It would be redundant to call the flamethrower and Molotov cocktail attack in Colorado a wakeup call since the alarm bells have been ringing for some time, especially in Canada.
 

Colorado happened just a week after two staff members at the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C. were
murdered
and reveals, once again, that the rising tide of antisemitism shows no sign of abating in North America.
 

In Canada, since October 7, antisemitism has flourished because of a lack of moral clarity from authorities and as a result of political leadership at all levels who are bound by an anti-Israel ideology.
 

An inability to stamp out the obvious combined with the utter lack of action, has seen an increase in attacks on Jews which have been answered with token words of sympathy, lame tweets and arguments about equivalency where “all forms of hate” are condemned.
 

Consider the federal government’s response after hosting the National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism. “Antisemitism is unacceptable and has no place in Canada,” read a
press release
after the forum. But the very next paragraph said, “We must stand united against hatred in all its forms.”
 

How serious is the federal government on “combatting antisemitism” when the group tasked with findings ways to eradicate this particular evil recommended spending $10 million to “address all forms of hate” and to provide $26.8 million to police colleges for training on “all hate crimes.”
 

When the National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism chooses to focus on hate generally then how are we ever to come up with an answer for Jew hatred. It’s as if the federal government isn’t really trying.
 

The outrageous and brazen attacks against Jews in this country should have compelled governments to act, or at least to provide unequivocal moral leadership, which might have prevented the sympathetic response from some in authority to the hatemongers, like
providing
them with Tim Hortons coffee.
 

In
Colorado
, a
45-year-old Egyptian national allegedly set elderly demonstrators on fire as they held a peace vigil in support of Israeli hostages being detained by Hamas in Gaza. Eight people were wounded.
The suspect reportedly yelled “free Palestine” during the attack.

The attack may have been extreme, but it is not as if Canada has not seen unprecedented violence against Jews including: shots being
fired
on several occasions at a Toronto Jewish girls’ school; synagogues being
vandalized
; RCMP
arresting
a father and son because of an ISIS-inspired plan to kill Jews; police
investigating
after threats to 100 Jewish institutions; masked pro-Palestinian demonstrators
harassing
Jews as they went into a synagogue; a pro-Palestinian protester
telling
Israelis that a “final solution” was coming, as well as
arson
attacks against synagogues.
 

In April, a B’nai Brith Canada
report
said antisemitism had reached “perilous record-setting heights.” It reported 6,219 cases of Jew hatred in 2024 — a 124.7 per cent increase from a 2022 audit.
 

Such has been the level of hate in this country that Israel’s National Security Council (NSC) issued a travel advisory
warning
Israelis about threats should they travel to Canada.
 

“The NSC recommends that all Israelis travelling to Canada, or who are currently in Canada, exercise increased precautionary measures, avoid displaying Jewish and Israeli symbols in public and remain extra vigilant while in public,” it read.
 

How humiliating it must be for a Jew in Canada to hide their identity, but that is what they are being told to do to avoid being targeted.
 

Part of the problem may be the tension between acceptable free speech and lawful protest and the abominable gatherings where antisemitism is clearly the driving force.
 

But there has been no attempt to resolve this conflict and no real condemnation from federal, provincial or municipal governments when the protests have clearly been shameful, if not criminal.
 

Shortly after October 7, pro-Palestinian protesters were targeting Jewish areas and have continued to do so. Authorities have chosen to deal with these as “protests” rather than the targeting of a specific group. Yet there are laws in this country to protect groups when they are subject to such hatred.
 

Laws against hate propaganda were added to the Criminal Code in 1970 to fight against white supremacy and antisemitism (45 years later and we are still fighting antisemitism.) The Cohen Committee looking at the hate propaganda of the 1960s
noted
restrictions were necessary when “liberty becomes licence and colours the quality of liberty itself with an unacceptable stain.”
 

As prime minister, Justin Trudeau may not have intended to give licence to antisemites and for violent attacks against Jewish groups, but that has been the consequence of his failure to act and his inability to provide moral clarity.
 

Now we must see how Prime Minister Mark Carney reacts. At the time of this writing, he has not reacted to the Colorado attack at all.
 

