle to protect our sports. League by league, and association by association — as far up as the International Olympic Committee — we are having to assert what was commonly understood up until a decade ago: that women, while certainly not inferior to men, are at a sporting disadvantage compared to them.

In golf, women’s tee boxes (the place from where players hit the ball) are set forward to make up for the fact that, on average, women cannot hit the ball as far as men can. Women’s average driving distance, measured in how many yards they can hit the ball, is approximately 86 per cent of male driving distance. That’s no small difference.

The policy of Alberta Golf and British Columbia Golf, which obliterates any evidence-based distinction between male and female categories, caters to ideologues and the feelings of a small number of transgender-identifying athletes, rather than to the truth. It is stunningly unfair and backwards. In fact, I much prefer the soft bigotry of men like Ben Wright, who would laugh at our female anatomy, over the deluded policy making that knocks female athletes off our own winner podiums.

National Post

• Amy Hamm: Attack ad with David Eby dressed as a communist could backfire
• Amy Hamm: Carney, release the deal

It confused me a little to see little groups of Alberta separatists heading to a rally with flags, blue hockey sweaters, and posters at the Legislature grounds last weekend. The event, one supposes, was timed to coincide closely with Alberta’s Sept. 1 birthday as a Canadian province, but isn’t that when all our troubles began? The Oui side of October’s independence referendum used the rally to launch their campaign and emphasize the need to get out the vote, but the sympathetic Western Standard reported a turnout of around 1,000 , including some federalist counter-protesters. Past separatist events at the Legislature have been much larger than this; is the cause of secession not catching on?

A new poll published by Mario Canseco’s Research Co. Monday morning gives us fresh reasons to think not. Of course, I’m a federalist myself, and, as I wrote last week, I believe the referendum campaign is getting underway under the worst political circumstances imaginable for the separatist side . Some of the people campaigning for Confederation have demanded that the vote be called off altogether, apparently preferring not to seize the opportunity that history has handed them.

Research Co.’s new poll, assuming for the moment that any poll at all is worthy of any recognition in the year 2026, finds that 26 per cent of Albertans harbour some support for the province becoming an independent country. I would say that’s a pretty decent number for the separatists, a base from which they might hope to work towards getting a third of the vote in the actual referendum. But when Albertans are polled on the actual ballot question — should the Alberta government “commence the legal process” to have a binding referendum on separation? — the “Yes” option doesn’t do better; it does worse, losing 22 per cent to 74.

Is it just me, or is this just a tad paradoxical? The separatist strategy is bound to emphasize that a “Yes” vote in the actual referendum would help keep the door to independence open and maximize Alberta’s ability to exert political pressure on Ottawa. In a non-binding referendum like the one now approaching, one would expect to see extra voters who are close to the fence about independence (or union with the Americans) but who intend to vote “Yes” strategically without actually wanting Alberta to exit Confederation.

Instead, there appear to be some separation sympathizers who intend to vote “No” and perhaps extinguish active separation talk for a decade or two. This serves to remind us that this is in fact a perfectly rational position! Any native Albertan my age is bound to have joked around and fantasized at times about separation. It is certainly possible to have hopes for independence as a long-term project, perhaps one supported by a proper political party and an ideologically diverse cultural apparatus, rather than something that comes about through an ephemeral democratic shortcut.

It’s possible to be an Alberta separatist who wants to delay political action until the executive branch of the United States gets over its mood of belligerence and rediscovers, or is shown, the rule of law. It’s possible to be an Alberta separatist who wants to wait and see whether an Albertan Liberal prime minister can follow through on reversing the gormless tendencies of the Trudeau Era. (Note: the poll gives that PM a slightly higher trust score than it does to the Opposition Leader, who is also an Albertan. Remember when the West wanted in?) It’s possible to be an Alberta separatist who just doesn’t like the dubious weirdos who have taken charge of the cause right now. And Alberta separatists should not have trouble understanding this: it’s the same pervasive, somewhat annoying and difficult nuance that has existed and manifested in Quebec for 60 years.

National Post

• Colby Cosh: The U.S. president breaks his own laws in waging the trade war
• Jamie Sarkonak: Judge had no business granting bail to alleged U.S. Consulate shooter

It confused me a little to see little groups of Alberta separatists heading to a rally with flags, blue hockey sweaters, and posters at the Legislature grounds last weekend. The event, one supposes, was timed to coincide closely with Alberta’s Sept. 1 birthday as a Canadian province, but isn’t that when all our troubles began? The Oui side of October’s independence referendum used the rally to launch their campaign and emphasize the need to get out the vote, but the sympathetic Western Standard reported a turnout of around 1,000 , including some federalist counter-protesters. Past separatist events at the Legislature have been much larger than this; is the cause of secession not catching on?

A new poll published by Mario Canseco’s Research Co. Monday morning gives us fresh reasons to think not. Of course, I’m a federalist myself, and, as I wrote last week, I believe the referendum campaign is getting underway under the worst political circumstances imaginable for the separatist side . Some of the people campaigning for Confederation have demanded that the vote be called off altogether, apparently preferring not to seize the opportunity that history has handed them.

Research Co.’s new poll, assuming for the moment that any poll at all is worthy of any recognition in the year 2026, finds that 26 per cent of Albertans harbour some support for the province becoming an independent country. I would say that’s a pretty decent number for the separatists, a base from which they might hope to work towards getting a third of the vote in the actual referendum. But when Albertans are polled on the actual ballot question — should the Alberta government “commence the legal process” to have a binding referendum on separation? — the “Yes” option doesn’t do better; it does worse, losing 22 per cent to 74.

Is it just me, or is this just a tad paradoxical? The separatist strategy is bound to emphasize that a “Yes” vote in the actual referendum would help keep the door to independence open and maximize Alberta’s ability to exert political pressure on Ottawa. In a non-binding referendum like the one now approaching, one would expect to see extra voters who are close to the fence about independence (or union with the Americans) but who intend to vote “Yes” strategically without actually wanting Alberta to exit Confederation.

Instead, there appear to be some separation sympathizers who intend to vote “No” and perhaps extinguish active separation talk for a decade or two. This serves to remind us that this is in fact a perfectly rational position! Any native Albertan my age is bound to have joked around and fantasized at times about separation. It is certainly possible to have hopes for independence as a long-term project, perhaps one supported by a proper political party and an ideologically diverse cultural apparatus, rather than something that comes about through an ephemeral democratic shortcut.

It’s possible to be an Alberta separatist who wants to delay political action until the executive branch of the United States gets over its mood of belligerence and rediscovers, or is shown, the rule of law. It’s possible to be an Alberta separatist who wants to wait and see whether an Albertan Liberal prime minister can follow through on reversing the gormless tendencies of the Trudeau Era. (Note: the poll gives that PM a slightly higher trust score than it does to the Opposition Leader, who is also an Albertan. Remember when the West wanted in?) It’s possible to be an Alberta separatist who just doesn’t like the dubious weirdos who have taken charge of the cause right now. And Alberta separatists should not have trouble understanding this: it’s the same pervasive, somewhat annoying and difficult nuance that has existed and manifested in Quebec for 60 years.

National Post

• Colby Cosh: The U.S. president breaks his own laws in waging the trade war
• Jamie Sarkonak: Judge had no business granting bail to alleged U.S. Consulate shooter