LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

U.S. President Donald Trump greets Prime Minister Mark Carney as he arrives at the West Wing of the White House on May 6, 2025.

A telling sign of how Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit to the Oval Office was going was that JD Vance kept his mouth shut, except when required to provide the odd sycophantic guffaw.

At one point, President Donald Trump characterized the meeting with Carney as “very friendly,” unlike the “little blow up with somebody else” (Volodymyr Zelenskyy). Vance, who led the attack on the Ukrainian president in February, this time chortled away on the next couch, like a loyal attack dog on a short leash.

The tone was set: Carney was not to be Zelenskied.

After dismissing a U.S.

military invasion of Canada as “highly unlikely”

 in a recent NBC interview, Trump’s vision of the relationship has apparently been transformed to, in the words of Winston Churchill, a frontier guarded only by “neighbourly respect and honourable obligations.”

A Trump press conference in the Oval Office is a surreal event, as I saw

firsthand with Justin Trudeau in June 2019

.

Carney’s visit was similarly bizarre. Minutes before he arrived at the White House,

Trump posted a rambling missive on social media

, airing the usual grievances about the alleged US$200 billion in American subsidies to Canada.

Yet once installed on the set — Carney acknowledged the theatricality of the event by winking at the camera — Trump layered on the flattery with a trowel. He said he had great respect for “a very talented person, a very good person,” who had pulled off one of the greatest comebacks in the history of politics, “maybe even greater than mine.”

Trump said he has watched the leaders’ debates in Canada and said Carney “was excellent.”

Presumably, he missed the part where the Liberal leader accused the U.S. president of “betraying” Canada.

As with Trudeau’s last visit, an audience with Trump is a stream of consciousness rumination on the president’s recent experiences and conversations. His unique brand of infotainment is characterized by half-formed announcements and policy on the hoof.

Having introduced the Canadian prime minister, he announced that the U.S. will stop bombing the Houthis in Yemen because “they assured us they don’t want to fight anymore.”

He then veered off to talk about an imminent and “very big announcement … one of the most important announcements in many years on an important subject.”

A bemused Carney raised a laugh by interjecting: “I’m on the edge of my seat.”

The prime minister may be new to politics, but he used his brief interventions in the Oval Office to maximum effect, buttering up Trump shamelessly by calling him a “transformational president” and talking about common interests on border security, defence and securing the Arctic. “The history of Canada and the United States is stronger when we work together,” he said, visualizing what a win would look like from Trump’s perspective.

The president was asked about his 51st state comments and said he still believes in the concept. “But it takes two to tango,” he said, pledging not to raise the issue.

Carney’s manners were impeccable, preceding every statement with his signature: “If I may.”

But his rejection of the misguided 51st state concept was unequivocal (he later revealed he asked the president to stop using the term).

“As you know from real estate development, some places are never for sale. We’re in one right now (the White House),” he said. “I’ve been talking to the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign over the last several months, and it’s not for sale and won’t be for sale ever.”

Shrewdly, the prime minister moved on before Trump was able to disagree, and talked about his plan to step up military spending, praising the president for “revitalizing international security and NATO.”

In 2019, I remember thinking that for all his colour and confidence, Trudeau seemed to blanche and shrivel in Trump’s presence. To be fair, the president made his lack of respect obvious in 2017, such as when he used the “comedy finger point” to put Trudeau down during his visit in October 2017. (Trump confirmed his antipathy toward Trudeau on Tuesday, saying he “didn’t like” Carney’s predecessor, or “the terrible person” who worked for him, presumably Chrystia Freeland).

Carney, on the other hand, exited the most intense experience of his brief political career with his dignity intact. During the election he said that if America no longer wants to lead, Canada will, and his standing around the world will have soared as others watched how he handled Trump.

Carney learned Tuesday, along with the rest of us, that Trump considers the USMCA/CUSMA trade deal to be “very effective” — so effective that it may not even be necessary to renegotiate it.

Regardless, as Carney pointed out in his press conference later in the day, the president has indicated his willingness to build a new economic and security relationship with Canada.

But Trump’s prejudices are ingrained, and he rejects evidence that contradicts them.

He is wedded to tariffs on Canadian cars, steel or aluminium and said that he intends to keep them in place until “at a certain point, it won’t make economic sense for Canada to build (autos).”

Carney said discussions with the president over lunch focused on the strategic position of the North American auto industry versus foreign competition, especially from Asia, and the industry’s perspective that continental integration enhances competitiveness.

But that case has not proven persuasive to the president so far.

“Canada is a place that will have to take care of itself economically… It’s hard to justify subsidizing Canada to the tune of US$200 billion, or whatever the number might be,” Trump said.

If you accept Trump’s Looney Tunes version of economics, and equate a trade deficit to a subsidy, that number is US$35.7 billion, from a US$762 billion trade relationship.

Carney was wise not to engage the president in his own lair about such deeply held, if bonkers, beliefs.

But on trade and defence, Canada can’t just wish America away.

Carney had said he didn’t expect white smoke to appear after Tuesday’s meeting, and none did.

But the new prime minister has established a personal rapport and built the foundations of a constructive working relationship with the president.

Carney won the election on the question of which leader voters wanted to negotiate with Trump. Not many Canadians will have buyer’s remorse based on Tuesday’s events in the Oval Office.