National Post

• Arsen Ostrovsky: This is what ‘globalize the intifada’ looks like
• Terry Newman: Canada’s terrorist threat too great — for Jews and all Canadians

 

With the King opening Parliament and a disciplined agenda, the prime minister modelled a poised and assured break from his unserious predecessor, while sending a message to the world about Canadian sovereignty. That’s the verdict of Postmedia political columnist John Ivison and parliamentary bureau chief Stuart Thomson, who join Brian Lilley to discuss the first week of Mark Carney’s re-elected government. Now, the easy part is over. Despite promises to cut spending, new estimates show the bureaucracy is out of control. U.S. President Donald Trump has revived his “51st state” ultimatum, using missile defence as a cudgel. And provincial premiers are circling with demands in advance of a first ministers’ meeting. The panel runs through all the hard stuff for Carney that’s just getting started. (Recorded May 30, 2025.)

• Jesse Kline: Throne speech was a win for King Charles, a challenge for Mark Carney
• Raymond J. de Souza: King Charles’ throne speech was a constitutional triumph

First Reading is a Canadian politics newsletter curated by the National Post’s own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent directly to your inbox, sign up

here

.

TOP STORY

One of the stated goals of the Carney government is to rejigger Canada’s various military relationships. After decades of reflexively going along with the United States on defence issues, the Liberals are signalling a plan to make nice with Europe.

This week’s speech from the throne stated that Canada will be joining “ReArm Europe,” a massive planned buildup of the continent’s military strength, largely as a check against Russia.

But as Canada strikes out to make new friends, these new allies may encounter a Canadian military that is slightly different than what they remember. Even for Western militaries that have embraced nostrums of equity and inclusion, in many ways Canada has gone further than all of them.

Canada’s military dress code is now the laxest on earth

It was in 2022 that the Canadian Armed Forces dramatically dropped its standards for dress and grooming. There are no longer any restrictions on

hair length or colour

and everything from hoop earrings to ear spacers to eyelash extensions can now be freely worn on parade squares.

Canada acknowledged at the time that nobody else was doing this. As Canada’s then top soldier, Wayne Eyre said at the time that Canada was “leading the way” on 21st century military dress codes. “We have … consulted with our allies, who have told us that we are several years ahead of them,” said Eyre.

Three years later, Canada is still an outlier in having units filled with beards, green hair, facial piercings and sideburns. All across Europe,

beard bans are standard

at a minimum, with exceptions allowed under strict conditions. The Norwegian military, for instance, allows beards

only with explicit, written permission.

Even France, a country known for its freewheeling workplace dress codes, forces its soldiers to shave before marching through Paris on Bastille Day.

No other military has mandatory tampons in men’s washrooms

Virtually every European military now has openly transgender service members — and stated policies to protect such service members from discrimination. Poland is probably the most notable exception, and even that might be changing, with recent signs that transgenderism will no longer disqualify people from military service.

According to the British Army, the first woman to ever serve in front-line duty is trans; a soldier who was recruited as a man but

transitioned while in the service

. Germany has a trans battalion commander: Lieutenant Colonel Anastasia Biefang, who

was profiled in a 2019 documentary.

But where Canada takes it to an entirely new realm is in a military-wide mandate of providing tampons in men’s washrooms, regardless of whether any transgender men are present in the unit.

As military insiders are quick to remind critics, this policy is not unique to the Canadian Armed Forces. The Department of Defence is merely subject to a broader mandate requiring free tampons in

all federally regulated workplaces

.

But it does mean that Canadian military bases and warships are the only ones on earth (and in human history) in which it’s mandatory to stock tampons next to the urinals.

The closest analogue might be Norway and Sweden. Both countries have mandatory conscription for both sexes, and provide free menstrual products for their female conscripts. In Norway, men and women even share co-ed barracks and washrooms. Still, even in Scandinavia this hasn’t translated into a policy in which every single washroom has to have free tampons.

The diversity quotas in Canada are way more explicit than anywhere else

Virtually all of the major European Union and NATO militaries have made overtures to “diversity and inclusion.” To be a soldier in a 21st century Western military is to attend at least one workshop about the importance of diversity, equity or gender equality.

NATO now publishes an annual “diversity and inclusion” report tracking the gender, nationalities and ages of its military staff. Every unit of the British Army now has a

designated “diversity and inclusion” advisor

.

