LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

A Rodeo Fan watches the RCMP Musical Ride as they kick off the Calgary Stampede Rodeo in Calgary, Alberta Friday July 6, 2012. AL CHAREST/CALGARY SUN/QMI AGENCY

CALGARY — “I want to salute the horse,” said Sgt. Major Scott Williamson, riding master of the

RCMP Musical Ride

at the Calgary Stampede this year. “No horse, no Stampede. No horse, no RCMP. No horse, no Western Canada as it is,” he said.

I was back home in Calgary for the Stampede this year, the first time in twenty-five years. Even as a teenager, I was less than eager for the midway rides, carnival games and stomach-churning concessions. In any case, those are the same at any civic fair, wherever it may be.

What makes the Stampede, more than the cowboy hats and pancake breakfasts, is the livestock, the animals, and – in particular — the horse. The agriculture barns, cattle judging, livestock auctioneering, rodeo and chuckwagon races put the animals that built the West front and centre. The official title (used to be, at least) the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede, and the former part survives in the agricultural component of the ten-day civic festival.

This year the RCMP — M for “mounted” — Musical Ride was on hand, opening their Alberta tour in Calgary. The gleaming black horses and red-serge constables are one of Canada’s most distinctive symbols, so much so that they were chosen to lead the funeral procession of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

It’s more than impressive equine choreography, though. That’s the point the master of the ride was making in his tribute to the horse. The partnership between man and horse is not an equal one, but without the horse, man’s capacity to live and explore the vast Canadian West would have been severely limited, if not impossible. Even ancient customs like the Indigenous buffalo hunt were made easier by the use of horses.

The Spanish conquistadors knew that well, keeping meticulous records of each stallion and mare they brought over from Europe. The American cowboy knew that well, considering horse-thieving a capital crime. The early Parliament of Canada knew that well, passing legislation to create a “mounted” police force in the newly acquired Rupert’s Land — the North-West Mounted Police.

No horse, no Western Canada — at least as we know it today.

Williamson’s brief apologia for the horse was necessary. The actual “Cowboys and Indians” of Alberta today were a bit on the defensive at the Stampede. Twenty-five years or more of environmental attacks on the western way of life — agriculture and oil, rodeo and ranching — have left their mark.

Environmentalists protest

bovine belching

; ranchers in the agricultural barns argue that cattle keep the grasslands vibrant and the grass keeps the deadly carbon at bay.

You couldn’t pass a stall or booth without being told how well farmers look after their chickens, pigs, and sheep.

Animal rights activists protest the chuckwagon races, so every half hour, the announcer reminded us that racehorses love to race, are bred for racing, and if not for chuckwagon racing, would be retired to a grim end after only two or three years on the thoroughbred track.

At the rodeo, it is repeatedly emphasized that the bulls and bucking horses live a rather pampered life — attentive breeders, owners, veterinarians, and cowboys tend to their every need for what amounts to a few minutes of work a week.

Celebrating all that was easier at the Stampede a generation or two ago. The defensive posture is the product of a more hostile political climate. On the Stampede grounds themselves, though, the tens of thousands cheering the chuckwagons and calf ropers are genuinely enthusiastic.

On another front, the Stampede is more comfortable and less defensive than Canadian society as a whole, namely in its relationship with Indigenous peoples. The history of Alberta has lights and shadows like other places, but the province’s development has included a partnership of Indigenous tribes and arrivals from overseas or Eastern Canada.

Indigenous peoples have been part of the Stampede since the beginning, and the biggest daily events include powwow dancers. The past is honoured — even if the pyrotechnic-framed aerobatic motorcycles are more exciting for the audience, including Indigenous teenagers.

That comes rather naturally in Calgary. Long before anyone heard of land acknowledgments, the major roads in Calgary had Indigenous names: Crowchild Trail, Blackfoot Trail, Sarcee Trail, Piegan Trail, Deerfoot Trail. The magnificent new ring road — perhaps the most scenic urban highway in North America — is called Stoney Trail.

There are land acknowledgments aplenty at the Stampede, but the difference is that a good number of Calgarians actually recognize the names of the various tribes and even know where in Alberta they live today. No end of Ontario leaders stumble and mumble their way through land acknowledgments, having no idea of whom and of where they are speaking. Every Calgarian can pronounce Tsuut’ina and knows where they live.

In that, Alberta’s past is also the path for the future. Partnership in resource development is what Alberta’s Indigenous leaders want. Horses then, hydrocarbons now.

It’s possible to imagine a Calgary festival without the agricultural element and the animals, but it wouldn’t be the Stampede, which reminds us that our food, our prosperity, our history and our culture come from the land and the animals who work — and play and race — upon it.

National Post


Liberal MP for Scarborough-Rouge Park Gary Anandasangaree rises in the House of Commons, Wednesday, March 22, 2023 in Ottawa.

One basic prerequisite for becoming public safety minister should be a lack of perceived conflicts of interest with terror organizations. Heck, it should be a requirement for candidacy as an MP, long before cabinet enters the conversation.

But no such requirement formally exists, which is why we have Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who remains in his office despite

recusing

himself from all files involving two Tamil terrorist groups, and who, Canadians

learned

Tuesday, wrote letters of support to assist a former Tamil Tiger member’s immigration efforts.

Anandasangaree, originally from Sri Lanka — home of the Tamil Tigers, or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam — joined Prime Minister Mark Carney’s cabinet in May and became responsible for maintaining Canada’s border integrity.