National Post

jivison@criffel.ca

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.


King Charles III meets with Canada's Governor-General Mary Simon at Buckingham Palace on April 6, 2025. Quebec nationalists are already triggered by the idea of King Charles delivering the Canadian Liberal government's throne speech.

The reviews

have been flowing in

for King Charles III delivering the throne speech in Ottawa on May 28,

and they’re mostly appreciative

. Such is the galvanizing power of President Donald Trump that even some skeptics of constitutional monarchy seem to think it’s a reasonable idea in the circumstances — to show America, and the world, that the foundations of Canadian democracy are too robust for any unhinged president to undermine.

“Canada’s existence has been called into question by the president of the United States,” as Carleton University political scientist

Philippe Lagassé wrote in the National Post this week

. “Having the Sovereign, the personification of the Canadian state, open the federal legislature sends a message: ours is a country of institutions that date back a thousand years, inherited from the United Kingdom but shaped by our unique history and aspirations.”

The biggest fly in this ointment is that

Quebec exists, and the potential for nationalist hijinks on or around May 28 is off the charts.

One hopes Prime Minister Mark Carney knows exactly what he might be getting himself into here.

“It’s … striking that, at the first opportunity, Mark Carney turns to a foreign sovereign and an institution clearly hostile to Quebecers, to defend a concept — sovereignty — that this same federal regime has long rejected and devalued when it comes to Quebec,”

Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon fumed in French on social media

.

“Inviting King Charles III to open the new legislature reveals Liberal values that are fundamentally at odds with those of Quebecers, who reject this institution and are committed to democracy and modernity,”

the Bloc Québécois chimed in (translated from French)

.

“What contempt for Quebec! What ignorance of its history!”

author and philosopher Rejean Bergeron exclaimed in Le Devoir (also translated from French)

. “Doesn’t Mark Carney know that a large proportion of Quebecers are allergic to anything (to do with) the British crown? That the national assembly has decided to no longer make the oath to the King of England mandatory?”

A Leger poll in 2023 found 78 per cent of Quebecers

felt it was “time for Canada to reconsider its ties to the British Monarchy,” versus 63 per cent nationwide. (Charles is visiting and addressing Parliament in his role as King of

Canada

, of course, not of Britain.)

That’s not to say the monarchy is a “big issue.” Seventy-eight per cent of Quebecers don’t lie awake at night hating the monarchy, any more than the 59 per cent of Ontarians who also think (per Leger) that it’s time to reconsider the monarchy. But it would only take a few elected officials to create a giant headache for Carney.

Some nationalists are arguing the Bloc’s terminal umbrage at Ottawa isn’t enough this time. In his article in Le Devoir, Bergeron even called the Bloquistes “collaborators.” This has always been a source of contention within the separatist movement. The obvious comparison is

Sinn Féin, whose seven elected MPs at Westminster

don’t swear allegiance to the King, don’t take their seats at Westminster, and don’t collect their salaries — which is only logical, since they don’t think Northern Ireland should be part of the United Kingdom, just as the Bloc doesn’t think Quebec should be part of Canada.

If Bloc MPs did that in Ottawa, they would rob their constituents of a lot of influence.

But they might be able to have their cake and eat it too. St-Pierre Plamondon “achieved (a) breakthrough when he challenged the outdated and colonial custom of requiring Quebec MNAs to swear an oath to the king before being able to take their seats” in the provincial legislature, nationalist commentator

Mathieu Bock-Côté noted in French in Le Journal de Montréal

.

Quebec’s national assembly unanimously passed a bill in 2023 that claimed to unilaterally amend the Constitution to eliminate that obligation

— something it had absolutely no right to do. But no one challenged them on it, so they did it.

“What will the Bloc Québécois MPs do?” Bock-Côté asked, effectively throwing down a gauntlet. “Will they behave like good children? Or will they surprise us with a bold move?”

Meanwhile Québec Solidaire (QS), the third party in the national assembly and the most left-wing, has proposed either defunding the Lieutenant Governor’s position or simply not appointing a replacement for the incumbent, Manon Jeannotte. That is not a fringe position, to be clear: In another of its disturbing cavalcade of unanimous decisions,

in 2023 Quebec’s legislature voted to abolish the Lieutenant Governor’s office

.

“The move could create a constitutional vacuum,”

Le Journal de Montréal reported (in French)

— you need a lieutenant governor to give royal assent to provincial legislation — “but (QS co-leader) Ruba Ghazal points out that MNAs managed to abolish the obligatory oath to the King without creating a crisis of legitimacy.”

Indeed. So, what the heck, maybe you

don’t

need a lieutenant governor to give royal assent to legislation. Who’s going to tell us that we do, if not ourselves? The United Nations? NATO? Maybe nothing matters.

If the Bloc launched a campaign to free its MPs of the most basic obligation of sitting in the House of Commons to swear allegiance to the monarch, would anyone try to stop them — after no one tried to stop them in Quebec? It’s certainly difficult to see why they wouldn’t at least try.

National Post

cselley@postmedia.com

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is greeted by President Donald Trump as he arrives at the West Wing of the White House, Tuesday, May 6, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

All of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s big talk about standing up to Donald Trump was exposed Tuesday as a bombastic sham.