The German Bundeswehr tells recruits they are joining an organization in which all ages, abilities and national backgrounds are welcome. “They fill the troops with life, represent the diversity of the Bundeswehr and strengthen its ties to our — diverse — society,” reads the German military’s

official website

.

The Canadian Armed Forces may have

raised eyebrows

in recent years for deploying gender advisors to hotspots such as Haiti and Ukraine, but such measures are now ubiquitous across Western militaries. The job even has its own internationally recognized military acronym: GENAD (GENder ADvisor).

Nevertheless, all these diversity initiatives are generally about making military life more accommodating to women and minorities, and removing barriers to recruitment and promotion.

Canada has gone a step further by explicitly outlining how many women and minorities it ideally wants in uniform. The Canadian Armed Forces — much like the federal government writ large — sets hard targets for precisely how many non-male and non-white members it needs to recruit.

As far back as 2018, the Department of Defence

set a 2026 diversity quotient

in which at least 11.8 per cent of the military would be a visible minority, 3.5 per cent are Indigenous and 25 per cent are women.

When all of these groups consistently failed to turn up at recruiting centres in appropriate volumes, the military

blamed systemic discrimination

. Just three years ago, an official Department of Defence report declared “racism in Canada is not a glitch in the system; it is the system. Colonialism and intersecting systems such as patriarchy, heteronormativity and ableism constitute the root causes of inequality within Canada.”

 

IN OTHER NEWS

One emerging quirk of Prime Minister Mark Carney is that

he often appears in public wearing his Order of Canada

— Carney being the first prime minister to already have the award upon assuming the premiership. He wore the decoration

at this week’s speech from the throne

, and at the leaders’ debates he was sporting an Order of Canada pin on his lapel. The speech from the throne is specifically mentioned in

official Canadian protocol

as a venue in which the Order should be worn, although it was more of a grey area at the debates.

Get all of these insights and more into your inbox by signing up for the First Reading newsletter.

• What White House reportedly said about the future of Mark Carney’s daughter at Harvard
• ‘Liberals are engaging in bad faith politics’: Feminist Conservatives fight back

While Israel has been facing intense international opposition to its latest assault on the Gaza Strip, which involves conquering and holding territory to prevent Hamas from moving back into areas previously cleared of terrorists by the Israel Defence Forces, there is little question that this is the only way for Israel to achieve its goal of completely eradicating Hamas as a governing entity.

“Gideon’s Chariots,” the last stage in the Israel-Hamas war, is a military operation aimed at tightening the siege on Hamas in Gaza, in order to increase pressure on the group to release the Israeli hostages it holds, neutralize its dictatorial control over the Gaza Strip and prevent it from rebuilding and rearming.

Since the commencement of the Israel-Hamas war and the broader Middle East conflict on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has been facing multiple existential threats. The initial and most acute of these was the infiltration of thousands of Hamas terrorists into the western Negev desert in southern Israel, resulting in the tragic deaths of 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and the abduction of more than 250 individuals, including women, children and the elderly.

The immediate focus of Israel’s military campaign was the degradation of the operational capabilities of Hamas’s military wing. This organization posed a significant threat to southern Israel, possessing tens of thousands of fighters and the capacity to launch tens of thousands of rockets toward Israel. Hamas was a deeply entrenched adversary, fortified within an extensive tunnel network equipped with command-and-control structures, and was more than willing to target soldiers and civilians alike.

Israel was therefore compelled to tackle this threat through intensive combat operations, all while navigating the complexities of a densely populated urban environment. Furthermore, Israel had to take steps to minimize harm caused to the hostages being held by Hamas, the majority of whom were believed to be concealed underground in potentially booby-trapped locations and subjected to inhumane conditions.

Concurrently, Israel was required to concentrate substantial forces on its northern border, particularly with Lebanon. There, Hezbollah, a terrorist group aligned with Iran, was preparing to raid communities in northern Israel, boasting thousands of commando fighters and the capability to launch thousands of rockets, all with Iranian blessing, funding and know-how.

The Iranian axis was also supported by militias in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which consistently fired missiles and drones equipped with improvised explosive devices at Israel.

The initial phase of the war, spanning from October 2023 to December 2024, was dedicated to targeting Hamas’s military capabilities, establishing a defensive buffer against the Iranian-backed Shiite axis and capitalizing on opportunities created by military pressure in Gaza to leverage negotiations for the release of the hostages held by Hamas.

