LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Source: National Post (Opinions)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks at a press conference in Ottawa, Ontario, on August 22, 2026 after trade talks with the US collapsed.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has undeniably brought a measure of dignity, sharp intellect and technocratic excellence back to the Prime Minister’s Office. This is a welcome change after a “ lost decade ” defined by poor governance and the severe mismanagement of Canada’s socio-economic environment and its most important relationship, with the United States.

However, Canadians must face an uncomfortable truth. Our teetering economy, lagging productivity and housing crises were entirely made in Canada. They predated the first and second terms of U.S. President Donald Trump. Yet, the governing Liberal Party has found it politically expedient to gaslight the public, blaming our current woes on the U.S. and the current occupant of the White House. It is always easier to point a finger at the caricature of the “Ugly American” than to admit we have spent the last decade or more behaving as an “ Ugly Ally .”

Under Justin Trudeau, the previous prime minister, Canada’s relationship with its most vital security and trading partner was disastrously mishandled. Cabinet ministers routinely prioritized domestic political points over cross-border diplomacy. We saw Trudeau explicitly campaign against “MAGA conservatism,” while Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly publicly mused about creating a “ game plan ” to deal with a hypothetical authoritarian shift in the US. After enjoying dinner and a selfie at Mar-a-Lago following Trump’s 2024 electoral victory, Trudeau flew back to Canada. Just days later, he called Kamala Harris’s electoral defeat a setback for women.

While Ottawa was busy moralizing at Washington, it was asleep at the wheel on actual national security. The Trudeau government repeatedly ignored stark warnings from our Canadian Security Intelligence Service and think tanks like the Macdonald-Laurier Institute regarding foreign interference and elite capture , primarily orchestrated by Beijing. Consequently, Canada became the black eye of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. We were left out of the Quad and AUKUS. We simultaneously managed to alienate India and frustrate Japan, a vital geoeconomic partner that has expertly navigated the very U.S.-China friction Canada fumbles.

Carney has done his best to stop the bleeding, and for that, Canadians should be thankful. However, his geopolitical compass remains fundamentally miscalibrated.

Rather than abandoning the partisan habit of using the U.S. as a scapegoat for Canada’s structural economic stagnation, Carney has continued the gaslighting. Worse, he has actively courted a “strategic partnership” with China, a state with a documented, deep track record of foreign interference in Canadian democratic institutions, and Washington’s primary strategic competitor.

At his Davos 2026 address , Carney drew a false equivalence between the U.S. and China, suggesting Canada could somehow float above the fray as a neutral middle-power broker. This is a dangerous fantasy.

Washington is not going to tolerate a contiguous neighbour and NORAD partner integrating its economy with a hostile strategic competitor. This is not uniquely a Trump phenomenon; it is a bipartisan Washington consensus. It was the Trump administration that inserted Article 32.10 into the USMCA (CUSMA) trade agreement, effectively giving the U.S. veto power over any free trade agreement Canada might pursue with a “non-market economy” like China. But the Biden administration maintained and rigorously enforced that exact same geoeconomic architecture.

As abrasive and difficult as the current White House can be, Carney’s job is not to posture for the Davos crowd. It is to steer Canada away from self-destructive anti-American sentiment, manage the U.S. leadership with pragmatic cognitive empathy, and ensure Canada is anchored securely within the reorganization of the North American and global supply chains.

We are not living in the 1990s. Canada is no longer a comparative middle-power heavyweight. While other nations have risen, our relative clout, military resources, and diplomatic credibility have severely declined. We cannot convene coalitions to resist American pressure while simultaneously relying on the American taxpayer to subsidize our continental defence.

Canada desperately needs a new identity and a new grand strategy. That strategy cannot be rooted in a romanticized nostalgia for middle-power diplomacy, nor in a contrarian desire to poke Washington in the eye. It must be built on the cold, structural realities of our geographic, institutional, and cultural proximity to the United States. Until the Prime Minister’s Office accepts this, the “Ugly Ally” will continue to find itself isolated, outpaced and ignored.

Stephen Nagy is a Senior Fellow and China Policy Project Lead at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. His work focuses primarily on Indo-Pacific affairs, foreign policy, security, and great-power competition.

Click here for more Canada

Activists take part in a rally ahead of a rumoured anti-immigrant protest on August 7, 2024 in Brentford, United Kingdom.

Last week, the United Kingdom released an orientation manual for migrants. Among the sage pieces of advice it offered to readers were “never use threat, force or pressure to make someone have sex” and “women can … choose who they marry.”

“If you have sex with someone without their consent, this is called rape,” counselled the manual. “Rape is a serious crime in the UK. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim.” Other topics covered included domestic violence and respect for others in public. It’s a quick nine pages. Indeed, Canada could probably make use of such a leaflet.

Going by the stream of migrant violence news that the U.K. has emitted for years now, the document is overdue. It’s far too common to hear of shocking rapes perpetrated by migrants against vulnerable men , women , teens and even children in parks , wooded areas , beach toilets , rental units . And the problems extend beyond rape: there appear to be basic deficiencies in public etiquette from the migrant cross-section of society. Inappropriate loitering near primary schools has been a reported problem, incestuous cousin marriage (and the insistence that it’s fine) is a growing problem, as is dishonesty when interacting with public systems, as is perpetual unemployment and receipt of welfare.

A few printed handouts aren’t going to solve all of these problems, but they at least provide some validation to those who have been assured otherwise for years. A “please don’t rape” guide at least provides an official acknowledgement that perhaps the relentless stream of headlines about the latest ravaging in X county and sentencing in Y city amount to a pattern of some sort.