The Tigers and the World Tamil Movement are both listed on Canada’s roster of

terror organizations

, which the public safety minister must maintain. In June, Anandasangaree recused himself from decisions about both groups,

explaining

to Global News that this was done “out of an abundance of caution” and “to ensure that there is no perception of any conflict.”

But the fact that he feels the need for an ethics screen is fuel enough for the perception of a conflict — and because of that, it should disqualify him from the job.

The recusal alone was a problem, but then came a follow-up report Tuesday: Global News, having sniffed through a number of Federal Court files,

found

that before joining cabinet, Anandasangaree had actually attempted to help a former Tamil Tiger member immigrate to Canada by writing to the Canada Border Services Agency in 2023 and 2016.

That man, Senthuran Selvakumaran, 48, has

tried

for more than two decades to obtain the right to live in the West. Around the year 2000, the United Kingdom rejected his asylum application due to his inconsistent reasons for being a Tamil Tiger. On some occasions, he would say he joined because he wanted to help and make money, or because of a friend; on others, he said he was forced.

In 2007, he began his long attempt to be legally accepted into Canada, where his story continued to shift to an unacceptable degree. Canadian authorities didn’t buy his claims, rendering him inadmissible to the country for terrorist group involvement — but he’s been able to gum up that process by launching various court applications to halt their efforts.

Assisting Selvakumaran in that time was Anandasangaree,

whose

2016 and 2023 letters of support were subsequently obtained by Global News. In the latest letter, Anandasangaree accused the border agency, which he now supervises, of being “cruel and inhumane” by separating Selvakumaran from his wife and child in Canada.

Anandasangaree defended his letters to Global News by arguing he was performing his duties as an MP: the minister’s constituency office, no doubt like many others, deals with a lot of immigration files.

“That a constituent (Selvakumaran’s wife), a Canadian citizen, with a Canadian child, would want to reunite her family in Canada is not unusual,” wrote Anandasangaree in a

statement

to Global on Monday. “And we have created processes by which people can challenge administrative decisions. MPs from all parties provide letters of support for constituents as a routine matter.”

While true, that doesn’t obligate MPs to support the immigration bids of suspected terrorists — a detail he didn’t engage with.

But Anandasangaree didn’t leave it at that: he went on to make veiled complaints of racism, directed at Global News’ journalists and Canadian society more broadly:

“As a Tamil Canadian, active for decades in my community, I have faced innuendo and whisper campaigns that question my allegiances to Canada.

“The questions sent to me by Global News infer something that no other minister has to face: their premise is that I somehow support a terrorist organization and would make decisions that would favour a terrorist organization. That is false.”

Well, no other ministers have had to proactively bow out of discussions regarding particular terror groups, have they?

The implication is that it’s irrational — immoral, even; an act born from subconscious bias — to question a Canadian immigrant’s sympathies for home country terror organizations. But such considerations are regularly weighed in immigration proceedings, and it’s undeniable that some members of some diaspora communities let their factional roots get the best of them. Just look at the Khalistani movement, the Eritrean

riots

, the pro-Hamas, glory-to-the-Houthis

chants

.

These aren’t out-of-bounds concerns. So, when a minister raises an ethics screen between himself and two literal terror groups, and supports the immigration bid of one of their affiliates, questions should be expected.

Anandasangaree could have chalked his letters up to a constituency-level oversight and promised better care in screening out bad apples from his to-help list. Alas, he made no such commitment and instead tried to get his investigators to avert their eyes for fear of being called racist. This has backfired: his response has only raised suspicions.

Prime Minister Carney curtly

told

reporters on Wednesday that “the public safety minister has been transparent about the details of that situation and he has my confidence.” But transparency, in this case, isn’t a cure: we can see behind the glass enough to know that Anandasangaree is not fit to lead the Department of Public Safety. For the sake of our border’s integrity, the prime minister better take a long, hard second look.

National Post


People take part in a Stop Jewish Hatred event outside of the TDSB/Toronto District School Board headquarters on Yonge Street, Tuesday September 24, 2024.

I believe this is one of the most pivotal moments in our nation’s history.

When we look back on the 1930s and 40s, we remember the chilling words that defined Canada’s indifference to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust:

“None is too many.”

That infamous phrase, uttered by a Canadian official in response to whether Jewish refugees should be admitted in 1939, continues to haunt our national conscience. We remember the turning away of the MS St. Louis, its passengers doomed as the world looked the other way. We ask ourselves how such cruelty, such silence, was tolerated — and why no one stood up.

Now, history is calling again. And it is asking: Where do you stand today? And does the younger generation even remember?

The newly released government-commissioned

report

on antisemitism in Ontario’s schools is a damning indictment of our education system. More than 780 documented incidents of antisemitism — from swastikas and Nazi salutes to outright bullying of Jewish students — were reported to have occurred between October 2023 and January 2025. In one incident, a Grade 9 boy was personally accused of being a “terrorist, rapist, and baby killer”; in another, a 13-year-old girl was surrounded repeatedly by male classmates shouting “Sieg Heil!” while making the Nazi salute.

Some of the perpetrators were educators themselves. One six-year-old, for example, “was informed by her teacher that she is only half human because one of her parents is Jewish.”

And in nearly half the cases, nothing was done. No discipline. No correction. No justice.

We cannot pretend to be surprised. Jewish families have been warning about this for years. But now the evidence is indisputable. Jewish students in Canada are being harassed, humiliated and erased in the very institutions that are supposed to protect and empower them.

This is not a moment for silence.