Notably, between October and November 2024, Israel launched a comprehensive offensive against the Iranian axis, particularly targeting Hezbollah. This operation neutralized much of the organization’s senior leadership and commanders, including its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and his deputies.

By the end of 2024, Israel had largely mitigated the overarching existential threat. Hamas’s operational and strategic capabilities were severely impaired, its leadership was largely eliminated and it was reduced to a tactical-militia framework engaging in guerrilla warfare while attempting to rebuild its strength. However, around 100 hostages remained in Hamas captivity.

With U.S. President Donald Trump back in the White House, Israel was presented with a unique opportunity to free over 30 hostages held by Hamas, leading to a shift in the campaign’s objectives.

Yet at the end of the initial phase of the ceasefire, Hamas attempted to impose conditions on Israel for ending the conflict, demanding a return to the pre-October 7 status quo, particularly concerning the ceasefire line adjacent to the homes of Israeli civilians.

Hamas also adamantly refused to advance meaningful negotiations for the release of the remaining 60-or-so hostages, insisting on an unconditional Israeli withdrawal that would pose a clear and immediate danger to nearby communities.

The IDF’s operational efforts since March have focused on two objectives. First, altering the security situation in southern Israel to prevent a recurrence of the events of October 7. This entails a dual effort aimed at the ultimate collapse of Hamas’s military wing and the dismantling of its governing capabilities.

A key aspect of this is preventing Hamas from preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the civilian population and seizing supplies for its own benefit.

The second objective is the return of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, based on the understanding that the terrorist organization’s conditions for ending the war remain fundamentally unacceptable to Israel.

Hamas demands that it remain a central component of any future governing structure in Gaza as a prerequisite for the release of the hostages and refuses any demilitarization of the Strip, including the removal of weapons and rockets.

Israel cannot accept these conditions, as they would effectively allow the terrorist organization to maintain its positions, providing a potential foundation for its future rebuilding.

Consequently, the objectives of the current phase of the campaign, Operation Gideon’s Chariots, are the decisive defeat of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the elimination of all its military capabilities, culminating in the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip and the return of the hostages.

The complexity of this operation necessitates a phased approach that prioritizes the welfare of the civilian population of Gaza. The operation’s central aim is to establish control over the entire Gaza Strip, because it has become clear that Hamas will not surrender through any other means.

At this stage of the campaign, Israel’s intention is to bring an end to the war in Gaza and remove the threat posed to its citizens for many generations to come. Hence, the IDF’s strategy includes: significantly reducing the area in which Hamas can excerpt control; taking control over humanitarian aid out of the hands of the terrorists; and putting military pressure on Hamas to come to an agreement to release the remaining hostages.

Ultimately, Hamas’s leadership will have to choose between being exiled to a third country or being destroyed by an aggressive military campaign. Meanwhile, world leaders must realize that Israel can no longer tolerate a situation in which a terrorist organization is camped out along its borders, ready to carry out another October 7-style attack at any time, and that Operation Gideon’s Chariots is the best means of ensuring the elimination of the terrorist threat.

National Post

Col. (Res.) Ronen Itsik is the former commander of the Israel Defence Forces Reserve Armoured Brigade, author of “The Man in the Tank” and a senior researcher with the Israel Defense and Security Forum.

• Jesse Kline: The young Jews who will never dance again
• Nadav Steinman: Canada needs a more balanced approach to the Israel-Hamas war

Systemic discrimination is legal in Canada. It’s just not the systemic discrimination most people talk about.

The entirely legal forms of systemic discrimination are the so-called “ameliorative programs” meant to help those whom the Charter calls “disadvantaged groups.”

The case that’s always been made for this kind of “affirmative action” — the friendly word for “progressive” discrimination — is that it’s meant to fix a historic and ongoing problem. Certain groups have suffered discrimination and this has led to a whole host of negative outcomes, everything from under-representation in certain jobs among the well-to-do and over-representation in less pleasant outcomes in regards to criminal justice, poverty and educational failure.

All of this was made legal in the Section 15(2) of the Charter back when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the premiers negotiated it in 1981 and then the same dispensation was written into various provincial human rights legislation. It makes Canada quite distinct from the United States where these programs have a much more dubious legal basis.

The question that rarely gets asked, though, is: how long will they continue?

