In 1928, Warner Bros released Lights of New York — the first full-length feature film with audible dialogue. That same year, another drama was unfolding. Republican Herbert Hoover won the presidential election by promising higher tariffs on goods imported into the United States.

Nearly a century later, protectionism seems to be back on the screen. The actors have changed, but the script has not. In fact, for Canadians, it’s just a rerun of a bad movie with a clear lesson: counter-tariffs don’t do squat!

After Hoover’s win, the Canadian government began discreet l obbying in an effort to block the protectionist legislation — known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — that gradually made its way through Congress between March 1929 and June 1930.

As its passage seemed more and more certain, in Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King’s government began to toughen its stance, making it clear that higher U.S. tariffs would likely be met by retaliatory tariffs from its northern neighbour.

This had no effect, as the tariff law was passed and signed into law by then-president Hoover in 1930. These were some of the largest tariff increases in American history and they hurt Canada badly.

Canadians were understandably angry. That same year, they voted in Richard B. Bennett and the Conservatives who promised to use to counter-tariffs to “blast a way into markets that have been closed.”

Canadians got what they voted for: economic historians have noted that “the most important foreign tariff increases following Smoot-Hawley were those imposed by Canada.” Between 1928 and 1933, it’s estimated our average tariff rate increased by 20 per cent.

This retaliation accomplished nothing, nor did the threats of retaliation in 1929 and 1930.

American tariffs remained high and Canadian counter-tariffs only deepened the Great Depression in Canada.

As things got worse, the Bennett government tried to rearrange trade with other nations, including Britain. Looking at the data, economic historians now agree this had little to no impact. As the depression deepened even further, the Bennett government had no choice but to pull a dramatic about-face and abandon the idea that retaliation would work.

Bennett then moved toward freer trade, not because retaliation had forced the Americans to capitulate, but because the costs and limitations of protectionism had finally become apparent and political change in the United States created a new opportunity for negotiated liberalization. Indeed, in 1932, Hoover was voted out. His successor, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, appointed Cordell Hull, one of America’s most steadfast defenders of free trade, to secretary of state.

Within two years, Hull had secured passage of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) of 1934. It delegated to the president the authority to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements and to reduce existing tariffs by as much as 50 per cent — without requiring Congress to vote separately on each agreement.

This greatly weakened the congressional logrolling that had helped produce Smoot–Hawley, making bilateral tariff reductions substantially easier to negotiate. As a result, the two countries struck a trade deal . Then, U.S. tariffs began to fall.

A hundred years later, we’re doing it all over again. We have a president who just loves tariffs leading a party that seems to love them even more. We have a Canadian government that promises tit-for-tat and gets elected on that promise. And we have tariffs and counter-tariffs that will depress Canadians’ living standards.

We’ve seen this movie before.

If counter-tariffs failed to change American policy the first time, why remake such a tired script?

A more novel and engaging twist would be to find policies that minimize the economic harm to Canadians. There are plenty of plotlines to choose from, such as unilateral trade liberalization, elimination of interprovincial trade barriers, business deregulation and tax cuts.

Any or all of these would help withstand the immediate shock of Trump’s tariffs and give us room to wait patiently for the right opportunities, whether they come from U.S. courts striking down yet another presidential tariff decree, trade deals with other nations that provide us with better leverage, or other changing circumstances.

The last thing we need is yet another reboot. We’ll do better at the box office by making a movie no one’s ever seen before.

National Post

Vincent Geloso is the Wilson E. Schmidt distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University and senior economist at the MEI, a think-tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa and Calgary.

• Jamie Sarkonak: Judge had no business granting bail to alleged U.S. Consulate shooter
• Eric Kaufmann: It costs Canada millions to discriminate against white male academics

In 1928, Warner Bros released Lights of New York — the first full-length feature film with audible dialogue. That same year, another drama was unfolding. Republican Herbert Hoover won the presidential election by promising higher tariffs on goods imported into the United States.

Nearly a century later, protectionism seems to be back on the screen. The actors have changed, but the script has not. In fact, for Canadians, it’s just a rerun of a bad movie with a clear lesson: counter-tariffs don’t do squat!

After Hoover’s win, the Canadian government began discreet l obbying in an effort to block the protectionist legislation — known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — that gradually made its way through Congress between March 1929 and June 1930.