Over the past several weeks, I have been calling on institutional leaders across this country to do more than express concern — to issue clear, unequivocal statements condemning antisemitism, and to back those statements with meaningful action. Whether you are the CEO of a major bank or corporation, the head of a national association or union, or the leader of a school board or public institution, this moment demands your voice and your leadership.

This government report on antisemitism in our schools should jar every conscience. It is not just a wake-up call — it is a moral alarm bell. You have a choice: issue a statement as an institution, take action as a leader or speak out as an individual. But do not remain silent. The problems in the Middle East should not be an excuse for antisemitism. If you are not speaking out as a corporate leader, history will remember.

If our nation’s history matters — if we have learned anything from the painful legacy of “None is too many” — then this is a consequential moment to refuse the role of bystander. It is a moment to stand up, to speak out, and to join me in this fight.

What is at stake is nothing less than the fabric of our nation. For those who still remember children playing hockey on quiet streets, neighbours helping neighbours push cars from snowbanks or the simple kindness of a helping hand — for anyone who longs for the Canada where downtown cores were alive with laughter on a weekend afternoon, where school assemblies echoed with songs like Kumbaya, and where playground slides weren’t defaced with hateful graffiti — this is the Canada we must fight to bring back. This is the Canada we must defend.

The Abraham Global Peace Initiative has been sounding the alarm. We have taken this issue directly to Ontario’s Ministry of Education, urging zero-tolerance policies and accountability for school boards that fail to protect Jewish students. We are advancing a national proposal for a security task force dedicated to confronting antisemitism head-on. We are calling for an immediate public inquiry, and for the education system to move beyond Holocaust remembrance to confront modern-day anti-Jewish hate.

We are also calling on governments to enforce consequences for educators who engage in or ignore antisemitic acts. Jewish students must not be forced to remove their symbols, hide their identity or transfer schools out of fear. Our laws already prohibit hate speech, but we must ensure they are applied with the full weight of justice in every classroom and corridor.

There are no neutral bystanders in the fight against hate.

We must be the people of the moment. Let us stand now, together, and say never again — and this time, mean it.

National Post

Avi Abraham Benlolo is the CEO and Chairman of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative.


Toronto’s shelter system was so overtaxed in 2023 that it barred refugees from the city’s homeless shelters. They formed a makeshift encampment on a sidewalk downtown.

This week offered a couple of insights into Canada’s

slow, overburdened and massively backlogged refugee system

. Both suggest the need for serious, long-overdue systemic change.

The first case involves Angel Jenkel

, a gender non-binary American. She hadn’t actually claimed refugee status, it seems, but rather overstayed her visitor visa. But the result is being hailed as precedent-setting by

those who argue Canada ought to offer LGBTQ Americans asylum

: A Federal Court judge recently ordered Jenkel’s scheduled deportation stayed, arguing the “pre-removal risk assessment” — which anyone being deported from Canada can request, including failed asylum claimants — hadn’t taken into account the current conditions in Donald Trump’s United States.

Jenkel may yet be deported. But it’s quite silly nonetheless. Leave aside for now the fact

we often hear

about how dreadful it is to be transgender or otherwise gender-non-conforming in Canada. The fact is, the United States has Portland, San Francisco, Las Vegas and

other famously LGBTQ-friendly cities in it

— indeed, more LGBTQ-friendly cities to choose from, and more cities period, than in Canada. Not wanting to move to another part of your country has never been justification for claiming asylum in another.

“I … fear not being able to travel to see my family, as most of my family lives in the South, which has already been deemed unsafe for transgender people to travel,” Jenkel told the Globe and Mail — rather oddly, because there’s nothing Canada can do to remedy Jenkel’s travel wishes.

Meanwhile, goodness only

knows how many LGBTQ people are living under threat of persecution

in countries that offer no areas of respite or sanctuary whatsoever. Only they don’t get nearly as much press in Canada as Americans. This is a classic example of how many of Canada’s refugee advocates can’t see past the ends of their noses.

Meanwhile,

United Way Greater Toronto released a study

finding that asylum-seekers who settle in Canada’s biggest city from Africa are having a tough go of it. Major obstacles identified include housing, employment, recognition of foreign credentials, language barriers and insufficient legal support.

Well … yeah.

Everyone

is struggling with housing. Toronto’s shelter system was so overtaxed in 2023 that

this supposed “sanctuary city,”

led by a supposedly progressive mayor, barred refugees from the city’s homeless shelters.

They formed a makeshift encampment on a sidewalk downtown

, before several evangelical churches stepped up to offer them food and shelter on their own dime.

Language barriers? If you don’t speak English, and if you’re not part of a very well-established ethnic community in the city, then … yeah, you’re going to have trouble. (As of the 2021 Census, just six per cent of immigrants to the Greater Toronto Area came from Africa.) Mistrust of foreign credentials? Again, as our former prime minister Justin Trudeau might say, welcome to Canada. Some credentials

can’t even cross provincial boundaries

.

Insufficient legal support? That checks out too. Google “Ontario legal aid crisis” and just watch the results flow in. (Aspiring refugee claimants might want to do that before they come.)

The simple fact is, Canada is not equipped to handle as many refugee claims as we currently accept. If we were, there wouldn’t be African migrants sleeping on Toronto sidewalks. There wouldn’t have been 281,000 pending asylum cases as of March 31.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government is certainly aware of the issue.