The special provision that allowed these discriminatory programs to exist was clear: they are meant to make up for the disadvantages of past discrimination and its lingering consequences. It was never meant to be an ongoing and never-ending exception to equal treatment. The assumption in the 1970s and ’80s was that most forms of discrimination could be eliminated from Canada’s legal framework and then, over time, from daily life. And discrimination (except for affirmative action programs) is illegal in Canada and has been so for a couple of generations.

You could claim, and many do, that there are still disadvantaged groups in Canada, and that informal kinds of discrimination continue, even despite their illegality. You could still have the historic ongoing impacts of past discrimination. Indeed, this is the basis for the continued claim to need affirmative action programs.

The question is: how long will this remain the case? And, even more importantly, what counts as evidence for disadvantage? Who gets to decide whether current-day disadvantage comes from discriminatory treatment or not?

The reality is that different social groups have different social outcomes. As Thomas Sowell

pointed

out years ago, it would be bizarre to think that they wouldn’t. The question is: are these differences a result of choices, cultures and random chance — or are they a more nefarious expression of discrimination, either systemic or outright?

One of the odd things to happen in our intellectual circles — our universities and even our law schools — is that this question is rarely asked with an open-ended curiosity as to what the answer might be.

One wonders whether it even comes up when employers or universities set about establishing discriminatory affirmative action programs. Or, more likely, are they working from a consensus within the institution that there really are disadvantaged groups — and that this is obviously caused by discrimination?

We should be clear: it’s entirely possible that disadvantages are caused by subtle forms of discrimination that continue despite Canada’s now very equal legal system. It’s certainly possible — and the idea ought to get a fair hearing.

But in many progressive circles today, it’s now considered rude to even ask the question — to wonder whether social and economic differences between groups might be caused by something other than prejudice.

This is why the topic of viewpoint diversity — in our universities, our law schools, in the world of expertise — isn’t the esoteric topic it might seem.

Even as the wider Canadian society seems to be retreating from the excesses of cancel culture and woke shibboleths (good news on that front), the staffing of our knowledge institutions, our universities and our law schools still overwhelmingly comes from those on the left — from the same groups who assume that socioeconomic variation is, de facto, linked to discrimination.

These are the people who get to decide when — if ever — the only legal form of systemic discrimination allowed in Canada (affirmative action) will ever end.

There’s plenty of

evidence

coming out of think-tanks and even Statistics Canada that the Canada of 2025 has moved a long way from the Canada of 1981, where affirmative action was justified. The most economically well-to-do Canadians

are not those of European ancestry

— despite the popular perception to the contrary. The groups of Canadians with the highest income — and highest levels of educational attainment — are those of South Asian and Chinese ancestry. Whites tend to come in the middle of the pack, while Black Canadians and Indigenous people are lower down the economic scale. If affirmative action is going to continue, the public needs to be reassured that those justifying its existence, at the very least, keep up to date with which groups are up and which are down — though even this framing shows how divisive such policies would be.

There’s also plenty of

evidence

that the “race conscious” programs allowed by the Charter — and pushed by DEI advocates — actually exacerbate ethnic conflict in Canada.

There could, of course, be evidence that continued systemic discrimination justifies affirmative action. But it would help to know that the organizations instituting these types of progressive discrimination are at least open to the idea that Canada can, and will, move on.

National Post

• Jamie Sarkonak: The King’s land acknowledgement undermined his own authority
• Colby Cosh: It turns out Trump’s tariffs were illegal after all

The speech from the throne was a spectacular constitutional triumph, which approaches the oxymoronic, in that constitutional matters in the Westminster tradition are designed not to be spectacular. The sovereign imposes upon himself the custom of reading the speech impassively, the flat tone indicating neither approval nor disapproval of the government’s program. There is the prohibition, indicated in the instructions to all present in the chamber, to “refrain from expressions of support or dissent.”

King Charles III began by noting that “every time I come to Canada … a little more of Canada seeps into my bloodstream — and from there straight to my heart.” The desire to applaud was palpable in all present. But restraint was the order of the day, and order is part of our non-revolutionary constitutional history, along with peace and good government.

Standing ovations, which plague question period with Americanesque barking and barracking, cheapen the coin of the realm. To be applauded in the Commons matters not at all. It is the norm of restraint which renders exceptional moments momentous.