But what about in Canada? Well, we don’t have much for official orientation materials. I asked Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada whether we have anything like a “don’t rape” pamphlet, or perhaps a guide advising newcomers not to dump garbage in ditches. No such thing, is the official answer. Instead, Canada shunts the responsibility of orientation onto settlement services, at a cost of nearly $1 billion in 2026-27.

“All permanent residents and protected persons are eligible for IRCC-funded settlement services,” which, said the spokesperson, “help them integrate and build a successful life in Canada as quickly as possible and include information on rights and freedoms of individuals according to Canadian law, understanding of Canadian values, as well as their responsibilities and obligations.”

We’re similar to the U.K. in experiencing a migration at a scale unseen in recent memory, and this has come with its share of friction. Our schools now struggle to keep up with an unmanageable quantity of children who can’t speak or are learning English. The government circulates marriage fraud warnings — which have been denounced by newcomers writing in the Globe and Mail for being too uninclusive of other cultures’ transactional views of matrimony.

Organized crime is a growing problem as international crime groups move to exploit our porous border and inadequate immigration screening . The trucking industry has become known for corner-cutting and killing other drivers on the road — and an influx of foreign drivers seems to be part of the equation.

The federal government has washed itself of the responsibility for integration by shunting it off to third parties and calling it a day. While there isn’t anything wrong in working with partners, the feds are clearly happy to use them as an excuse to not communicate clear standards of conduct visible to the entire public. By leaving the bar-setting exercise to settlement service providers, the feds also escape the awkward position of having to explain why they’re bringing in people who need an explainer to not rape children.

Alas, not all can be hidden. The feds sponsored a “Pre-Departure Guide for Newcomers to Canada,” published in 2025, which is, in a way, even less flattering to the administration responsible than the British guide. It focuses predominantly on the rights of the newcomer, rather than the responsibilities. It dedicates more space to educating the reader about Canada’s openness to people switching genders than it does to the basic rules of consent.

“We are usually told by a doctor or our parents that we are male or female based on our appearance and how our bodies are formed,” it unironically instructs its pupils, as if the two biological sexes are as silly as the four humours.

A small part of the nearly 200-page workbook explains some common public behaviours in Canada and asks the reader to consider whether this will be new to them. These include: “lining up,” “making eye contact” and “using underarm deodorant.” Urinating and littering in public, it adds, are considered unacceptable.

Then, it makes a quick detour into crime. A worksheet is presented in which one must sort different crimes by punishment. Carrying a firearm without a permit comes with jail, you’re supposed to learn. Unwanted sexual touching or remarks come with either jail or a fine. Other “jail” entries include bribery, polygamy, female genital mutilation, as well as “Making, sharing or owning photos of naked children,” “Forcing others into marriage,” and “Having sex with children.”

Further on, the workbook presents a family violence matching exercise, where the reader is to draw a line from images of stick-figures abusing each other in some fashion to the written description of the act, the worst being “Killing a family member as a way to save a family’s honour.”

Elsewhere, it gently nudges newcomers to get jobs rather than rely on Canada Child Benefit payouts.

It’s a bare-bones set of standards that is troublingly indirect and away from public view. We’d be much better served by having it written right out on the Government of Canada website, which carries a little more authority than some PDF. Even more, we’d benefit from the civic discourse that would come with.

National Post

Click here for more Alberta

Activists take part in a rally ahead of a rumoured anti-immigrant protest on August 7, 2024 in Brentford, United Kingdom.

Last week, the United Kingdom released an orientation manual for migrants. Among the sage pieces of advice it offered to readers were “never use threat, force or pressure to make someone have sex” and “women can … choose who they marry.”

“If you have sex with someone without their consent, this is called rape,” counselled the manual. “Rape is a serious crime in the UK. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim.” Other topics covered included domestic violence and respect for others in public. It’s a quick nine pages. Indeed, Canada could probably make use of such a leaflet.

Going by the stream of migrant violence news that the U.K. has emitted for years now, the document is overdue. It’s far too common to hear of shocking rapes perpetrated by migrants against vulnerable men , women , teens and even children in parks , wooded areas , beach toilets , rental units . And the problems extend beyond rape: there appear to be basic deficiencies in public etiquette from the migrant cross-section of society. Inappropriate loitering near primary schools has been a reported problem, incestuous cousin marriage (and the insistence that it’s fine) is a growing problem, as is dishonesty when interacting with public systems, as is perpetual unemployment and receipt of welfare.

A few printed handouts aren’t going to solve all of these problems, but they at least provide some validation to those who have been assured otherwise for years. A “please don’t rape” guide at least provides an official acknowledgement that perhaps the relentless stream of headlines about the latest ravaging in X county and sentencing in Y city amount to a pattern of some sort.

But what about in Canada? Well, we don’t have much for official orientation materials. I asked Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada whether we have anything like a “don’t rape” pamphlet, or perhaps a guide advising newcomers not to dump garbage in ditches. No such thing, is the official answer. Instead, Canada shunts the responsibility of orientation onto settlement services, at a cost of nearly $1 billion in 2026-27.

“All permanent residents and protected persons are eligible for IRCC-funded settlement services,” which, said the spokesperson, “help them integrate and build a successful life in Canada as quickly as possible and include information on rights and freedoms of individuals according to Canadian law, understanding of Canadian values, as well as their responsibilities and obligations.”

We’re similar to the U.K. in experiencing a migration at a scale unseen in recent memory, and this has come with its share of friction. Our schools now struggle to keep up with an unmanageable quantity of children who can’t speak or are learning English. The government circulates marriage fraud warnings — which have been denounced by newcomers writing in the Globe and Mail for being too uninclusive of other cultures’ transactional views of matrimony.