Bill C-2 proposes a one-year deadline

after arriving in Canada for claiming asylum — so people with expired or revoked visas couldn’t apply, for example — and to eliminate a loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement that allows illegal border-crossers who evade capture for two weeks to apply for asylum nevertheless.

Both are entirely reasonable. But the current issue of The Economist,

cover headline “Scrap the refugee system,”

suggests the sort of wholesale changes to the

global

refugee system that I have been arguing for forever. It’s interesting not so much as a piece of journalism as it is to know that liberal (and Liberal) policymakers very much tend to read The Economist.

“About 123 million people have been displaced by conflict, disaster or persecution. … All these people have a right to seek safety,” the magazine’s editorial observes. “But ‘safety’ does not mean access to a rich country’s labour market. Indeed, resettlement in rich countries will never be more than a tiny part of the solution.”

The goal, the august organ argues, should be for refugees to receive asylum closer to home — ideally in culturally and linguistically similar countries whose population will tend to be more sympathetic. For the money that rich countries spend processing everyone who manages to make it to their shores — who are generally by definition

not

the world’s most imperilled or downtrodden, else they wouldn’t be able to get here — they could help

vastly

more people to safety, even if not First World prosperity. (The latter was never the goal of the current system.)

This is an idea that would require multilateral co-operation to achieve full bloom, of course. But many First World countries are far more hostile to asylum-seekers, if not immigrants in general, than Canada is. If Canada significantly restricted refugee claims made on Canadian soil, and instead refocused its efforts on helping people find refuge closer to home, it would set a useful example — not least because we have been so welcoming, to a fault, in the past.

National Post

cselley@postmedia.com


Argentina's President Javier Milei raises his fist on the balcony of the Casa Rosada government palace  in Buenos Aires, on July 5, 2025.  (Photo by LUIS ROBAYO/AFP via Getty Images)

It’s possible that no politician has defied the expectations of the chattering class as successfully as has Argentina’s libertarian President Javier Milei. Expected to remain in political obscurity, he rose to lead a political movement. Anticipated to lose a presidential election to a candidate from the country’s dominant authoritarian political party, he won. And predicted by a cabal of academic economists to lead Argentina to ruin with free-market policies, he instead turned around the long-suffering country, resulting in lower inflation and rapid economic growth.

Argentines have decades of experience with making bad choices and suffering their consequences, but this time they may have broken that unfortunate pattern by electing leadership that wants the state to take a back seat to individuals and private effort.

Drawing on official data, Reuters

reports

that Argentina’s “economic activity rose 7.7 per cent in April compared with the same month last year.” That was higher than expected and a welcome addition to news that the economy had

grown by 5.8 per cent

during the full first quarter relative to the same quarter the previous year. Early numbers put Argentina’s

second-quarter growth at 7.6 per cent

. By contrast, Canada’s economy

grew at an annual 2.2 percent

in the first quarter and the U.S. economy

shrank a bit

.

In equally encouraging news, Argentina’s “monthly inflation rate has fallen below two per cent for the first time in five years,”

according

to the Financial Times. That’s still high in North American terms, but Argentina’s governments have a history of

wildly expanding the money supply

to pay off debt and finance expenditures, resulting in

inflation rates in the hundreds and even thousands per cent per year

. Inflation slowed somewhat in recent years, but it was over 200 per cent in 2023 and Milei was elected on a promise to stabilize prices — even if it meant

adopting the U.S. dollar

as the country’s official currency.

Importantly, the

poverty rate in Argentina has also fallen

to 38.1 per cent of the population at the end of 2024 from 41.7 per cent when Milei took office. Again, that remains very high, but it’s an improvement in a country where politicians have long seemed committed to keeping people poor and dependent on the state.

This wasn’t supposed to happen. In a November 2023

open letter

, over 100 economists warned that Milei’s economic “proposals, rooted in the economy of laissez-faire and which include controversial ideas such as dollarization and significant reductions in public spending, are fraught with risks that make them potentially very harmful to the Argentine economy and people.”

The economists — including such academic luminaries as Thomas Piketty and Jayati Ghosh — warned of havoc if Milei implemented his free-market plans. Voters weren’t impressed by the forecast of doom; they chose the self-described “anarcho-capitalist” economist and his upstart political coalition over the standard-bearer of the dominant Justicialist Party.

The Justicialists have been the strongest force in Argentine politics since their launch in the 1940s by Juan Peron. Peron served as a military observer in Europe and apparently combined the worst ideas he encountered into a peculiarly Argentine ideology he called “justicialism,” better known as Peronism. At its heart, the ideology drops the pretense of any practical difference between socialism and fascism and promotes a brutal mélange of statist economic schemes. This means that, while most property and business activity is in private hands, it’s subject to government dictates, distortions, and control.

Frome time to time, non-Justicialist officials — and

Justicialist President Carlos Menem

— sought to undo some damage done by statist policies, which fuel spending, debt, inflation, and cripple private efforts to generate prosperity. But, mostly, the country’s officials, through both democratic and military governments, presided over the decline of what was once one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. German broadcaster Deutsche Welle

noted

in 2020 that “rich like an Argentine” was a common saying at the end of the 19th century, but that “in an unprecedented fall, Argentina went from ranking among the world’s top economies to one at the very bottom of the list.”

Maybe that’s why Argentines were willing to take a chance on a wild-haired economist who

cloned a beloved dog

and promised to

take a chainsaw to the country’s bloated government

. After all, there’s only so long you can keep digging before you hit rock bottom.