Thus when restraint could restrain no longer, and sustained applause broke out, that singularity signalled that a great wave of patriotic passion had surged through all present — and across the vast dominion. It was a moment of high historic import, and of deep emotion. The King, properly, was unmoved, but permitted himself a pleased pause. Even the Queen joined in the applause. Not a few had tears in their eyes as they heard the King of Canada declare: “The True North is indeed strong and free!”

It was a moment both sober and stunning at the same time. Should King Charles III reign many years, it will remain the supreme discharge of his Canadian constitutional duty, that in a moment of distress, he came and, without melodrama, but dramatically enough, said simply that.

That is constitutional spectacle. It has many parts.

The RCMP musical ride is surely not part of the constitution — but it is, is it not? They led Her Late Majesty’s funeral procession in London, and they led the King to the Senate.

The Senate’s Usher of the Black Rod — in whose name invitations to the speech from the throne were issued — is not part of the constitution, but he is. Without his charge from the King to summon the Commons, and without him driving up Wellington Street to do so, Parliament does not begin. It took some time to attend to all that, and thus the King and Queen did an unusual walkabout in the Senate chamber to pass the time; Westminster conventions are meant to be adaptable things.

The background for King Charles in Ottawa was what President Donald Trump is doing in Washington. This week pointed out the contrast. Trump’s trade policy is essentially lawless, and two courts so ruled this week. The desire of the president, solely upon his whim, to levy tariffs, ignore trade agreements he himself has signed, to seize emergency powers — all this is rebuked by the very constitutional conventions that govern the King. He precisely does not deploy his powers, except in strict conformity with the norms that tradition have established. The governing ethos is restraint, which is why the King is not a tyrant. Trump’s manifold desire for monarchial power is the opposite.

Three other notes from the throne speech.

Justin Trudeau wore green and orange running shoes in the Senate chamber. It was of course appalling, but no one was shocked. Narcissism loathes the restraint of ceremony, as was seen when Trump — alone amongst hundreds of dignitaries, to say nothing of his own elegantly attired wife — declined to wear black at the recent papal funeral.

The prominence of Indigenous headdresses in the chamber were a reminder that crowns do matter. Prime Minister Mark Carney, who began so splendidly with the King in Parliament, might wish to clean up the mess that Trudeau made of the

Royal Coat of Arms

in 2023, replacing the Tudor Crown chosen by Charles himself with a confection of his own creation, replacing crosses with snowflakes and fleurs-de-lis with maple leaves. This “

paper crown

” — the apt moniker of heraldic historian Christopher McCreery — stripped of historical references, needs to be discreetly dispatched. Trudeau can carry it away with him in his running shoes.

The temporary home of the Senate is the renovated historic railway station adjacent to the cenotaph, the National War Memorial. It is thus a suitable setting for the Senate custom of introducing Bill S-1,

An Act Relating to Railways

, immediately after the speech from the throne. Indeed, the Mace remained in the chamber even as the guests departed precisely so that the Senate could get to S-1, which manifests the Senate’s “right to deliberate without interference from the Monarch.” It is not obliged to follow the agenda just read. Parliament restrains the Sovereign.

God save the King! Long may he reign.

National Post

• NP View: King Charles affirmed us, now we must affirm him
• Colby Cosh: Charles III is the King of Canada. Deal with it, England

It was a gracious gesture for King Charles III  and Queen Camilla to come to Ottawa for 24 hours to open Parliament and symbolize Canada‘s close relations with the United Kingdom and other senior Commonwealth nations, but the speech from the throne was so general, we might have reserved the distinction of Their Majesties’ presence for a more substantive policymaking occasion. There was a pledge to make housing more affordable many years after what should have been the starting date for such a policy before millions of otherwise welcome immigrants were admitted to the country, furthering an acute housing shortage among Canadians of modest income. It was also good to hear the King state, on behalf of the federal government, the determination to protect and advance the rights of all Canadians. It would have been useful and pleasing to know if this included a departure from the federal government’s policy of passivity toward Quebec’s suppression of the English language in that province.