At a meeting in the White House with the president, Carney smiled happily when Trump talked about winning the election for him. When the topic of Canada becoming the 51st state was raised, Carney declared that would never happen (would any prime minister of Canada have said any less?)

But when the president talked about shutting down the Canadian car industry and refusing to buy our steel and aluminum, the prime minister was silent. No push back. No standing up for Canadian interests.

Gone was Carney’s fiery rhetoric from the campaign trail and in its place was the mild-mannered, tranquil banker.

No one should expect the prime minister to be rude, dismissive or combative when meeting the president (even if on the campaign trail that’s exactly how Carney behaved.)

But neither should the prime minister be so passive and meek. During the meeting, Trump forcefully laid out his economic vision, no matter the obvious harm caused to Canada and no matter that the prime minister was sitting next to him.

Trump clearly has a liking for Carney, but pleasing the president may not get the results Canada expects or wants.

The meeting began on friendly terms and, for the most part, was affable.

When Trump congratulated Carney on his win, he added, “I think I was the greatest thing that happened to him.”

And he’s right.

Time and again during the election, Carney brought up Trump as the bogeyman who would devour Canada and only he could stop him.

“We are facing the biggest crisis of our lifetimes,”

said

Carney during the campaign. “Donald Trump is trying to fundamentally change the world economy, the trading system, but really what he is trying to do to Canada, he’s trying to break us, so the U.S. can own us. They want our land, they want our resources, they want our water. They want our country.”

It was the kind of belligerence that heightened the fear of too many Canadians.

When the issue of the 51st state was brought up at Tuesday’s meeting, Carney said, “There are some places that are never for sale.”

But Canada was never for sale, a point Trump acknowledged during the meeting. “It takes two to tango,” said Trump, and Canada was never going to be a dance partner.

“I have a lot of respect for Canada,” said Trump, who may never give up his pipe dream of a united North America, but we are foolish to give it any more credence than that.

Yet Carney duped people into buying into the threat, that our very sovereignty was at stake.

But it’s not our sovereignty, but our economy we should be worried about, that has always been our weakness. We have lived under the umbrella of the United States for too long, not just militarily, but economically.

Trump is intent on making the U.S. a self-reliant, economic powerhouse and if that hurts Canada, well so be it.

Even Carney acknowledged as much in the meeting, although his gushing enthusiasm was a little excessive.

“Thank you for your hospitality and above all your leadership,” said Carney. “You are a transformational president focused on the economy (and) a relentless focus on the American worker.”

Carney went on to tout the benefits of the Canadian-American alliance in the auto industry and the advantages of being partners.

But Trump was having none of it, if Carney was afraid to push back, the president certainly wasn’t. Trump’s message was blunt, succinct and was bad news for Canada.

“We want to make our own cars. We don’t really want cars from Canada,” said Trump, adding, “And we’ll put tariffs on cars from Canada and at a certain point, it won’t make economic sense for Canada to build those cars.

“And we don’t want steel from Canada because we’re making our own steel and we’re having massive steel plants being built right now as we speak. We really don’t want Canadian steel and we don’t want Canadian aluminum and various other things.”

Asked by a reporter whether there was any way for Canada to avoid tariffs, Trump replied, “No. Just the way it is.”

In a social media

post

before the meeting, Trump said of Canada, “We don’t need their Cars, we don’t need their Energy, we don’t need their Lumber, we don’t need ANYTHING they have, other than their friendship.”

So there we have it. Trump is now friends with Carney. Carney is friends with Trump and Canada is screwed.

How many times must people be told: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

That’s what the last election should have been about: how to grow Canada, make it self-sustaining, less reliant on America, more in touch with the wider world.

But Carney successfully hijacked the election to make it about Trump and the 51st state.

Carney rode to office on the back of a nightmare, whereas at least Trump gained the White House with a vision about where he wanted to take his country.

The simple fact is Trump is not Canada’s friend. Having accepted that, can we all now just focus on the economy.

National Post


Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on Monday May 5, 2025. 
Gavin Young/Postmedia

On the eve of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s critical trip to Washington to meet U.S. President Donald Trump, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith stole the spotlight and turned it firmly on herself. In a twenty-minute

“address to Albertans,”

she aired grievances against the federal Liberal government, from carbon taxes to Justin Trudeau’s infamous “no more pipelines bill,” C-69. Smith also presented a list of demands, from resource corridor development to greater provincial control over energy and immigration. And she pledged to hold a referendum on Alberta independence should “enough” citizens demand one — while insisting multiple times that she doesn’t support secession herself.

 

The timing was no accident. Smith wanted to be a topic of conversation in the White House. Perhaps she’s angling for another interview on Fox News. Or perhaps she is trying to stay in power, pacifying the same angry base that ousted her predecessor, Jason Kenney, in 2022 after he won only 51.4 per cent in a leadership review.

 

Whatever the reason, Smith is seizing the moment to make Alberta’s case, to the detriment of Canada’s. If Carney has trouble at home, it will be harder for him to stand strong abroad. And it’s hard to see how that helps Alberta — unless Smith has another agenda in mind. And for that, she has a model: Quebec.