Organized crime is a growing problem as international crime groups move to exploit our porous border and inadequate immigration screening . The trucking industry has become known for corner-cutting and killing other drivers on the road — and an influx of foreign drivers seems to be part of the equation.

The federal government has washed itself of the responsibility for integration by shunting it off to third parties and calling it a day. While there isn’t anything wrong in working with partners, the feds are clearly happy to use them as an excuse to not communicate clear standards of conduct visible to the entire public. By leaving the bar-setting exercise to settlement service providers, the feds also escape the awkward position of having to explain why they’re bringing in people who need an explainer to not rape children.

Alas, not all can be hidden. The feds sponsored a “Pre-Departure Guide for Newcomers to Canada,” published in 2025, which is, in a way, even less flattering to the administration responsible than the British guide. It focuses predominantly on the rights of the newcomer, rather than the responsibilities. It dedicates more space to educating the reader about Canada’s openness to people switching genders than it does to the basic rules of consent.

“We are usually told by a doctor or our parents that we are male or female based on our appearance and how our bodies are formed,” it unironically instructs its pupils, as if the two biological sexes are as silly as the four humours.

A small part of the nearly 200-page workbook explains some common public behaviours in Canada and asks the reader to consider whether this will be new to them. These include: “lining up,” “making eye contact” and “using underarm deodorant.” Urinating and littering in public, it adds, are considered unacceptable.

Then, it makes a quick detour into crime. A worksheet is presented in which one must sort different crimes by punishment. Carrying a firearm without a permit comes with jail, you’re supposed to learn. Unwanted sexual touching or remarks come with either jail or a fine. Other “jail” entries include bribery, polygamy, female genital mutilation, as well as “Making, sharing or owning photos of naked children,” “Forcing others into marriage,” and “Having sex with children.”

Further on, the workbook presents a family violence matching exercise, where the reader is to draw a line from images of stick-figures abusing each other in some fashion to the written description of the act, the worst being “Killing a family member as a way to save a family’s honour.”

Elsewhere, it gently nudges newcomers to get jobs rather than rely on Canada Child Benefit payouts.

It’s a bare-bones set of standards that is troublingly indirect and away from public view. We’d be much better served by having it written right out on the Government of Canada website, which carries a little more authority than some PDF. Even more, we’d benefit from the civic discourse that would come with.

National Post

Click here for more Alberta

In the aftermath of Oct. 7, 2023, Jews at Toronto Metropolitan University antisemitism. harassment and fear are part of their campus life.

A Canadian, Jewish, post-secondary student reported being called a “ Zionist whore. ” Another reported being placed on a list of “ known Zionists. ” And yet another reported being dropped from research projects simply for saying they wished for the “safety and security of both Palestinians and Israelis.” Zionists have been described to Jewish students as “evil” and deserving to be killed. And all of this occurred on Canadian campuses.

In early August, the federal government released the Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) report . Produced by the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute, and commissioned by Canadian Heritage, the report documents shocking levels of antisemitism experienced by Jewish students on Canadian universities and colleges. Ninety-six per cent of the 900 Jewish post-secondary students surveyed either experienced or witnessed at least one antisemitic incident in the past year alone.

Just over a week after the report was released, several Jewish Canadian academics, who describe themselves as anti-Zionists, attacked the CASE report’s findings in a Globe and Mail op-ed, claiming that the report treats opposition to Zionism as evidence of antisemitism, disagreements as evidence of hatred and provides grounds for disciplining scholars for what they teach and for the policing of legitimate protests.

Their argument is both disingenuous and false.

The CASE report paints a disturbing picture of campus life for Jewish post-secondary students after October 7. Since that day, students in this survey reported having been subjected to hostility, intimidation, exclusion and abuse (not infrequently initiated by professors) because they are Jewish, Israeli or perceived to be Zionists. Some report having been spat on and/or described as child killers, white supremacists and racists. They report feeling pressured to denounce “genocide” and marginalized, as well as being excluded from academic or extracurricular activities and having been subjected to rhetoric that goes far beyond criticism of Israel.

The anti-Zionist professors deny the definition of anti-Zionism as an ideology that calls for the annihilation or erasure of Israel and its people — thereby missing the point. That is precisely how anti-Zionism so often manifests on campuses and is experienced Jewish students — not as some reasoned political, intellectual or even passionate argument, but as the basis for vilifying Jewish students.

These anti-Zionist academics also ignore the long and well-documented history of antisemitic abuse perpetrated under anti-Zionist slogans. From the Soviet Union to Poland, to Iraq, Iran, and other Middle Eastern states, Jews have experienced violence and persecution justified in the name of anti-Zionism. It’s notable that their abusers — particularly in the former Soviet Union — often insisted that they were just being anti-Zionist and not antisemitic. Antizionism is not a political debate like any other because it relies on disinformation and aims to dismantle the world’s only Jewish state.

These anti-Zionist faculty members claim that the CASE report improperly treats the assignment of pro-Palestinian readings or criticism of Israeli policy as troubling classroom antisemitism. Yet, they did not care to explain how professors teaching courses unrelated to the Middle East might think it was a good idea to assign a podcast arguing that Zionism was similar to Nazism, or spend weeks discussing Gaza and the creation of the State of Israel, repeatedly referring to it as a “Zionist political project.”

These academics also gave no explanation as to why a professor might remove course content simply because it had been developed by a Jewish Israeli doctoral student. Nor did they seem to have an answer for why professors might decide it was completely normal to refer to to Zionism is an evil ideology, or to say, “those f–king Israelis,” in class. And they were mum as to why and how a Holocaust denial website could end up as mandatory reading material.