One specific point in the throne speech that was particularly welcome was the reference to the federal government‘s determination to eliminate internal trade barriers. If anything useful may ultimately be judged to have come from the current controversy with the United States, it is that U.S. President Donald Trump highlighted the exorbitant cost of some agricultural products as a result of the supplementary payments consumers are forced to make to certain farmers in this country. As I have written here often before, if it is considered public policy to supplement the incomes of these farmers, it should be done directly and not by overcharging the entire Canadian public for important categories of food. In the same category is the government’s implicit promise to contribute more to our own national defence. This has long and justifiably been a sore point with the United States, which effectively has guaranteed Canada’s national security since President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared at Queens university in 1938 that he would not ”stand idly by” if Canada were attacked. Canada has a distinguished military history of only going to war for good causes and never out of national greed, fighting bravely and almost always with volunteers and always on the winning side. We are not freeloaders, but we have been freeloaders in NATO for 30 years and there appears to be a consensus that this should stop.

The King‘s remarks began with the now practically obligatory reference to being on land “unceded” by Algonquin and Anishinaabeg peoples — an experience, the King advised, that reminds us of our “shared history as a nation.” The King has thus been delicately dragooned into the quagmire of the official relationship of Canada with its Indigenous peoples. The federal Parliament may indeed stand on land unceded by the Algonquins and Anishinaabeg, but this should not be allowed to imply that Canada, prior to the arrival of the British and the French in the 16th and 17th centuries, was populated and occupied, in the sense of being ruled and governed, by the Native peoples.

The Native peoples were in almost all cases nomadic and relatively sparse in numbers. The inference has been incited that those who have immigrated, mainly from Europe to Canada, over the last 450 years invaded someone else’s country. I yield to few in my desire to make the country’s policy toward Indigenous peoples more just and productive, but when the Europeans arrived, Canada was unsettled, and in no sense an organized political entity. It was chronically underpopulated, and those who lived within our present borders were talented and skilful tribes and clans sharing what was essentially a Stone Age civilization frequently engaged in internecine violence. Let us by all means pay them homage and embrace them as fellow Canadians, but not in a manner that could be construed as undermining the right of the rest of us to be here and negating the fact that our forebears brought Canada swiftly up to the most advanced conditions of contemporary civilization.

The other noteworthy development of the last 10 days in Canada‘s governance, though very under-publicized, was our adherence to the World Health Organization’s Pandemic Agreement, billed somewhat self-servingly as designed “to make the world more equitable and safer from future pandemics.” That was presumably the motive of the large number of national delegations that embraced this agreement, but it is not immediately clear that any such benign result will be achieved by it. The World Health Organization is dominated by China and is profoundly complicit in whitewashing China’s deliberate negligence in failing to give the world warning of the COVID pandemic. The WHO locked arms with the government of the People’s Republic of China, in trying to suppress the possibility that the COVID pandemic may have originated in a Wuhan laboratory, blindly ignored the Chinese government’s role in conspicuously failing to share information about the pandemic and its origins with the world and has behaved with such egregious deference to the totalitarian regime in Beijing that the United States has withdrawn from it, taking away by far the largest national contribution to its budget.

Given the track record of the WHO, we must strenuously question the wisdom of giving this front organization for the totalitarian Chinese regime more control over global public health measures. Not only has the United States withdrawn from the WHO, but a number of other countries abstained from the vote on this agreement, including Russia and Israel. It is absolutely impossible to conceive of why the authors of this agreement imagine it will “make the world more equitable.” It effectively hands to the Government of China control over pandemic preparedness and the global distribution of pandemic-related pharmaceuticals, without the adherence of the United States, which, in addition to being the chief paymaster of the WHO in the past is also by far the world’s most advanced country in medical research.

Despite all the nationalistic noises of the new federal government, we appear to be plodding on in the mindless globalism of the preceding Liberal government. It was pleasing to hear the King assure us on the advice of the prime minister that Canada was moving into an era of greater strength and unity. Handing authority over pandemic preparedness to a front organization for the People’s Republic of China is not the best first step in charging out of the starting blocks toward this promised era of greater purposefulness.

National Post

• Jesse Kline: Throne speech was a win for King Charles, a challenge for Mark Carney
• Jamie Sarkonak: The King’s land acknowledgement undermined his own authority

Election night can be a glorious occasion for some political parties and governments, and a dismal outcome for others. It’s not unusual for the long knives to come out after a poor result. That’s what some people are suggesting is happening right now within the Conservative Party’s inner sanctum — and the main target is Jenni Byrne.