 

Albertans often point to the success of Quebec in dominating the national conversation — and extracting concessions from Ottawa — by threatening separation. But Quebec’s grievance is cultural, not economic — rooted in preserving a French-speaking enclave in an English continent. Alberta’s complaint by contrast, is financial. The province sees itself as the country’s cash cow, milked for equalization payments and dismissed by Laurentian elites for decades — and on this, Smith is not wrong.

 

Alberta was

created

as a province in 1905, but the federal government retained Crown lands until the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement and directly controlled its resources until 1930. The province has a particularly bitter history with Liberal governments: Pierre Elliott Trudeau enacted the National Energy Policy in the 1980’s, while son Justin brought in carbon taxes, emissions caps, and the aforementioned Bill C-69 in the 2010’s.

 

So what could satisfy Alberta? Smith has a list: an LNG corridor, approval of new oil pipelines, and repeal or serious amendment of C-69, also known as the Impact Assessment Act. Carney has already said he would amend — but not repeal — the law, and

during the campaign

, he promised to cut wait times for the approval of major resource projects from five years to two. He also pledged to create trade and energy corridors for transport, energy, critical minerals and digital connectivity. 

 

But will that be enough in the current climate? Protesters who took to the legislature

on the weekend

are disappointed in the election result – and don’t trust Liberals to have their back. Polls show that

15 per cent

of the province would vote to join the US, while

29 per cent

would vote for independence.

Smith may indeed be playing with fire. While Trump denies interest in a military invasion of Canada, Trump’s interest in making us the “51

st

State” is not idle conversation. He has mused about annexing the west first: could he twist history to make it Canada’s “Donbas”?  Americans played a key role in Alberta’s early development: by 1916,

nearly 19 per cent

of its population hailed from the US, though it has been diluted by waves of immigration since then.

 

Carney must tread carefully — and act quickly. A referendum in 2026, as Smith threatens to hold, would weaken Canada’s position during crucial negotiations with the United States. To stave this off, Carney will have to shed some of his green mantle and expedite resource development projects that benefit the west — projects that will also benefit the rest of the country through job creation and economic activity. A fair deal for Alberta is now essential for Canada, in more ways than one.

 

Postmedia News

Tasha Kheiriddin is Postmedia’s national politics columnist.


Bike lanes on Yonge Street, north of Bloor Street on Saturday July 17, 2021.

In the weeks of the election period, Canadian courts were busy preventing any legislation of controversy from taking effect — and they went relatively unnoticed. On March 28, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

blocked

the Ontario government from banning supervised consumption sites near schools and daycares. It struck again on April 22,

halting

the Ontario government from removing Toronto’s bike lanes.

Days later, on April 24, the Quebec Superior Court

cancelled

the province’s planned mega-tuition hike for out-of-province students.

In the case of Toronto’s major bike lanes — on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue — Ontario Premier Doug Ford had, in theory, all the power he needed to remove them. Municipalities are creatures of the province, and traffic regulation is also a provincial domain; thus, provincial legislatures can override just about anything that a city council does, especially if related to roads. So, in November, Ford

legislated

the removal of the lanes, which were

previously

constructed by city authorities (he was later re-elected premier, so clearly bike lane preservation wasn’t a priority for voters).

In December, cycling advocates launched a court challenge that, really, should have been laughed out of the room. They argued that the removal of bike lanes amounted to a violation of their Charter rights, specifically the Section 7 catch-all right to life, liberty and security.

It remains to be seen whether there is a Charter right that guarantees two per cent of the population the right to have specialty lanes built for their commuting pleasure — the trial process is still underway. In the meantime, Ontario’s Judge Paul Schabas, a Liberal

appointee

, has granted the cycling advocates an injunction to keep the lanes in place, because allowing their dismantling to go forward would impose an injunction-worthy risk of “irreparable harm” to Toronto’s cyclists.

“There is no evidence that the government has engaged in any planning as to how the bike lanes will be removed or what will replace them,” Schabas wrote in the decision. “The demolition and reconstruction will create its own impacts on traffic — both for cyclists and motor vehicles — and will likely result in considerable disturbance and congestion while that is taking place. Cyclists who continue to use these routes will be at risk of irreparable physical harm for which … the government will not provide any compensation in damages.”

And, just like that, a judge overruled a decision of the elected legislature, opting instead to take, temporarily, the zero-risk-tolerance advice of unelected government consultants. It’s at least good that Ford is

appealing

Schabas’ decision.

Ontario’s attempt to shut down certain drug consumption sites — specifically, those that were dangerously close to schools and daycares — went much the same way. Ford passed the

law

in December with the intention of making some basic, common-sense community safety improvements, acknowledging the reality that drug use sites are magnets for disorder, petty crime and sometimes-fatal gang violence.

The centres slated to be closed down have since been protected by a court injunction because an advocacy group has mounted a Charter challenge against Ford’s law. Invoked are the right to life, liberty and security, as well as the right to equality. The drug users are addicted, and thus disabled, and are thus members of a protected class.

Ontario had argued against an injunction, stating that the need to protect children from drug-related violence and disorder should allow the government to proceed in closing the centres, but Ontario Superior Court Justice John Callaghan, also a Liberal

appointee

, disagreed.

“The closing of (safe consumption sites) will cause significant harm across the province, including the loss of life…. Exempting the existing SCSs will have a substantial public benefit of preventing serious health risks and deaths which, in my view, outweighs the harm caused by the continued public disorder,” he wrote.