That’s because there is no good explanation for any of these things.

When a professor tells a class that all Zionists should be killed, that Jews belong in Poland and need to go back there, or forces a student to find “positive connections” between the Black Lives Matter movement and Hamas, grades students on metrics such as signing pro-Palestinian petitions or attending related demonstrations, or gives a female student a 0 per cent grade in a women and gender studies course because she spoke up about sexual assaults committed on October 7, this is not about criticism of Israeli policy. This is about demonizing and marginalizing Jews inside and outside the classroom.

The anti-Zionist professors who criticize the report demonstrate no real interest in how antizionism is being weaponized, not only to attack Jewish students on campus, but also to inspire and incite others to do so. Contrary to their assertions, the CASE report does not erase a century of Jewish debate. It exposes how anti-Zionism stifles classroom debate.

In our opinion, these professors are enablers of pervasive antisemitism because they are in denial (at best) about the lived experiences of so many Jewish students on campuses across Canada. They re-victimize Jewish students by invalidating those experiences.

It was inevitable that anti-Zionist critics would deny the high levels of toxicity experienced by Jewish students at universities and colleges. Fortunately, the CASE report has shone a bright light on campus antisemitism. Now, what are governments and educational institutions going to do about it?

National Post

Pamela Walker, professor, Carleton University and co-president of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics

Cary Kogan, professor, University of Ottawa and co-president of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics

Deborah Lyons, former special envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism

Mark Sandler, chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism

Alexa Barett-Taller, former Carleton University student and Springboard fellow

Izabella Tabarovsky, fellow, London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and research fellow Max and Tessie Zelikovitz Centre for Jewish Studies

Click here for more Canada

In the aftermath of Oct. 7, 2023, Jews at Toronto Metropolitan University antisemitism. harassment and fear are part of their campus life.

A Canadian, Jewish, post-secondary student reported being called a “ Zionist whore. ” Another reported being placed on a list of “ known Zionists. ” And yet another reported being dropped from research projects simply for saying they wished for the “safety and security of both Palestinians and Israelis.” Zionists have been described to Jewish students as “evil” and deserving to be killed. And all of this occurred on Canadian campuses.

In early August, the federal government released the Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) report . Produced by the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute, and commissioned by Canadian Heritage, the report documents shocking levels of antisemitism experienced by Jewish students on Canadian universities and colleges. Ninety-six per cent of the 900 Jewish post-secondary students surveyed either experienced or witnessed at least one antisemitic incident in the past year alone.

Just over a week after the report was released, several Jewish Canadian academics, who describe themselves as anti-Zionists, attacked the CASE report’s findings in a Globe and Mail op-ed, claiming that the report treats opposition to Zionism as evidence of antisemitism, disagreements as evidence of hatred and provides grounds for disciplining scholars for what they teach and for the policing of legitimate protests.

Their argument is both disingenuous and false.

The CASE report paints a disturbing picture of campus life for Jewish post-secondary students after October 7. Since that day, students in this survey reported having been subjected to hostility, intimidation, exclusion and abuse (not infrequently initiated by professors) because they are Jewish, Israeli or perceived to be Zionists. Some report having been spat on and/or described as child killers, white supremacists and racists. They report feeling pressured to denounce “genocide” and marginalized, as well as being excluded from academic or extracurricular activities and having been subjected to rhetoric that goes far beyond criticism of Israel.

The anti-Zionist professors deny the definition of anti-Zionism as an ideology that calls for the annihilation or erasure of Israel and its people — thereby missing the point. That is precisely how anti-Zionism so often manifests on campuses and is experienced Jewish students — not as some reasoned political, intellectual or even passionate argument, but as the basis for vilifying Jewish students.

These anti-Zionist academics also ignore the long and well-documented history of antisemitic abuse perpetrated under anti-Zionist slogans. From the Soviet Union to Poland, to Iraq, Iran, and other Middle Eastern states, Jews have experienced violence and persecution justified in the name of anti-Zionism. It’s notable that their abusers — particularly in the former Soviet Union — often insisted that they were just being anti-Zionist and not antisemitic. Antizionism is not a political debate like any other because it relies on disinformation and aims to dismantle the world’s only Jewish state.

These anti-Zionist faculty members claim that the CASE report improperly treats the assignment of pro-Palestinian readings or criticism of Israeli policy as troubling classroom antisemitism. Yet, they did not care to explain how professors teaching courses unrelated to the Middle East might think it was a good idea to assign a podcast arguing that Zionism was similar to Nazism, or spend weeks discussing Gaza and the creation of the State of Israel, repeatedly referring to it as a “Zionist political project.”

These academics also gave no explanation as to why a professor might remove course content simply because it had been developed by a Jewish Israeli doctoral student. Nor did they seem to have an answer for why professors might decide it was completely normal to refer to to Zionism is an evil ideology, or to say, “those f–king Israelis,” in class. And they were mum as to why and how a Holocaust denial website could end up as mandatory reading material.

That’s because there is no good explanation for any of these things.

When a professor tells a class that all Zionists should be killed, that Jews belong in Poland and need to go back there, or forces a student to find “positive connections” between the Black Lives Matter movement and Hamas, grades students on metrics such as signing pro-Palestinian petitions or attending related demonstrations, or gives a female student a 0 per cent grade in a women and gender studies course because she spoke up about sexual assaults committed on October 7, this is not about criticism of Israeli policy. This is about demonizing and marginalizing Jews inside and outside the classroom.