“Pressure is mounting on Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to fire Jenni Byrne, his national campaign manager,”

according

to a May 22 CBC News piece, “whom critics hold responsible for the party’s election defeat last month.” Twelve Conservative sources reportedly spoke with Radio-Canada reporter Christian Noel and were “granted confidentiality to discuss internal party matters.”

Many quotes were rather harsh.

“After a loss, heads have to roll,” one Conservative source suggested. “If Jenni Byrne stays, we won’t be able to support Pierre,” said another. “There’s only one head that needs to roll, and that’s Jenni’s. You don’t realize how she treats everyone like garbage,” a third person remarked.

Byrne also reportedly exhibits “toxic and angry” behaviour. She supposedly feels that “everything is a war” in politics. She was called “a bully who operates on threats” and “many MPs are either afraid of her or hate her.” One source even warned, “Pierre needs to change his negative personality and kick Jenni out. Otherwise, it’s the caucus that’s going to kick the leader out.”

People often talk tough when they can hide behind a cloak of anonymity. They wouldn’t dare say these types of things in public. Or to Byrne’s face, for that matter.

Let’s put this rumour to bed. As someone who’s been connected to the Conservative party, movement, and circles of interest for decades, I can confidently say there’s no “pressure” on Poilievre to fire Byrne. Are some Conservatives frustrated with the election result and view it as a missed opportunity? Yes, but that’s par for the course. There’s no inner party revolt brewing, and confidence in Poilievre and Byrne remains strong.

Why did the CBC suggest otherwise? While I’m sure that real people were interviewed for Noel’s piece, my guess is these Conservative sources were largely left-leaning Red Tories, old Progressive Conservative supporters — or both. These individuals have always had it in for Byrne and others who were born, bred and worked in Reform Party and Canadian Alliance circles. It’s a long-standing issue that stems back to the 2003

merger

of the Alliance and PCs. In spite of the fact the Reform/Alliance side was the much larger and more dominant group, the Red Tories and PCs grasp at straws and look for opportunities to regain power. That’s highly unlikely: their numbers are decreasing, and they’re even more irrelevant now than they were before.

Not that this would deter the CBC one little bit. Poilievre has long

supported

defunding the CBC. He

told

Toronto Sun columnist Brian Lilley last December that it would happen “very quick.” Any story that could knock down the Conservative leader a few extra pegs would likely be of some interest. If disgruntled Conservatives also wanted to throw a few stones at him, a slingshot could be provided.

It’s also fair to point out there have always been Conservative sources, including staffers, with mixed opinions about Byrne’s leadership style and thought process.

She’s not perfect and makes mistakes. She’s strong-willed, determined, picks a political lane and rarely abandons it. She’s had her share of disagreements with Conservative leaders, staffers, pundits and columnists. I’m one of them. Byrne and I haven’t always seen eye-to-eye when it comes to policy and strategy. We’ve agreed far more than we’ve disagreed, and my respect for her remains intact.

Byrne is intelligent, strategic and talented at her job. She’s an invaluable source of knowledge, wisdom, foresight and political communications. Poilievre, who

dated

Byrne for years, knows this better than almost anyone. He’s aware of what she brings to the political table as a strong woman and fierce campaigner, and appreciates her guidance and advice.

It’s also easy to point fingers at Byrne when, in reality, the election results were likely out of her and the party’s control.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs single-handedly changed the course of the Canadian election. The Conservatives witnessed a near-25-point lead

dissipate

in about a month due to this threat.

Some Canadians angrily blamed Trump for creating this situation — and felt Poilievre was the other side of the same political coin. The comparison was ridiculous: Poilievre and Trump have different ideologies, policies and personalities. The president also knew this. “I think his biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not…a Trump guy at all,” he

told

Ben Domenech during an interview with U.K.-based The Spectator magazine. Many Canadians chose to ignore this.

Byrne, like Poilievre, attempted to combat this unexpected turn of events. They did the best they could during this difficult situation, and even

pivoted

Conservative messaging to oppose Trump. Alas, there’s only so much that could have been done to stop the bleeding when many Canadians refused to listen. It was one of those rare moments when outside forces, rather than political insiders, decided the fate of an election.

That’s why Poilievre’s strategy is crystal clear. Ignore the noise and faux outrage in Conservative circles and elsewhere — and let Byrne run his next national campaign.

National Post