Quebec’s case of judicial usurpation was at least less life-or-death. There, the post-secondary minister raised tuition for students out-of-province as part of a broader effort to preserve a French-speaking milieu, particularly at Anglo-dominated McGill. The court felt that the provincial government’s decision to raise tuition in this way wasn’t supported by adequate evidence, and thus, the hike was cancelled. Instead of being defeated in the open political forum, Quebec’s new tuition scheme was cancelled on a technicality.

It was supposed to be the legislatures that review evidence and make policy — now, judges have decided to insert themselves into the role. Each judge in these cases complained of a lack of evidence that conveniently favoured keeping the old status quo in place, and ultimately found a reason to bulldoze a decision made by people who were elected to implement their policy agendas. Really, the judges doing this should be running to become MPPs, not sitting on the bench. But that’s Canada in the age of the Charter.

It wasn’t until just recently that Toronto’s cyclists could expect bike lanes down Bloor. It wasn’t until just recently that Ontario’s drug traffickers could find client hotspots at government-approved drug use facilities. Of course, there are trade-offs to making any change, but the slim chance of harm to a tiny minority of the population in both cases shouldn’t outweigh the greater interests of society at large.

It’s absurd that the Charter, dressed up by judicial artistry, can now hamstring a government into keeping even a simple road arrangement.

National Post


An artist's rendering of the redesign of Ontario Place.

My love for Lake Ontario began when I was young. Like many people, my parents were not born in Canada. We didn’t have a family cottage up north to escape to every summer. Our family stayed in Toronto and the waterfront was our playground. It’s why I’ve spent my career fighting to make the waterfront an even better place to live, work and play. I’ve represented this part of Toronto at city hall and in Parliament.

I see Therme — which is developing a public park and beach, along with a water park and spa at Ontario Place ­— as a great addition to the work I’ve done. This is why I’ve joined their team.

Over my career, I’ve helped lead movements to build waterfront parks and improve transit. I served on Harbourfront Centre’s board and, while in politics, helped create new cultural facilities on Queen’s Quay. I also worked to deliver the budget for Waterfront Toronto, to naturalize the Don Valley and move a vision for the Port Lands forward.

But more importantly, I’ve made sure we didn’t just protect affordable housing along the shore of Lake Ontario, I helped build new social housing in the area, to make sure Toronto really does have a clean, green waterfront for all.

Critics have thrown everything at Therme’s project. It’s too big, too exclusive, too foreign, too expensive, too this and too that. It’s too bad.

You have to wonder what these protesters would have said about the original Ontario Place. Imagine the push-back to dumping contaminated landfill in the lake to make artificial islands and then surrounding them with acres of surface parking lots on the water’s edge. How would they have responded to a ticketed regional tourist draw with futuristic architecture, a luxury yacht club and fast-food outlets?

To be clear, Therme is not doing any of this. But that’s how the original Ontario Place was built in the 1970s.

Therme’s new facility is different. Plans include indoor water slides and pools, as well as places to indulge yourself with a massage or a sauna. It will be a place to bring kids or hang with friends or just relax on your own and have fun.

I’ve been to Therme’s locations in Germany and Romania. Therme is not elitist or an expensive experience. It’s affordable, popular and entirely in keeping with what Ontario Place used to be.

There is, however, one key departure from the original design. The admission gates to the grounds are being removed. Accessing the waterfront and the new green space the size of Trinity Bellwoods Park will be free at Ontario Place. You won’t need a ticket to have a picnic or watch the sun set over Lake Ontario ever again.

One thing I hope everyone can agree on is that ever since the pods closed, free access to the water’s edge has proven to be a good thing. The success of Trillium Park needs to be celebrated and expanded. Therme is excited to deliver around 16 acres of publicly accessible green space along the water’s edge, with more shoreline habitat and over 3,000 new trees planted next to the lake. Building more parks is good for the people of Toronto.

And there’s another important change coming to Ontario Place: unlike the original project, Indigenous rights holders are now partners in this new vision. The Mississauga’s of the Credit First Nation support Therme. They are partners in the design of the park and other parts of the facility, including co-creating space for ceremonies and traditional gatherings. The original design did none of this.

Ontario Place is finally becoming a place for everyone. That’s why I support the project and have joined Therme.

National Post

Adam Vaughan is a senior advisor and spokesperson for Therme Canada, and a former Toronto city councillor and member of Parliament.


Ambulances and police cars are parked outside Atocha station as many travelers prepare to spend the night inside, following a massive power cut affecting the entire Iberian peninsula and the south of France, in Madrid on April 28, 2025.

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

At the precise moment that Canada was handing electoral victory to one of the world’s most vocal boosters of green energy, 60 million Europeans were plunged into a catastrophic blackout caused in part by green technology.

And in Alberta, at least, last week’s blackout in Spain and Portugal is being cited as a preview of coming attractions if the green visions of Prime Minister Mark Carney come to pass. “Albertans would be left to freeze in the dark,” said Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

On April 28, the conjoined power grids of Spain and Portugal plunged into complete shutdown, leaving both nations without electrical power for 10 hours. Grid operators were ultimately forced to reboot the system from a cold start; the “nightmare scenario” according to 

an analysis out of University College Dublin

.