As its passage seemed more and more certain, in Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King’s government began to toughen its stance, making it clear that higher U.S. tariffs would likely be met by retaliatory tariffs from its northern neighbour.

This had no effect, as the tariff law was passed and signed into law by then-president Hoover in 1930. These were some of the largest tariff increases in American history and they hurt Canada badly.

Canadians were understandably angry. That same year, they voted in Richard B. Bennett and the Conservatives who promised to use to counter-tariffs to “blast a way into markets that have been closed.”

Canadians got what they voted for: economic historians have noted that “the most important foreign tariff increases following Smoot-Hawley were those imposed by Canada.” Between 1928 and 1933, it’s estimated our average tariff rate increased by 20 per cent.

This retaliation accomplished nothing, nor did the threats of retaliation in 1929 and 1930.

American tariffs remained high and Canadian counter-tariffs only deepened the Great Depression in Canada.

As things got worse, the Bennett government tried to rearrange trade with other nations, including Britain. Looking at the data, economic historians now agree this had little to no impact. As the depression deepened even further, the Bennett government had no choice but to pull a dramatic about-face and abandon the idea that retaliation would work.

Bennett then moved toward freer trade, not because retaliation had forced the Americans to capitulate, but because the costs and limitations of protectionism had finally become apparent and political change in the United States created a new opportunity for negotiated liberalization. Indeed, in 1932, Hoover was voted out. His successor, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, appointed Cordell Hull, one of America’s most steadfast defenders of free trade, to secretary of state.

Within two years, Hull had secured passage of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) of 1934. It delegated to the president the authority to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements and to reduce existing tariffs by as much as 50 per cent — without requiring Congress to vote separately on each agreement.

This greatly weakened the congressional logrolling that had helped produce Smoot–Hawley, making bilateral tariff reductions substantially easier to negotiate. As a result, the two countries struck a trade deal . Then, U.S. tariffs began to fall.

A hundred years later, we’re doing it all over again. We have a president who just loves tariffs leading a party that seems to love them even more. We have a Canadian government that promises tit-for-tat and gets elected on that promise. And we have tariffs and counter-tariffs that will depress Canadians’ living standards.

We’ve seen this movie before.

If counter-tariffs failed to change American policy the first time, why remake such a tired script?

A more novel and engaging twist would be to find policies that minimize the economic harm to Canadians. There are plenty of plotlines to choose from, such as unilateral trade liberalization, elimination of interprovincial trade barriers, business deregulation and tax cuts.

Any or all of these would help withstand the immediate shock of Trump’s tariffs and give us room to wait patiently for the right opportunities, whether they come from U.S. courts striking down yet another presidential tariff decree, trade deals with other nations that provide us with better leverage, or other changing circumstances.

The last thing we need is yet another reboot. We’ll do better at the box office by making a movie no one’s ever seen before.

National Post

Vincent Geloso is the Wilson E. Schmidt distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University and senior economist at the MEI, a think-tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa and Calgary.

• Jamie Sarkonak: Judge had no business granting bail to alleged U.S. Consulate shooter
• Eric Kaufmann: It costs Canada millions to discriminate against white male academics

Helping migrants come to Canada for the purpose of making asylum claims is little different from running a tour operation in the area around the border, says Canada’s immigration board. It’s yet another entry on the long list of ways in which people can exploit our system with impunity.

The matter was decided by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada back in March, but was only published online days ago. A “foreign national” named Kevin Franklin — most likely an American, seeing that is where he was working from, though his country isn’t identified — found himself before the tribunal because Public Safety Canada had declared him inadmissible on the grounds that he was believed to be a human smuggler.

Franklin, for his part, admitted to “having transported individuals near the Canadian border on three occasions,” but denied that he facilitated their movement across the border. He also denied that he was in a criminal organization.

The first of the three occasions took place in July 2025. Franklin drove a woman who paid him US$425 (C$590) to a location only a few metres away from the Canadian border, where she crossed on foot. She later claimed asylum.

The second involved Franklin driving a man he described as a friend — but who knows — to Plattsburgh, N.Y., which is near the Canadian border. The friend found his way to Canada and claimed asylum.