The anti-Zionist professors who criticize the report demonstrate no real interest in how antizionism is being weaponized, not only to attack Jewish students on campus, but also to inspire and incite others to do so. Contrary to their assertions, the CASE report does not erase a century of Jewish debate. It exposes how anti-Zionism stifles classroom debate.

In our opinion, these professors are enablers of pervasive antisemitism because they are in denial (at best) about the lived experiences of so many Jewish students on campuses across Canada. They re-victimize Jewish students by invalidating those experiences.

It was inevitable that anti-Zionist critics would deny the high levels of toxicity experienced by Jewish students at universities and colleges. Fortunately, the CASE report has shone a bright light on campus antisemitism. Now, what are governments and educational institutions going to do about it?

National Post

Pamela Walker, professor, Carleton University and co-president of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics

Cary Kogan, professor, University of Ottawa and co-president of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics

Deborah Lyons, former special envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism

Mark Sandler, chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism

Alexa Barett-Taller, former Carleton University student and Springboard fellow

Izabella Tabarovsky, fellow, London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and research fellow Max and Tessie Zelikovitz Centre for Jewish Studies

Click here for more Canada

High-voltage power lines cross the St. Clair River between Canada (background) and the United States on March 8, 2025 in East China Township, Michigan.

In the face of a new wave of tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump, both Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow have publicly threatened to cut off Canadian electricity exports to the U.S.

Ford told a Monday press conference that cutting off electricity could be used to “put pain on the U.S.”

Chow has no jurisdiction over the electricity grid, but when asked about suspending electricity exports in a CNN interview, she said she would do “whatever it takes.”

Shutting off cross-border power was also entertained by Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette. “For the moment, I don’t want to exclude anything in terms of measures,” she told reporters.

There’s just one problem: Canada is no longer a critical supplier of electricity to the United States.

In fact, starting in 2024, Canada has begun experiencing the unprecedented phenomenon of buying more American electricity than it exports.

In February 2024, data from the Canada Energy Regulator show that, for the first time, Canadians had become net consumers of U.S.-generated electricity.

In that month, Canadian utilities sent 2.6 terawatt-hours to the U.S., while American utilities sent 2.7 terawatt-hours to Canada.

Although the disparity was blamed at the time on poor hydroelectricity generation caused by drought, it has since become a normal condition of the Canadian electricity grid.

In the two and a half years since, there have been seven additional months in which Canada was more dependent on U.S. power than the other way around.

The most recent example was December 2025. In that month, Canadians bought $330 million worth of U.S. electricity, but sold just $220 million of power in the other direction.

According to a 2024 analysis by the C.D. Howe Institute , this has all signalled the end of a “long-standing pattern of Canada exporting significantly more electricity to the United States than it imports.”

The Americans noticed as well. A 2024 briefing note by the U.S. Energy Information Administration similarly noted that the amount of Canadian electricity keeping American lights on had reached generational lows.

“Electricity exchanges across the United States and Canada — historically each other’s largest electricity trading partners — remain relatively small, representing less than 1% of their respective total generation,” it read.

New York State is typically among the most dependent on Canadian electricity imports. But even when power demand spiked to near-record highs during last month’s heat wave, 91 per cent of statewide energy generation was continuing to come from U.S.-based power plants (with the remaining nine per cent mostly coming from Quebec ).

Cutting off electricity to the U.S. would have been a much more dire threat 40 years ago.

Following a flurry of cross-border power lines being built in the 1970s, by 1982 nearly 10 per cent of all electricity generated in Canada was being sold at a profit to the U.S.

According to a 1985 report by the Economic Council of Canada, in that decade Canadian exports of electricity became 1,000 per cent higher than imports.

In 2025, by contrast, Canadian electricity exports were a mere 25 per cent higher than its U.S. imports.

Even as recently as 10 years ago, a threat of suspended Canadian electricity exports might have been enough to spark panic in select border states.

In 2016, 11 per cent of all power in the New York State grid (known as the New York Independent System Operator) came from Canada. But as of the most recent count in 2025, this has dropped to just two per cent .

The reasons for this are two-fold: Canada increasingly has less surplus electricity available to sell, while at the same time U.S. electricity production is hitting all-time highs.

Particularly over the last 10 years, any expansions to the Canadian electrical grid have mostly come in the form of small-scale wind and solar projects, with the bulk of electricity generation coming from legacy nuclear and hydroelectric plants that were predominantly built in the mid-20th century.

As a result, electricity production has been almost entirely stagnant in Canada for at least the last 25 years, even as Canada has massively expanded both its population and its demands on the existing grid.

In 2000, Canada generated 606,377 gigawatt-hours of electricity . At the time, the population was 30 million and there were effectively no electric vehicles on the road.

In 2024, Canada generated 619,762 gigawatt-hours of electricity, but for a country that now had 40 million people, and more than 1 million registered EVs .

In the U.S., by contrast, electricity production has been soaring in recent years, largely as a result of cheap, domestically produced supplies of natural gas. “U.S. electricity generation in 2025 hit a record, again,” announced the U.S. Energy Information Administration just last May.

What this means is if Canada were to suddenly power down its cross-border transmission lines, the U.S. power grid would likely be able to pick up the slack without even a temporary brownout.

The impact wouldn’t be blackouts, but higher utility bills as a result of Canadian hydro power being replaced with slightly more expensive U.S. natural gas power.

Click here for more Canada

Conservative leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay leads a press conference at The Pinnacle Hotel Harbourfront in Vancouver on Aug. 25, 2026.