Although blackouts of this scale have happened before, it’s not a coincidence that the disaster struck a region of Europe notable for its heady embrace of renewable energy. At the precise moment that the Iberian peninsula was plunged into darkness, 78 per cent of its electricity was 

being provided by renewables

, mostly solar.

When an as-yet unknown hiccup hit the power system, all these renewables proved unable to take the strain and plunged into shutdown.

An analysis 

published out of Spain’s Universidad de Salamanca

 noted that when an electrical grid is powered by large, baseload sources such as hydro dams or nucelar power plants, they’re able “to keep the frequency stable in the face of sudden changes in generation or demand.”

“However, variable renewable sources, such as solar photovoltaic, do not have this capability,” it read

For European policymakers, the blackout has highlighted that decarbonization can come with massive unintended consequences.

At the very least, it highlighted the vulnerability of a country fixing all of its energy needs to the electrical grid. More than half of the Spanish rail network is electrified, meaning the April 28 blackout 

instantly stranded passenger trains

 all across the country.

Headlines everywhere from India to the U.K. called the blackout a “wake up call.” The term was also adopted by Eurelectric, an association representing the European electrical sector. “Yesterday’s blackout was a wake-up call,” wrote the group.

Even the pro-decarbonization Stockholm Environmental Institute concluded that the Iberian blackout highlighted the perils of overburdening aging electricity systems with green technology.

“The question isn’t whether the energy transition should continue, but whether we’re investing fast enough to keep the system stable as it evolves,” it 

wrote in a policy paper.

The Canadian energy grid is somewhat different than in Iberia, in that more than 60 per cent of Canadian electricity comes via hydroelectric dams, which aren’t subject to the same fragility as wind or solar.

Nevertheless, Canada has pursued the same tack of pushing the economy towards increased electrification, while failing to keep pace with electrical capacity. A 2023 report by the Public Policy Forum noted that if Canada was going to meet all its stated net-zero goals, it would need to double its electrical generation capacity 

in just 25 years

 — all while phasing out huge swaths of the grid now dependent on fossil fuels such as natural gas.

Although Carney did not mention green issues all that often during the 45th electoral campaign, it was only a few months ago that he was one of the world’s leading advocates for the concept of “net zero.”

Carney was UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, and also co-founded the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a club of banks and financial institutions pledged to reorient their portfolios away from fossil fuels. Although the alliance has 

massively hemorrhaged members in just the last few months

.

Iberian renewable energy projects happen to be among the many green energy assets held by Carney’s former firm, Brookfield Asset Management. Just last year, Carney was CEO of Brookfield when it acquired the Spanish renewable energy firm Saeta Yield SA.

His 2021 book Values also focuses heavily on the need to both purge the Canadian energy grid of fossil fuels, and to make more of the Canadian economy dependent on electricity.

“The core will be to electrify everything and simultaneously develop green electricity,” wrote Carney. For Canada specifically, he wrote that the future would require “completely electrifying surface transport and a large share of building heating” — and phasing out all but “clean, non-emitting” power by as early as 2030.

 

IN OTHER NEWS

As Alberta separatists find new purpose in response to the election of Prime Minister Mark Carney, a

different kind of separatism is being proposed by Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi.

The longstanding deal with the NDP is that joining any of its provincial branches automatically confers membership in the federal NDP (an arrangement that doesn’t hold for provincial Liberal and Conservative parties). But after the electoral immolation of the federal NDP in last week’s election, a majority of delegates at an Alberta NDP convention on Saturday voted to sever official ties with their federal big brother. The rumour is that this could eventually yield a name change, although the last time a provincial party tried that it

was an immediate disaster for them

.

 Cynics might have assumed that the zeroing of the federal carbon tax in March would have had minimal effect on gasoline prices as filling stations would simply keep prices the same and collect the difference as profit. But a new analysis by University of Calgary economy Trevor Tombe finds this didn’t happen. He compared Canadian gas prices to Quebec (which kept its carbon tax), and found that average retail prices went down by about 17 cents per litre, meaning that the savings from the tax, at least for now, were passed onto the consumer.

Another Anglophone country has retained its unpopular center-left government largely as a reaction to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Australia’s incumbent Labor Party had long been fated for defeat at the hands of the Australian Liberal Party (which, confusingly, is Australia’s main conservative option). That is, until the mere threat of tariffs from Trump sunk public support for the Liberals, ensuring

a renewed majority for Labor

. Trump appears very pleased with all of this. Just as he celebrated the victory of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, he seemed equally happy about the re-election of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, saying he’d always been “very nice and respectful to me.”

 Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre spent the weekend touring around Battle River—Crowfoot, the extremely Conservative and mostly rural Alberta riding he intends to win in a by-election. In last week’s election, Poilievre lost the Ottawa-area seat he’s held since 2004. As some have pointed out online, Poilievre becomes just the latest Ontarian forced to go to Alberta to find work.

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


In what was once considered an inconceivable scenario, a London-based law firm acting on behalf of Hamas submitted a legal challenge to the U.K. Home Office

demanding

its removal from the British government’s list of proscribed terrorist groups.

The case has a Canadian connection, too: Charlotte Kates, co-founder of the Vancouver-based terror group Samidoun,

contributed

an “expert report” as part of the legal challenge “against the criminalization of Palestinian resistance in Britain.”