Upon taking office, Milei

cut tens of thousands of public employees

from the payroll,

consolidated government ministries

, and privatized state-owned companies. That meant smaller government and a reduced burden for taxpayers.

The Milei administration also scrapped most price controls, including those restricting residential rent. In the capital of Buenos Aires, that brought hundreds of thousands of rental units back to the market.

According

to The Wall Street Journal, “many apartments long sat empty, with landlords preferring to keep them vacant, or lease them as vacation rentals, rather than comply with the government’s rent law.” The flood of apartments returning to the market did what price controls never could, achieving a “40 per cent decline in the real price of rental properties when adjusted for inflation.”

Maybe those economists who wrote the letter warning of the dangers of Milei’s free-market policies could use a few remedial lessons from the country’s economist-president. They could start by renting one of the now abundant and affordable apartments in the nation’s capital.

And they could talk to Argentines. Surveys show that about

three-quarters of Argentines want to stay on the free-market path

chosen by Milei and his allies. That bodes well for

mid-term elections in October

when the country’s parties will vie for position in both legislative houses.

That’s not to say that Javier Milei’s efforts have reached their conclusion or that the tribulations of the people of Argentina are finished. The country’s

unemployment rate has risen

, foreign currency reserves are rising but remain low, and the same can be said of investment. Argentina spent decades accumulating self-inflicted wounds and will be a while healing.

But for the first time in a long time, Argentina appears to have a future, fuelled by renewed faith in free markets and personal liberty.

National Post


Screenshot of Ontario Hockey Federation's Gender Identity training.

On July 3, Hockey Canada notified its bench staff — which includes coaches and trainers — that they must take a course on gender identity and expression to be a certified member of the organization. Judging from the test, Hockey Canada’s policies ignore the very real concerns of young girls and women — physical safety, competitive fairness and sexual privacy — in favour of radical “gender-diverse” discourse.

Hockey Canada’s 2022

Gender Expression and Gender Identity Policy

states that players “must be able to participate in the sport in the Gender with which they identify,” and be provided with “access to such facilities in accordance with their Gender Identity or Gender Expression.” But never before have coaching staff been given a nationwide, certification-required test, seemingly aimed at implementing the policy.

The test begins with an introductory video stating that, “Hockey Canada’s members

unanimously

approve of the gender expression and gender identity policy, which is effective for the 2023-2024 hockey season.” (Whether all of Hockey Canada’s members genuinely approve of the policy is up for debate.)

According to the

test

, screenshots of which were provided to National Post by a coach who was required to take the test, the gender identity and expression policy “ensures that all players, including transgender and gender-diverse athletes, can compete in hockey in a way that aligns with their gender identity.”

For coaching staff who may be confused about the policy, Hockey Canada explains how this works on and off the ice: “For greater clarity, this means that trans women can play on the women’s team, trans men can play on the men’s team and gender diverse players can choose between the women’s and men’s teams.”

As for dressing rooms, the Hockey Canada test

makes it clear

in no uncertain terms that “Transgender and gender-diverse players have the right to access dressing rooms and other team spaces that align with their gender identity,” and “must be welcomed and accommodated in the spaces where they feel safest and most comfortable.”

On the same day coaching staff were told they had to take the course, the Ontario Women’s Hockey Association (OWHA) released an updated

dressing room policy

for female players 22 years of age and younger, stating that, “A player has the right to utilize the dressing room or appropriate and equivalent changing area that the player considers to be most safe, inclusive and reflective of their gender identity and gender expression, and transition status.”

Hockey Canada has its own dressing room

policy

, which dismisses concerns that females might have about biological males entering their formerly sex-segregated spaces, suggesting that such concerns are irrelevant and based on

myths

.

Addressing a question about a biological male entering a girls’ dressing room, Hockey Canada states that, “This example perpetuates the myth that trans girls/women are actually boys and men who transition to gain access to girls’/women’s-only spaces for their own gratification.”

It sounds as though the policy was written by a gender rights activist schooled in human rights law, not someone concerned about the practicality of such a policy, nor the safety, privacy or fairness afforded to women in sport.

According to the introductory video for the test, the policy was “built with expert guidance from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, Canadian Women in Sport, stakeholders in hockey and individuals from 2SLGTBQ+ community.”

No mention is made of consulting coaching staff, who spend most of their time with players

ranging in age

from as young as four years-old to 20, who recognize the biological differences between male and female players on the ice best.

I know what you’re thinking. They must have

some

way of determining whether a biological male or female player can switch to a team of the opposite sex and use its dressing room, right? Apparently not.

According to the test, “eligibility is based on a player’s self-identified gender without any requirement for medical or surgical transition related care such as surgeries or hormone replace therapies. They can participate on the team that best reflects who they are.” (Which would seem to open the door to those who want to enter female dressing rooms “for their own gratification.”)

Diving into the term “gender diverse,” test registrants are educated on the non-binary flag and what each of its colours represents. Yellow, they are told, represents people whose gender exists outside the binary of male and female. White represents people with many genders. Pink is for a mix of male and female. And brown represents people who identify as not having a gender.

The test educates registrants on a multitude of possibilities for self-identification, including “gender diverse” terms such as agender, bigender/polygender, genderfluid, genderqueer and two-spirit.

It goes on to explain that “gender diverse” is an “umbrella term for people whose gender exists beyond the categories of man and woman. While many are raised to believe gender is strictly binary, gender diverse people experience and express gender in diverse ways. Each person’s experience is unique, and these identities reflect the wide spectrum of how gender can be understood and lived.”