In a third instance, the “phone number of an individual who exchanged messages with Mr. Franklin regarding transportation was found to match the phone number of a person who later made a refugee claim at the Canadian border.”

All of these individuals became instantly entitled to Canada’s free health-care program for asylum seekers — which includes free mobility aids, free counselling, free optometry, and many other freebies denied to regular citizens — the moment they completed the necessary forms. They also became eligible to receive the numerous other benefits that come with being an asylum seeker: free lodging in hotels , the ability to spawn Canadian children who will be entitled to a lifetime of free school, legal aid , and so on. And they’ll take up capacity that would have otherwise gone to Canadians for as long as they’re here.

Franklin was just one agent in the operation. There were others involved, including his wife, his friend whom he drove to the border, and another man who was involved in arranging transportation.

Per the tribunal decision, all of these individuals “co-ordinated logistics, set prices, planned routes, shared information, referred clients to one another, and assumed responsibilities when others were unavailable and/or received payment.”

“This level of coordination reflects both structure and continuity,” continued the tribunal. “The transports were not isolated events, but rather formed part of a recurring pattern of conduct carried out by Mr. Franklin and his associates.”

But none of this was illegal, said the tribunal. The operation amounted to “facilitating travel within the United States”; dropping someone off just before the border was fine, but taking them to the other side would have been a problem.

The tribunal adjudicator didn’t even consider the people who paid to be transported to the border to be illegal entrants because they went to an official port of entry to make their asylum claims: “Seeking entry in this manner is provided for under Canadian law and is not an illegal act.” Notwithstanding the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires supposed refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. I.e., the United States.

Franklin has therefore not been declared inadmissible to Canada, despite the protests of Public Safety Canada. He can continue his smuggling operation in peace, knowing that we are perfectly fine with it. Once again, there are zero consequences for deliberately exploiting our institutions.

This happens all the time in the immigration sphere. Parasitic diploma mills that exist primarily to harvest funds from masses of foreign students who have destroyed the labour market for young Canadians are still up and running. They shouldn’t be. Conestoga College, for example, could have been legislated out of existence.

Foreign students, meanwhile, are another problem. Of 153,000 individuals flagged for non-compliance with their visa in 2023 and 2024, only 4,057 were investigated . The odds favour the fraudsters because we can apparently only catch a fraction of the fraud.

Then there are the hundreds of employers who violate the rules of the temporary foreign worker program — failed inspections, sketchy or absent paperwork, etc. — but who are permitted to continue bringing over guest workers under the scheme regardless. A website called Job Watch Canada has done an excellent job logging these bad actors , showing just how easy it is to keep the privilege of hiring low-wage, out-of-country labour.

Our rules are so weak that what should be punishable behaviour is given a complete pass. Actual illegal behaviour, on the other hand, seems to escape investigation most of the time, let alone enforcement. If the rules are ever overhauled, they should make it impossible for a conductor of an underground migrant railroad to be welcomed into Canada.

National Post

Helping migrants come to Canada for the purpose of making asylum claims is little different from running a tour operation in the area around the border, says Canada’s immigration board. It’s yet another entry on the long list of ways in which people can exploit our system with impunity.

The matter was decided by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada back in March, but was only published online days ago. A “foreign national” named Kevin Franklin — most likely an American, seeing that is where he was working from, though his country isn’t identified — found himself before the tribunal because Public Safety Canada had declared him inadmissible on the grounds that he was believed to be a human smuggler.

Franklin, for his part, admitted to “having transported individuals near the Canadian border on three occasions,” but denied that he facilitated their movement across the border. He also denied that he was in a criminal organization.

The first of the three occasions took place in July 2025. Franklin drove a woman who paid him US$425 (C$590) to a location only a few metres away from the Canadian border, where she crossed on foot. She later claimed asylum.

The second involved Franklin driving a man he described as a friend — but who knows — to Plattsburgh, N.Y., which is near the Canadian border. The friend found his way to Canada and claimed asylum.

In a third instance, the “phone number of an individual who exchanged messages with Mr. Franklin regarding transportation was found to match the phone number of a person who later made a refugee claim at the Canadian border.”