Many in Canada’s top universities share a similarly worrying, warped school of thought: organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban have been unfairly classified as terrorist entities by western colonial systems and laws that are riddled with racism and “Islamophobia” (a popular grift of Islamist groups in the West to silence and punish critics and to evade legitimate scrutiny).

Influential figures within faculty departments, student unions and diversity, equity and inclusion offices are not just excusing but actively promoting extremist ideologies, including radical Islam and support for terrorism.

Cloaked in the language of academic freedom, social justice and human rights, they are jointly funding studies and platforming individuals who condone terrorism as a legitimate act of resistance and undermining the critical work performed by Canada’s national security agencies with

accusations of bigotry

.

The Toronto Metropolitan University’s arts faculty is one such example. The faculty recently funded

a research paper

, which argues that the process of designating Islamist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS as terrorist organizations by Canada’s security apparatus is deeply flawed because of “systemic Islamophobia” and racism.

Titled “Racialized Knowledges: Understanding the Construction of the Muslim “Terrorist” in the Policy Process,” the paper discusses how “policymakers rely on white logic to depict state institutions as neutral, obscuring their inherent anti-Muslim orientation.” It also claims that Canadian security agencies “maintain the association of ‘terrorism’ with Muslims,” regardless of who commits the violent act. For context, roughly 70 per cent of all

listed terrorist groups

in Canada are explicitly of the Islamist variety.

In another case of terrorism whitewashing, the University of Toronto’s Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies hosted

a seminar

in February titled, “Silenced Voices: The Impact of Terrorism Designations on Palestinian Advocacy in Canada.” The event’s organizers argued that Canadian media coverage and political discourse unfairly portray pro-Palestine activists in a poor light, using “framing techniques that align with criminalizing narratives, often using labels such as ‘terrorism’ and ‘violence’ to delegitimize Palestinian voices.”

The keynote speaker was Basema Al-Alami, a PhD candidate at U of T’s law school. According to

her university bio

, Al-Alami’s research focuses on “the intersection of counterterrorism, entrapment law and anti-Muslim bias in Canada’s legal system.” Her PhD research alleges “systemic issues in national security practices, particularly the litigation and over-policing of Muslims in post-9/11 Canada.”

In another example from earlier this year, the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies invited Nada Elia, a Palestinian-American professor at Western Washington University, to

give a talk

on “Weaponizing Feminism in the Service of Genocide.” In an article titled “

Weaponzing Rape

,” Prof. Elia argued that, “Israel is weaponizing claims of sexual violence for propaganda purposes,” and that there is “no reliable evidence to document any of the alleged crimes.” According to the watchdog group

Canary Mission

, she has previously “defended terrorists and called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel.”

It is clear that Islamists, empowered by the cover of progressive activism on campuses, are waging a calculated campaign to erode the core values of western democracy. Their campaign goes far beyond dissent or protest — it is ideological jihad aimed at infiltrating educational institutions, weakening our legal foundations, distorting our security interests and disrupting our cultural, social and political stability from within.

The fallout from normalizing violence on university campuses is already visible, but a deeper danger lies ahead: when universities allow extremist ideologies to take root, they risk shaping a generation of graduates who no longer see terrorism as a crime, but as a justifiable form of resistance. This radical shift in young minds carries grave consequences — not only for the Jewish community, but for the security, unity and the democratic fabric of Canada itself.

With the Israel-Hamas war reviving the spectre of

jihadist terrorism

and ramping up

youth recruitment

in Canada, universities should not be platforming voices and ideologies that undermine our security and unity, priorities that Prime Minister Mark Carney alluded to in his post-election

victory speech

. Governments must seek accountability from university bosses to protect the integrity of our education system and restore trust in our institutions.

The unconscionable attempt by young,

indoctrinated barristers

to get Hamas removed from the U.K. terror list is a consequence of the

years-long infiltration

of Islamist ideology into the British education system. With the Trump administration demanding that Ottawa do more on the continental-security file, Canada can ill-afford to end up in a similar situation.

National Post

Casey Babb is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in Ottawa, a fellow with the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, an associate fellow with the Royal United Services Institute in London and an adviser with Secure Canada in Toronto. Joe Adam George is a national security analyst with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the Canada research lead on Islamist extremism with the Middle East Forum in the U.S.


Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre holds an availability at the Croatian Sports and Community Centre of Hamilton in Stoney Creek, Ont., on Wednesday, April 23, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

The election dust has settled, leaving the Liberals with a minority government. This has led to calls — from both conservatives and progressives — for Pierre Poilievre to step down as Conservative party leader. But these calls are premature, overlook the success of several of Poilievre’s policies — many of which were co-opted by the Liberals in order to win — and severely underestimate the Liberals’ incumbent advantage in the face of an unforeseeable natural disaster that plagued an otherwise normal Canadian election campaign —  U.S. President Donald Trump.

In late December, 45 per cent of voters

polled

by Angus Reid intended to support Poilievre’s Conservatives and their policies while only 16 per cent polled said they’d vote for the Liberals. Angus Reid referred to this as “The Federal Liberals’ New Year’s Eve Nightmare.”  Until this point, Poilievre’s leadership was favoured. And, it turns out under his leadership Conservatives

managed to secure

42 per cent of the seats to 41.3 per cent of the votes. So, what likely happened to that other 3.7 per cent of the vote?