While the test doesn’t require use of the term “cisgender,” which activists use to refer to people who are non-transgender, the test suggests that, “Some people find (the term) useful to clarify and distinguish their experiences.”

These self-identification terms appear to be the basis on which Hockey Canada expects coaches, team managers, and trainers to decide whether a player can join a team or enter a dressing room of the opposite sex.

The source who provided the Post with the test, who asked not to be named because they fear endangering their position, said that despite the policy, it has not been the practice up until now for biological males to play in female leagues for any reason, as far as they know. The source feels strongly that this must continue to be the case. “A male that identifies as anything other than male is still biologically a male. They can severely hurt a girl and are at a physical advantage,” they explained.

The source also challenged Hockey Canada’s claim that concerns about preying on girls in dressing rooms is a myth. “Is there any guarantee that a boy identifying as female will not prey on girls in the dressing room or on the team bus?” asked the source.

But in the test, Hockey Canada warns against outing someone — intentionally or accidentally. Who, then, can a player confide in, if a gender diverse person does something inappropriate? Surely, Hockey Canada isn’t suggesting all gender diverse individuals — or those who may be masquerading as such —  are beyond reproach?

Hockey Canada seems to be moving toward “

Non-Gendered Teams,

” which, according to their policy, would require no sex or gender segregation whatsoever. According to Hockey Canada’s 2022 policy, “Non-Gendered Team replaces the term ‘co-ed,’ as an intentional move away from non-inclusive language of the Gender binary and more accurately reflects the reality of a Gender spectrum.” Unfortunately, it does not accurately reflect the very real and practical sex differences between biological females and males on the ice.

The Post made multiple attempts through email and phone to contact Hockey Canada to clarify whether the requirement of this test signifies that this policy is now being implemented on rinks and in dressing rooms across its many branches in Canada, and to ask when it would be rolled out to the public and parents looking to sign their children up for hockey. The organization did not respond by press time.

This policy puts coaching staff, who are responsible for the well-being of players, in a difficult position. Hockey Canada will not certify this staff unless they agree to allow biological males to pass freely through spaces normally segregated by sex, based on nothing more than a chosen gender identity. And it doesn’t appear that this chosen identity needs to be consistent in any way, as it is not tied to biological sex or medical interventions — just what identity an individual feels best reflects them from one day to the next.

National Post

tnewman@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/TLNewmanMTL


In a file photo from  Sept. 4, 2016, Mark Carney, then governor of the Bank of England, shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping at a G20 summit in Hangzhou, China.

There is nothing quite so parochial in Canadian foreign-policy debates as the recurring imbecility that the weight of this country’s heavy economic reliance on the United States should be lifted by securing advantages in deeper trade relationships with China. Lately, the proposition can even be made to appear sensible, now that the growing costs of doing business with Donald Trump’s America can’t be properly calculated from one day to the next. So there’s a lot of it going around nowadays.

With the capricious enactment of American import tariffs by decrees that rely on the flimsiest of pretexts, usually followed by their suspension or reduction, then reimposed or threatened again, with changed deadlines and new ultimatums, everything is said to be on the table. (Think copper, steel, aluminum, the automobile industry, agricultural supply management.)

This is what the “transactional” American presidency has come to mean. “Transactional” is the diplomatic euphemism for a willingness to sell out your principles and your closest allies.

The thing is, neither Canada nor Europe will find relief from the Trump administration’s acts of vandalism within the 80-year-old transatlantic alliance by looking for some sugar daddy in Beijing. You’d have to be either a fool or a director of the Canada China Business Council to want to try.

If you like, you can imagine Canada’s predicament as a matter of being squashed between two global hegemons, neither of which have any particular regard for the 20th-century’s postwar international-relations dictum that you can’t just go around trespassing on the sovereignty and security of your fellow United Nations member states.

Over the past six months, Trump has threatened to resort to military power to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member state. He has repeatedly expressed the same covetousness for Canada, which would be subdued by “economic pressure.” Gaza’s two million people should be expelled to make way for a massive real-estate development. Ukraine should surrender to Russia all the land that Vladimir Putin’s soldiers have occupied in exchange for a ceasefire. That kind of thing.

Xi Jinping’s regime in Beijing, meanwhile, is busy bankrolling Russia’s war on Ukraine. The Chinese Communist Party exerts a brutal control of the minority Uyghurs of Xinjiang that amounts to genocide, surpassing only China’s invasion and suppression of Tibet. In violation of UN treaties, Beijing is engaged in a sadistic reign of terror in Hong Kong, which was effectively annexed following the mass pro-democracy protests of five years ago. President Xi is constantly threatening Taiwan with invasion and occupation, after having illegally annexed the South China Sea in 2016.

It is no secret, as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has

candidly assessed

, that Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party pose “an enduring threat to Canada.” By espionage, hacking, strong-arm tactics, transnational repression of diaspora communities, influence-peddling, coercion, “elite capture” strategies, election interference, intellectual-property theft and other clandestine means, Beijing poses far and away “the greatest counter-intelligence threat to Canada,” CSIS has determined.

None of this appears to bother Julian Karaguesian, a visiting lecturer at McGill University, or Robin Shaban, a former adviser to the department of finance and a fellow of the Beijing-friendly Public Policy Forum.

This week, in a Globe and Mail

opinion piece

titled “Let’s free ourselves of the U.S. and forge closer ties with China,” Karaguesian and Shaban claim that the understanding of China as an unreliable trading partner bent on world domination is a “made-in-Washington narrative” from which Canada must break free, and only Canada’s “long-standing subordination to the U.S.” prevents us from doing so.