All of these individuals became instantly entitled to Canada’s free health-care program for asylum seekers — which includes free mobility aids, free counselling, free optometry, and many other freebies denied to regular citizens — the moment they completed the necessary forms. They also became eligible to receive the numerous other benefits that come with being an asylum seeker: free lodging in hotels , the ability to spawn Canadian children who will be entitled to a lifetime of free school, legal aid , and so on. And they’ll take up capacity that would have otherwise gone to Canadians for as long as they’re here.

Franklin was just one agent in the operation. There were others involved, including his wife, his friend whom he drove to the border, and another man who was involved in arranging transportation.

Per the tribunal decision, all of these individuals “co-ordinated logistics, set prices, planned routes, shared information, referred clients to one another, and assumed responsibilities when others were unavailable and/or received payment.”

“This level of coordination reflects both structure and continuity,” continued the tribunal. “The transports were not isolated events, but rather formed part of a recurring pattern of conduct carried out by Mr. Franklin and his associates.”

But none of this was illegal, said the tribunal. The operation amounted to “facilitating travel within the United States”; dropping someone off just before the border was fine, but taking them to the other side would have been a problem.

The tribunal adjudicator didn’t even consider the people who paid to be transported to the border to be illegal entrants because they went to an official port of entry to make their asylum claims: “Seeking entry in this manner is provided for under Canadian law and is not an illegal act.” Notwithstanding the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires supposed refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. I.e., the United States.

Franklin has therefore not been declared inadmissible to Canada, despite the protests of Public Safety Canada. He can continue his smuggling operation in peace, knowing that we are perfectly fine with it. Once again, there are zero consequences for deliberately exploiting our institutions.

This happens all the time in the immigration sphere. Parasitic diploma mills that exist primarily to harvest funds from masses of foreign students who have destroyed the labour market for young Canadians are still up and running. They shouldn’t be. Conestoga College, for example, could have been legislated out of existence.

Foreign students, meanwhile, are another problem. Of 153,000 individuals flagged for non-compliance with their visa in 2023 and 2024, only 4,057 were investigated . The odds favour the fraudsters because we can apparently only catch a fraction of the fraud.

Then there are the hundreds of employers who violate the rules of the temporary foreign worker program — failed inspections, sketchy or absent paperwork, etc. — but who are permitted to continue bringing over guest workers under the scheme regardless. A website called Job Watch Canada has done an excellent job logging these bad actors , showing just how easy it is to keep the privilege of hiring low-wage, out-of-country labour.

Our rules are so weak that what should be punishable behaviour is given a complete pass. Actual illegal behaviour, on the other hand, seems to escape investigation most of the time, let alone enforcement. If the rules are ever overhauled, they should make it impossible for a conductor of an underground migrant railroad to be welcomed into Canada.

National Post

VICTORIA — In April, the Canada Strong and Free Network, Canada’s largest conservative networking organization, hosted its first ever Vancouver conference titled “Conservatism’s New Frontier.” Five short months later, we should all be crossing our fingers that the soap opera of B.C. conservative politics is not an amber indicator light for a new frontier for conservatism in Canada.

At time of writing, Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s B.C. Conservative Party has lost a chilling 10 MLAs. With each passing day, the party seems closer to “ dissolving before our eyes .” But perhaps what’s needed is to just throw a bucket of water on the leader to see if she, herself, dissolves upon contact, or if what is needed is a root and branch renewal of what is clearly a dysfunctional political party in the midst of untenable disarray.

On May 30, 2026, the B.C. Conservatives elected Findlay as their new leader. Following a contentious leadership race filled with name-calling, insults, but also near unanimous agreement amongst the candidates on the issues and the approach needed to address them, many were ready to link arms behind the new leader and hit the ground running, leaving the drama of the previous months in the rearview mirror.

Sadly, it turns out that the civilizational issues facing this province seem to be what were consigned to the dustbins of history, with backroom intrigue and sensational drama carrying the conversation since the leadership race. Long gone are the promises that the B.C. Conservatives would emerge from this leadership race with a leader guided by conviction over gratuitous histrionics and turmoil.

After months of trying to persuade various caucus members to resign to make room for her, Findlay has now secured a riding and the by-election will run in Mission-Abbotsford on Sept. 26. With RCMP poking around how MLAs were to asked to step aside, and a Conservative caucus resignation around every bend, it remains to be seen whether Findlay’s tenure has much longevity.