Buy the lettuce. Start the clock. Kerry-Lynne Findlay is surely done as leader of British Columbia’s Conservative Party. Anyone willing to bet Findlay will remain at the party’s helm longer than the typical leafy green can prevail in your fridge clearly isn’t paying attention to current events. On Wednesday afternoon two MLAs quit Findlay’s Conservative caucus, bringing the total to a whopping five in twelve days . There isn’t a fire inside B.C.’s Conservative party; there’s an inferno, and Kerry-Lynne Findlay is the one who lit the match to start it.

Having won the B.C. Conservative leadership by a hair’s width over activist and commentator Caroline Elliott at the end of May, Findlay has set about purifying the Conservative party back to its roots and away from the broader centre-right, free market coalition which has caused tension in the party since it merged with B.C. United (formerly the B.C. Liberals) ahead of the 2024 election.

Gone are the people who actually built the party to its current broader tent status. Notable examples, apart from the MLAs fleeing the scene of the crime-in-progress, include Angelo Isidorou , the party’s former executive director who left at the end of July. Isidorou represented the wider coalition that the B.C. Conservatives could be and directed the party towards that end. Former party president Aisha Estey also resigned in the last few weeks .

As mind boggling as all the departures are, in response Findlay has said herself that more might follow. She’s probably right and, based on the current flow rate, I would advise readers to check the news upon completion of this column for wind of who else has decided to pull the ripcord.

During her time as leader Findlay made some eyebrow raising hires, as they signaled a more stridently right-wing turn. As her chief of staff, she appointed Chris Delaney, perhaps best known for his ties to former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm , notable for refusing to cover abortion costs under provincial health care.

Then she named Apollo Chung, a former member of the separatist Alberta Republican Party , as her director of operations. Embarrassingly for Findlay, Chung was fired on Wednesday, following the release of recordings in which he made comments that he didn’t “care about saving the province,” that “white people are like crazy” and that he has “the leader in his hands.” He further added dubious comments about his plans for funds raised by the Conservatives, saying he would go in and “steal everything” to use for his aims for the party.

Findlay’s critics says she and her team have created a massive culture problem within the party, rewarding blind loyalty over competence and treating those outside the leader’s circle poorly. The most recent MLA to depart, Brennan Day spoke to the general tenor of those who have left when he said on X on Wednesday “The current direction of Conservative Party of BC under Kerry-Lynne Findlay is no longer something I can support. More fundamentally, I have lost confidence in the judgement, conduct and ethical standards of her leadership and those she has chosen to surround herself with.”

MLA Teresa Wat, who also quit caucus on Wednesday, said in her letter explaining her reasons for bolting that Findlay had “called my allegiance to Canada into Question.”

Former president Estey too voiced her views on X Wednesday: “Can’t wait for conservatives to start electing respectful, kind, and ethical human beings again.” Then there was Dan Knight, Ms. Findlay’s digital director during her leadership campaign, who today posted on X a meme of a dumpster fire.

The vibe being given off is not that the B.C. Conservatives are for everyone, but rather that they represent the fringe they used to in the days when they garnered two percent of the vote; that is to say every day prior to the 2024 election under John Rustad’s leadership.

Consider for a moment that by nearly every relevant metric the Premier David Eby’s government has been an absolute failure for B.C. This year, the province experienced it first decline in population ever as unaffordable housing has driven residents out. Fiscally, the NDP has been heaping record deficit upon record deficit with no plan to get out of the tailspin that generations of British Columbians will be paying for.

Eby’s loose drug policies have been an abject failure and seriously harmed safety downtown. Following the government’s reluctance to defend them , private property rights in B.C. are under question and the Eby NDP seems set to storm ahead with signing away huge tracks of the province to First Nations with little or no public input . Meanwhile, the BC. economy is stalled and has become a laggard in Canada . Businesses like Canfor, a large forestry company, have relocated to the United States .

Following nine years of NDP government in British Columbia, if Kerry-Lynne Findlay and her crew had even a modicum of focus or sophistication, they would cakewalk to forming the next government, but they don’t.

Despite the mile-long charge sheet against David Eby, current polls put the NDP well out ahead of Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s Conservatives. One recent poll by respected pollster Dimitri Pantazopoulos had the NDP leading 46 per cent to 40 per cent among decided voters . That’s easily an NDP majority and, depending on vote distribution, could be landslide territory.

British Columbians want a return to sensible, economically driven decision making that will get the province out of the social and economic nosedive of the past decade. That should be an easy political message to sell. However, the only thing the current B.C. Conservative actions will guarantee for British Columbians is another term under David Eby.

Adam Pankratz is a lecturer at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business.

Click here for more Alberta

Conservative leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay leads a press conference at The Pinnacle Hotel Harbourfront in Vancouver on Aug. 25, 2026.

Buy the lettuce. Start the clock. Kerry-Lynne Findlay is surely done as leader of British Columbia’s Conservative Party. Anyone willing to bet Findlay will remain at the party’s helm longer than the typical leafy green can prevail in your fridge clearly isn’t paying attention to current events. On Wednesday afternoon two MLAs quit Findlay’s Conservative caucus, bringing the total to a whopping five in twelve days . There isn’t a fire inside B.C.’s Conservative party; there’s an inferno, and Kerry-Lynne Findlay is the one who lit the match to start it.

Having won the B.C. Conservative leadership by a hair’s width over activist and commentator Caroline Elliott at the end of May, Findlay has set about purifying the Conservative party back to its roots and away from the broader centre-right, free market coalition which has caused tension in the party since it merged with B.C. United (formerly the B.C. Liberals) ahead of the 2024 election.

Gone are the people who actually built the party to its current broader tent status. Notable examples, apart from the MLAs fleeing the scene of the crime-in-progress, include Angelo Isidorou , the party’s former executive director who left at the end of July. Isidorou represented the wider coalition that the B.C. Conservatives could be and directed the party towards that end. Former party president Aisha Estey also resigned in the last few weeks .