Because Canadians are “clinging to an Atlanticist-G7 worldview,” we are trapped in paralysis, and instead — citing Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs — we should willingly embrace the reality of “the new multipolar world.” Not coincidentally, Sachs, a once-respected economist, is best known nowadays as an apologist for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Karaguesian and Shaban propose a standpoint that is indistinguishable from the pleadings of Beijing’s propaganda platforms and Chinese diplomats in Canada. Michael Kovrig, on the other hand, takes a different view.

Kovrig is the former foreign service officer and China analyst who was imprisoned and held hostage in China along with fellow Canadian Michael Spavor for more than 1,000 days, in retaliation for the detention in Vancouver of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. Meng was released from house arrest in 2021 in a plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department related to charges of violating sanctions on Iran. The “two Michaels” were released simultaneously.

In a lengthy

analysis

published by the Canadian International Council last week, Kovrig sets out the case for an approach to China centred squarely on Canadian values. He dismisses Beijing’s diplomatic entreaties this way: “The implicit deal: kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party in return for economic benefits, sacrifice Canadian manufacturing for agricultural exports.” That’s a reference to Canada’s tariffs on Chinese electrical vehicles and China’s tariffs on canola, pork, peas and some fisheries products. To cave to China would amount to striking a “devil’s bargain,” and its long-term costs would outweigh any benefit to Canada.

Canada’s recent reluctance to kowtow has a lot less to do with what Washington wants and a lot more to do with what Canadians want, Kovrig argues. What the Chinese Communist Party and its Canadian friends don’t appreciate is that Canada’s national interests are expected to align with Canadian values. It’s the way democracies work.

“Internationally, those values are actualized through liberal norms, laws and institutions that help protect smaller countries like Canada from aggression and coercion by larger powers such as China” Kovrig writes. If Canada’s approach to China has hardened in recent years, it’s because policy has been “driven primarily by public opinion and government assessments that the CCP’s agenda and actions are harmful to Canada’s interests, rather than by ideology or American pressure.”

And no matter how loutish the current occupant of the White House may be, Canadian opinion, and Canadian values, must trump all else.

National Post


Prime Minister Mark Carney

He lied. Right in our faces. A brazen, self-serving, manipulative, obvious lie that was bound to get found out. Have we lost the capacity to care?

No, I’m not talking about U.S. President Donald Trump. I’m speaking of Prime Minister Mark Carney. When

accused

during the election campaign of a conflict of interest over his extensive holdings, he declared indignantly: “I own nothing but cash and personal real estate.” But he lied.

As he did about his “blind trust” being blind. As

Democracy Watch notes

, “he knows what he put in the trust, chose his own trustee, was allowed to give the trustee instructions such as ‘don’t sell anything’ and the trustee is also allowed to give him regular updates.” As Norman Spector wisecracked, it’s a “venetian blind trust.”

Incredibly, it gets worse. Carney actually holds shares in over 100 firms, from Amazon to Uber. When former finance minister Bill Morneau forgot he owned a French villa, per Jeff Foxworthy’s “If you’ve ever mowed your lawn and found a car, you might be a redneck,” if you ever cleaned up your desk and found a villa, you might be an aristocrat. But Carney’s a liar.

He owns extensive investments, mostly American, on which the potential conflicts of interest across the board, from net zero to tariffs, is

glaringly obvious

. Including on the

digital services tax

. It’s to prevent exactly this kind of thing that we have conflict-of-interest rules, however feeble. (Remember when

Paul Martin gave

his shipping company to his sons to sidestep them?) But Carney doesn’t care. Do we?

Watching the prime minister, who’s notoriously irritated at being questioned in any way, tell a lie to brush off a challenge gives the impression that he’s one of those people whose internal syllogism runs: “I am great; that claim makes me look bad; therefore it is untrue.” And

bam!

Out it comes without any pause to ponder whether factually speaking it might be true, let alone whether someone is bound to notice. Like Bill Clinton and, yes, Trump. Which surely also raises concerns about his management style.

We saw it during the campaign, repeatedly. He said Canada

avoided a recession

in 2008 thanks to his brilliant leadership at the Bank of Canada, which … um … declared a recession in 2008. He

“suspended” his campaign

to deal with big grownup issues then went on “Tout le monde en parle.”

He blustered about sweeping measures to implement internal free trade, then blustered about

preserving supply management

. And

when asked

why the Communist Chinese Politburo wanted him to win he babbled, “I have absolutely no idea, and yeah, I have absolutely no idea, and, well, I’ll leave it at that.” Hardly a trifle, that last one. Like

saying

“I know” when a protester accused Israel of genocide and then claiming he’d misheard.

I’m under no illusion that in my youth, or before I was born, politicians spoke truth without fear or favour. They did not call Richard Nixon “Tricky Dick” because he was good at bridge. So perhaps taking credit for lowering the price of gas by removing a tax your party imposed with your vehement support might be blamed on Carney the politician not Carney the man. Or going all “elbows up” followed by

cowering feebly

before Trump.

At least if he didn’t have a huge personal stake in the U.S. economy.

Oh, and remember how he claimed the formal decision to move Brookfield’s headquarters to New York from Toronto was made after he left the company, even though he’d written a letter as board chair encouraging shareholders to support it? And how he’d “resigned all my roles, cut all my ties” to run for Liberal leader while still among other things chairing the Group of Thirty? He lies chronically, casually and recklessly on everything from personal gain to big political issues and now, we learn, their problematic connections.