The failure of the Conservatives to form government is a product of a perfect storm — a turn cloak Liberal government switching from publicly mocking Poilievre’s policies to adopting them wholesale without acknowledging from whence they came, and the entrance of a chaos agent, whose tariff threats loomed large in the backdrop of this election, and whose trolling memes were such an offense to Canadian sensibilities that at least some of us appeared to forget why we wanted to vote the Liberals out in the first place.

It turns out one party’s nightmare is another’s winning lottery ticket.

None of this suggests that Poilievre should step down as party leader — quite the opposite — it suggests that he understands what’s important to Canadians so well that his opposition has to copy his ideas.

Yet, this hasn’t stopped critics from suggesting that nothing was, as one former Stephen Harper advisor put it, “

more avoidable”

  than Poilievre’s loss, suggesting that “enough of the electorate recoiled from a man who was unable to make the transition from polemicist to statesman,” and doubted his ability to lead in “one in the most critical moment in Canada’s modern history.”

But Poilievre’s polemics were clearly not a problem in late December, and they

softened noticeably

during the campaign.

It’s also arguable that it was Liberal Leader Mark Carney who ran a highly polemical campaign against Poilievre. Carney pulled out all the stops to link Poilievre, without any evidence, to Trump.

In late March, in front of Rideau Hall, Mark Carney

told Canadians

that this election would be one where they were choosing between “a government that is unifying, standing up for Canada and is taking focused action to build a better economy” or one that promotes “want division and Americanism.” He continued, “That’s what Mr. Poilievre seems to be offering. Just endorsed by the premier of Alberta.”

This was in response to Alberta’s Danielle Smith suggesting that although there would be many disagreements, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre would be “very much in sync with … the new direction in America” and that the two countries would “have a great relationship,” pointing to issues they’d have in common: “If we do have Pierre as our prime minister, then I think there’s a number of things that we could do together. Pierre believes in development, he believes in low-cost energy, he believes that we need to have low taxes, doesn’t believe in any of the woke stuff that we’ve seen taking over our politics for the last five years.”

Apparently, it would be just horrible if a Canadian Conservative prime minister had many disagreements on some things with U.S. President Donald Trump, but agreed on some other important issues. Isn’t that exactly what Canadians expect Carney will be doing?

Despite the fact it was Smith who made these claims, Poilievre suffered their damage.

Calling Poilievre a “

slick-haired populist with the razor-sharp mind and bunker mentality

,” Globe columnist Lawrence Martin argued that the Conservative leader was caught flat-footed to the Liberals who had been in power for 10 ten years. But of course, he wasn’t. He was caught flat-footed by a party that abandoned even one of their own most beloved policies, including the consumer carbon tax, to win, and by Trump, and those who unfairly accused him of being like Trump.

If roles had been reversed, and Conservatives had been in power for ten years when Trump’s threats began, they, too, would have benefitted from incumbency and the rally-round-the flag effect that the Liberals enjoyed.

The only difference is, of course, because of conservative policies, the country probably would’ve been in much better economic condition when it happened. In contradiction to ten years under the Liberals and a

lost economic decade

, ten years under the Conservatives instead may have resulted in a stronger energy industry in Canada which we could have used to support our neighbours in Europe when they needed our help replacing energy from Russia.

The Liberals’ failure to secure a majority was in part, due to losses in Ontario, likely because they did not adopt

enough

of Poilievre’s policies, specifically, in regards to public safety, crime, and immigration. These are some of the complaints Liberal MPs heard while canvassing lost ridings such as Vaughan-Woodbridge and

Markham—Unionville. Abacus Data pollster David Coletto suggested that crime (especially car theft) likely played a “subtle but effective role” in flipping York region to Conservatives. This suggests that in these and other Ontario ridings that flipped, Mark Carney wasn’t enough like Pierre Poilievre.

It seems strange to suggest that Pierre Poilievre should step down as leader when his policies actually worked for the Liberals and would have likely secured them a majority if only they’d taken more of them on. I see no evidence that any non-incumbent leader would have been able to withstand the Trump chaos factor which the Liberals leaned into. Poilievre should proudly stay on as party leader and fight the Liberals tooth and nail on their blatant hypocrisy. He should just do it with the confidence and subdued tone of Canada’s next prime minister. After all, Canadians may soon have buyer’s remorse.

tnewman@postmedia.com

X:

@TLNewmanMTL


Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre

The big election surprise was that the Conservatives can do so well and still lose. Leader Pierre Poilievre created a new Tory coalition, sweeping up working-class NDPers and anti-establishment People’s party voters, as Brian Lilley discusses with Tasha Kheiriddin and Stuart Thomson from Postmedia’s Political Hack newsletter. But Poilievre now needs even more to beat the Liberals — which means building bridges with moderate conservatives he’s shunned. That likely includes people in the laptop class, like those in Carleton who voted him out of his long-held seat, and provincial Tories (even the antagonistic Doug Ford). The panel also considers who’ll lead the NDP now; why U.S. President Donald Trump’s warming to Prime Minister Mark Carney; and whether Carney will ever get warm with the West. (Recorded May 2, 2025.)