As mind boggling as all the departures are, in response Findlay has said herself that more might follow. She’s probably right and, based on the current flow rate, I would advise readers to check the news upon completion of this column for wind of who else has decided to pull the ripcord.

During her time as leader Findlay made some eyebrow raising hires, as they signaled a more stridently right-wing turn. As her chief of staff, she appointed Chris Delaney, perhaps best known for his ties to former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm , notable for refusing to cover abortion costs under provincial health care.

Then she named Apollo Chung, a former member of the separatist Alberta Republican Party , as her director of operations. Embarrassingly for Findlay, Chung was fired on Wednesday, following the release of recordings in which he made comments that he didn’t “care about saving the province,” that “white people are like crazy” and that he has “the leader in his hands.” He further added dubious comments about his plans for funds raised by the Conservatives, saying he would go in and “steal everything” to use for his aims for the party.

Findlay’s critics says she and her team have created a massive culture problem within the party, rewarding blind loyalty over competence and treating those outside the leader’s circle poorly. The most recent MLA to depart, Brennan Day spoke to the general tenor of those who have left when he said on X on Wednesday “The current direction of Conservative Party of BC under Kerry-Lynne Findlay is no longer something I can support. More fundamentally, I have lost confidence in the judgement, conduct and ethical standards of her leadership and those she has chosen to surround herself with.”

MLA Teresa Wat, who also quit caucus on Wednesday, said in her letter explaining her reasons for bolting that Findlay had “called my allegiance to Canada into Question.”

Former president Estey too voiced her views on X Wednesday: “Can’t wait for conservatives to start electing respectful, kind, and ethical human beings again.” Then there was Dan Knight, Ms. Findlay’s digital director during her leadership campaign, who today posted on X a meme of a dumpster fire.

The vibe being given off is not that the B.C. Conservatives are for everyone, but rather that they represent the fringe they used to in the days when they garnered two percent of the vote; that is to say every day prior to the 2024 election under John Rustad’s leadership.

Consider for a moment that by nearly every relevant metric the Premier David Eby’s government has been an absolute failure for B.C. This year, the province experienced it first decline in population ever as unaffordable housing has driven residents out. Fiscally, the NDP has been heaping record deficit upon record deficit with no plan to get out of the tailspin that generations of British Columbians will be paying for.

Eby’s loose drug policies have been an abject failure and seriously harmed safety downtown. Following the government’s reluctance to defend them , private property rights in B.C. are under question and the Eby NDP seems set to storm ahead with signing away huge tracks of the province to First Nations with little or no public input . Meanwhile, the BC. economy is stalled and has become a laggard in Canada . Businesses like Canfor, a large forestry company, have relocated to the United States .

Following nine years of NDP government in British Columbia, if Kerry-Lynne Findlay and her crew had even a modicum of focus or sophistication, they would cakewalk to forming the next government, but they don’t.

Despite the mile-long charge sheet against David Eby, current polls put the NDP well out ahead of Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s Conservatives. One recent poll by respected pollster Dimitri Pantazopoulos had the NDP leading 46 per cent to 40 per cent among decided voters . That’s easily an NDP majority and, depending on vote distribution, could be landslide territory.

British Columbians want a return to sensible, economically driven decision making that will get the province out of the social and economic nosedive of the past decade. That should be an easy political message to sell. However, the only thing the current B.C. Conservative actions will guarantee for British Columbians is another term under David Eby.

Adam Pankratz is a lecturer at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business.

Click here for more Alberta

The U.S. and Canada flags flutter next to the Blue Water Bridge border crossing in Point Edward, Ontario, on October 24, 2025.

Responding to the Trump tariffs with dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs is the most predictable and unimaginative course of action that Canada’s federal government could possibly pursue. Canadians deserve better — much better.

Economists have long maintained that nobody wins tariff wars and that they invariably result in higher prices. Thus, it is consumers, on both sides of the border, who will be the ultimate victims of any Canada-US tariff war — “ war ” being the term chosen by our prime minister as his government once again mobilizes fear to secure Canadian support for his government’s actions.

So, what are some positive, less predictable, and more imaginative alternatives?

How about expanding Canada’s negotiating and advisory team to include some wiser and more experienced heads offering fresh perspectives?

How about pursuing a strategy that incorporates appeals to Trump’s political base to secure amelioration of his tariff policies?

And how about calling for a ten-week truce in the tariff war to give consumer interests and commons sense a chance to bring their influence to bear?

You scoff? You’ve swallowed the elbows up mantra? So, allow me to elaborate.

A better negotiating and advisory team should include a few key executives from the resource sectors that have leverage with Trump; characters experienced with the bluff and bluster of dealmakers like Trump; and a few political advisors who understand populism — maybe people like Premiers Scott Moe and Danielle Smith — for advice on how to get to a populist leader via his followers.

These additions will not likely be bilingual nor have the dress and mannerisms of a central banker. But they will add perspectives and influence largely absent from Carney’s present circle.

A better strategy would be one that focuses on appealing to U.S. consumers — whose cost of living is not declining as Trump promised — rallying them to demand a modification of Trump’s tariff policies. This could include Canadian spokespersons and persuaders going to Main Street, USA and the talk shows and podcasters who speak directly to Trump’s followers — appealing to them to demand a relaxation of Trump’s tariff policy toward Canada.

This strategy would more vigorously seek to amplify the advice and support of Canadian allies in Congress — like Senator Susan Collins from Maine (a U.S. state bordering New Brunswick and Quebec) who has repeatedly called the tariffs on Canada a “mistake.”