Whether justified or not, when women enter the political sphere we inevitably face a higher level of scrutiny than our male counterparts. We likely all agree that this should not be the case, but denying the reality of this bias does us no favours.

Throughout the leadership race, Findlay was quick to invoke the words of Margaret Thatcher in debates , with many of her fans referencing her as the “Iron Lady of B.C.” But recent actions call in to question the validity of this comparison.

The conservative movement, both in Canada and internationally, has had many strong female leaders. Margaret Thatcher is the premium example of how the route for success as a woman is not through a clenched fist, affirmative action, or claiming victimhood, but instead through hard work, perseverance and staying true to strong, conservative principles.

In Canada, we can look to leaders including Premier Danielle Smith, Rona Ambrose, Candice Bergen, and current MPs like Michelle Rempel Garner, and Raquel Dancho, among many others, as great examples of excellent female leadership that demonstrate the ability of women to rise above accusations of petty infighting and drama to deliver on the mandate bestowed upon them.

On the flip side, there are female politicians who routinely, instead of rising to the occasion and defying narratives, slink into intrigue , paranoia, and infighting , living up to the criticisms and expectations often levelled at female leaders. Take, for example, former U.K. prime minister Liz Truss, whose brief tenure was riddled with just this type of scene, resulting in a legacy that has tragically left her as the butt of many jokes.

Throughout the leadership race, and since her fateful election, Findlay and those she has surrounded herself with have routinely stooped to spreading gratuitous gossip and fueling unnecessary drama.

Examples of this drama have permeated the online discourse, breaking B.C. containment and dominating conversations amongst conservatives nationwide. Just last week, MLA Rosalyn Bird’s statement on leaving caucus referenced issues with the “infighting, name-calling and division,” stating that British Columbians “expect their elected representatives to disagree respectfully.” Similarly, MLA Scott McInnis resigned from caucus citing concerns about Findlay’s “direction, judgment, and decisions,” highlighting a party that has become “an exclusive private club,” MLA A’a:liya Warbus resigned with a statement highlighting the “parade of people that have already come and gone in the span of three short months.”

This is not to mention the drama amongst the party board, internal party staffing crises, and the general aura of intrigue playing out across the media.

Findlay’s controversial Chief of Staff Scott Delaney resigned Wednesday, and in a resignation letter posted on X, since taken down, he referred to “those who have walked in previous days” as “enemies of democracy.” Another from Findlay’s office, Apollo Chung, was fired last week after recordings were released of an unidentified political staffer who claimed to have control of the leader, and mused about plans to use party funds, suggesting he would “steal everything.”

In short, since Findlay assumed her station, her behaviour, or her inability to take control of whoever is the source of this drama, and its consequences have become the entire story at a time when leadership in B.C. is sorely needed.

Women frequently face the accusation that we are quick to sow discord amongst internal groups, spread drama, and bring a reality tv-like approach to both life and politics. Why do some women continually live up to this lowest common denominator, and add fuel to the fire that women are poorly equipped to lead? It’s incredibly disappointing to see Findlay conduct herself in this way, and even if this is not how things are actually playing out behind the scenes, it is worth pointing out that this is very much the impression being made on the public at large.

The question facing those who enter public service should always be: what can I do for my province? Instead, the question that seems to have been the central organizing principle of the last few months is “what can my province and party do for me”? To allow months to pass by without any meaningful advocacy on the threats to our property rights, the managed decline of the province, our disastrous health-care system, or the pervasive left-wing ideology of the Eby regime that underpins all these issues is an absurd abdication of leadership and makes it challenging to take any attempts at regaining the driver’s seat seriously.

No part of what I am saying should be construed as evidence that women do not belong in politics. My grandmother, Margaret Marland, sat as the P.C. MPP for Mississauga South from 1985-2003, holding various opposition critic and cabinet roles. I have a deep admiration for every person who enters the arena of public service, male and female alike. Such pursuits are not for the faint of heart.

But with the spectre of a new “ mushy centrist B.C. party ” looming, the possibility of David Eby governing forever seems increasingly likely, and equally so the possibility that the B.C. Conservatives will have squandered any chance at meaningfully contributing to a positive future for the province. I fear that we are much more likely to end up with a tragic example of female leadership gone wrong than that of our own provincial Thatcher. I hope that I am proven wrong.