It would especially involve encouraging U.S. consumers and voters to urge Trump to “do a McKinley” — the 25th U.S. president whom Trump professes to admire. While a strong advocate of tariffs, McKinley also quietly negotiated “reciprocity agreements” with U.S. trading partners that took much of the economic sting out of them.

And why try for a ten-week truce? Trump’s behaviour, as illustrated by his on-again-off-again offensive against Iran, often includes “ pauses ” which would be helpful to both sides in this dispute. Why ten weeks? Because that would take us to the November 3rd midterm elections in the U.S. when consumers and voters, unhappy with their increased cost of living, will have a chance to express their unhappiness with the tariff wars and to put pressure on the president to change course on tariffs before a less friendly Congress forces him to do so.

Finally, Canadians should find relief from the frenetic reports emanating from the tariff-war front by taking a longer and more encouraging view of Canada-U.S. relations. Five to 10 years from now, both Trump and Carney will be gone. Their attempts to force artificial conceptions of Canadian identity — from Canada as a 51st state to Canada as a quasi-European post-national state — will be mere footnotes in some political science journal.

The massive and relentless forces of geography and history which have shaped the North American continent and relations between Canada and the U.S. from the very beginning will reassert themselves. And the coming generation of Canadians and Americans will take up the task of building an economically and physically secure North America through co-operation and mutual respect of each other’s interests, rather than endangering that security through tariff threats and declarations of “war.”

National Post

Preston Manning is a former leader of the Opposition.

Click here for more Canada

Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump at the 2025 G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta.

Release the deal, Prime Minister Carney. Canadians deserve to know the precise details that led to a full on, unprecedented trade war with President Donald Trump’s America in the last week.

While Canada’s abrupt departure from trade talks very well may have been inevitable and defensible, Carney affronts all of us with his failure to demonstrate — beyond a shadow of doubt — that this was the case.

A Department of Finance news release from Aug. 25 states that: “Canada has negotiated intensively and in good faith with the United States… In recent days, however, the U.S. proposed new terms that were not in Canada’s best interest, basically, asking too much of Canada, and offering too little in return. Canada therefore suspended negotiations rather than accepting a bad deal that would undermine Canadian workers, businesses, strategic sectors, and our national interest. Canada did not choose this trade conflict, but we need to respond to provide a level playing field to our businesses.”

The release goes on to detail Canadian counter-tariffs and $7.5 billion in government funding to Canadian businesses and workers, mainly through loans and income support. (Which brings up a rather unsettling flashback to former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s money-printing habit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we go again, eh?)

Nowhere in the government announcement are the exact details about why Carney instructed his negotiation team to pack it in and come home, without a deal. “Asking too much and offering too little in return” is hardly more than a platitude. It’s not a good enough explanation for any of us, and certainly not for the thousands of Canadians facing financial downfall as a result of the trade war.

The highest-resolution details we Canadians can find, thus far, about the breakdown in negotiations are contained within a New York Times story from Tuesday. Its authors spoke to anonymous government sources from both countries. One Canadian negotiator claimed that the Americans were attempting to rehash “settled” topics in the eleventh hour, while American sources claim that the Canadians were the ones doing this. The Trump administration was allegedly attempting to “dictate Canada’s steel tariffs on other countries,” which, if true, is obviously unacceptable. Canada apparently backed out of discussions over re-starting the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that, had it been revived, would likely have been poison for Carney’s approval rating.

Unsurprisingly — and easy to believe — neither side agreed on steel, aluminum, or auto tariffs. And then there’s the French language debate: no, not the 1990s one, but a new on e— whether the U.S. could force Canada to repeal online content legislation that favours Canadian (and French) content on American-owned platforms.

Trump has outright accused Carney of lying about the French issue. While Carney has publicly claimed that the tentative trade deal contained “threats to French language and culture,” Trump has said that notion is both untrue and “stupid.”

The U.S. president posted on social media, with his signature lack of decorum, to say that : “This lie was made up by a weak and ineffective Prime Minister in an attempt to gain political support, which he has totally lost, from the people of Quebec.”

One wonders why Carney has yet to prove Trump wrong by revealing whatever draft deal was on the table before he halted negotiations. Who wouldn’t want to prove that they were not, in fact, lying, given such an easy out? After being name-called, no less.

Shuv Majumdar, Conservative shadow minister for Canada-U.S. relations, demanded in a letter addressed to the government this week that Carney release the deal. “The Prime Minister said he would have a deal by July 21, 2025, and still does not have one. He said he would ‘negotiate a win,’ ‘handle President Trump,’ and get an even better deal than we had before. There have been no wins. U.S. tariffs on Canada are far higher than when the Prime Minister took office,” he wrote.

Intentionally or not, Majumdar raises what is perhaps the most pressing question: what is motivating Carney?

Even though diplomatic decorum usually precludes the release of non-final agreements, do not dismiss as paranoia the idea that Carney walked away from trade negotiations, at least in part, to launch “Elbows Up 2.0.” It’s no secret that the Liberal party won last year’s election for two reasons: because Carney was parachuted in to replace a beleaguered Trudeau, and because large numbers of Canadians have been awash in a communal, anti-Trump ecstasy that forms the lifeblood of Carney’s allure. (“Nothing brings people together more than mutual hatred,” as Henry Rollins once said .)

Carney couldn’t get a deal with Trump, and perhaps a Conservative government would have fared no better — but it certainly plays to Carney’s base to puff up his chest, flip the poker table over and storm off.

Canadians deserve to know the truth. Show us the deal.

National Post

Click here for more Alberta