Kate Marland is the Executive Director of the Free Speech Union of Canada and the Deputy Editor of Without Diminishment, where she comments on arts and culture.

• Geoff Russ: Another mushy centrist B.C. party is how David Eby governs forever
• Adam Pankratz: Eby’s byelection call traps Conservatives on sinking ship

When Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King reacted by immediately recalling Parliament, which was not due to sit for another months, and ask for its blessing before declaring war on Germany. On the first day of the special session, King tabled copies of documents relative to the outbreak of the war, so that the House of Commons would know the basis on which war was being declared.

The result of that debate was a foregone conclusion: most Canadians had by then become resigned to a war, which they would fight without joy but with determination. Two days later, the Commons voted, by an overwhelming majority, to declare war against Germany. For the rest of the war, King would keep the House of Commons informed, even as the government assumed a degree of executive power unprecedented in Canadian history.

Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney has suggested that Canada is “at war.” Not a shooting war, but about as serious a business for the country’s future as anything in our history. Just like Mackenzie King, he is going to Parliament. But unlike King, he will be going to the European Parliament, which he will attend this month as an honoured guest.

What about the other Parliament, the one in Ottawa with the pointy tower which, if left unused, ranks as the country’s biggest tourist trap? It was adjourned in June, and is not due to sit until Sept. 21, after Carney’s jaunt to France. In the meantime, Canadians have to rely on foreign newspapers’ accounts of the negotiations, themselves written on the basis of spin from both governments, to figure out what went wrong.

Carney has, of course, offered his version in PMO-controlled press conferences. But although Donald Trump and his acolytes are serial liars, Carney’s probity is not above reproach. Only in July, he appeared to tell whoppers about the agreement with the United States for the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge. After the Wall Street Journal reported on certain critical details of the deal that contradicted Carney’s own description, he was forced to admit he “should have been clearer” about the agreement’s terms, which included significant concessions to the United States side, concessions which he had denied until an American newspaper reported them.

But even if Mr Carney was Canada’s version of Honest Abe, he should still go to Parliament before enacted counter-tariffs, the ones currently set to go on Sept. 8. To be clear, I mean, Canada’s Parliament. Responsible government means that a prime minister is accountable to Parliament, and a prime minister only remains in post if he has the confidence of the lower house of Parliament. Given the gravity of the situation, it is natural to expect him to make a statement on the record in a formal setting where the Opposition can question him, and where there are consequences if he “should have been clearer” but was not.

In addition, Parliament has the power to compel the ministry to produce documents relating to the negotiations, on the reasonable theory that Canadians deserve to see what their government was willing to surrender to the Americans and what broke the camel’s back for our side.

There are, of course, prudential reasons against the release of such information at this stage, when a deal might still be forthcoming; but our representatives should at least discuss the desirability of letting Canadians know why so many of them may soon lose their jobs.

Not a chance. Despite calls from the Conservatives to recall Parliament, the government has made it clear that it is not willing to do so. The speaker theoretically has the last say, but he can only recall the House “after consultation with the government,” and there is no evidence that consultations have taken place.

Nor does it seem that the government will pay a political price for ignoring Parliament. Many Canadians, in fact, seem to equate scrutiny — the one role of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition — with pro-American sedition.

True, some right-wing commentators have been very keen to excuse Donald J. Trump’s conduct, but two wrongs do not make a right, even if scrutiny may raise awkward questions about how Carney has handled the negotiations with the United States.

Canada’s parliament is one of the most toothless in the Commonwealth: the average MP spends their entire career without ever breaking the whip. Many of our elected representatives only attend the House when they are forced to, do their emails at their desks, and use Question Period to film social media content. If it is not allowed to flex its dormant muscles at such a moment of national crisis, it may as well not exist at all.

Yuan Yi Zhu is an assistant professor in international relations and international law at Leiden University, The Netherlands, a member of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Judicial Foundations Project, and a research associate at the University of British Columbia’s Research Group for Constitutional Law and Legal Studies.

• Terry Glavin: Carney recruiting Dominic Barton will please Xi Jinping
• Colby Cosh: The U.S. president breaks his own laws in waging the trade war