How can we trust him on anything, from balancing the budget while running deficits to ethics or

even climate

? Of course, given Carney’s record as a “chancer,” including leaving the Bank of Canada to collect a record salary from the Bank of England for muffing inflation, then failing upward to multimillionaire “International Man of Green” not “International Man of Unemployment,” you could suppose his vociferous lucrative net zero advocacy was more about elevating Mark Carney than saving the planet.

Especially given his oil company holdings. But if it was all fakery, we are entitled to disregard anything he says about anything. And if not, his current economic plans are fakery, so again we’re entitled to disregard anything he says about anything. He lied. He lies all the time, about big things and small, without shame or hesitation. And we know it. The question is whether we care.

National Post


The Trudeau government introduced the Canadian Dental Care Plan (CDCP) for Canadians without dental insurance and the framework for a national pharmacare plan to help Canadians pay for prescription medicine. Prime Minister Mark Carney has stated that his government will retain both programs, but are they what Canadians want or need?

Dental associations have

expressed concern

about the CDCP’s administrative burden and sustainability. The

plan covers

some services for families with an annual net income under $70,000. Families earning between $70,000 and $90,000 pay 40 to 60 per cent of treatment costs.

However, only fees for a designated list of services are covered based on a federal schedule that often pays less than dentists charge in some provinces, requiring patients to pay the balance. Many

Canadians are unaware

of these limitations.

Dentists also say the CDCP’s current structure is unsustainable. Ottawa

allocated $13 billion

to cover around nine-million Canadians over five years, or less than $290 for each eligible Canadian per year.

But the health minister

reportedly said

that patients saved an average of $850 through the program, implying a cost of $38 billion over five years. And millions more Canadians could become eligible because employers are starting to see the CDCP as

an opportunity

to save money by cancelling employees’ private dental coverage.

Two points are clear. First, instead of Ottawa saying the CDCP is a subsidy, many Canadians have been led to

believe it offers

full and free coverage. Second, it would appear as though the CDCP is under-funded by the federal government.

Likewise, the Pharmacare Act came into law in October 2024 after years of opinion polls repeatedly demonstrating support among Canadians for a national plan to provide coverage for those with no prescription drug insurance and to reduce or eliminate the differences between provincial drug plans.

Starting small, the federal government is providing $1.5 billion over five years to cover contraceptives and diabetes medications. Yet the

Parliamentary Budget Officer

estimates that this initial phase will increase federal spending by $1.9 billion over five years, and that assumes that private and provincial plans maintain their coverage levels. Clearly, the government is also under-funding national pharmacare.

The Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare

recommended

that national pharmacare be based on the same principles as medicare: universality, comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and public administration.

These principles should mean that any Canadian who requires a medicine is able to access it when they need it without being restricted by unnecessary rules and regulations, inhibited by cost or rationed according to where they live.

However,

diabetes medication

coverage is limited to predominantly older,

inexpensive drugs

. Newer drugs, such tirzepatide (which directly treats Type 2 diabetes) and finerenone (which addresses some of its most serious side effects) are excluded — despite

having been shown

to reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes and end-stage kidney disease in diabetics.

Furthermore, only British Columbia, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon have so far signed the necessary

bilateral agreements

with Ottawa for national pharmacare. Alberta and Quebec have indicated that they have no interest in the program, although both want their share of the money dangled by the federal government.

When national pharmacare coverage is only available in some jurisdictions and restricted to older, inexpensive drugs, patients living in provinces that refuse to join the program will have better access to medications than those in jurisdictions that have signed on. This will not only perpetuate current differences between provincial drug plans, it will exacerbate them.

The situation could become even worse if more drug types are eventually included in national pharmacare and employers see the expansion as a chance to save money by cancelling employees’ private drug insurance coverage.

As presently implemented, dental care and

pharmacare

satisfy few Canadians’ expectations or needs. Ottawa should be transparent with Canadians about its objectives for the CDCP and national pharmacare.

Instead of funding a national pharmacare program that fails to fill the gaps, a better way forward would be for Ottawa to transfer that money to provincial governments. The provinces should then use those funds to level up their coverage to that of the best available provincial plan in the country, and exempt lower-income Canadians from co-payments.

National Post

Nigel Rawson is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. John Adams is co-founder and CEO of Canadian PKU and Allied Disorders Inc., and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.


Prime Minister Mark Carney, left, walks with U.S. President Donald Trump at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., on June 16.

Reviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page.

Many commentators hailed the Canada-European Union

defence pact

, which was signed by Prime Minister Mark Carney in late June, as

Canada’s pivot

away from the United States. That same month, however,

Carney pledged

to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035, acceding to U.S. President Donald Trump’s demand, and he

continues to pursue

a comprehensive trade and security agreement with Washington. Despite what his

critics may say

, the prime minister is living in reality.

The U.S. and Canada have long shared national security interests. The two countries were on the

same side

of every major conflict of the 20th and 21st centuries. During the First World War, Canadian foreign policy was almost entirely

made in London

.

For centuries, Britain

helped prevent

the emergence of a European state powerful enough to impose its will on the continent, lest it become a direct threat to the homeland. When Germany attacked France and Belgium in 1914, it was thus

a no-brainer

for the British Empire, including the Dominion of Canada, to come to their defence.

By the beginning of the Second World War, Canada was largely independent. Nevertheless, Ottawa felt 

duty-bound

 to support Britain and France in their fight against Hitler. For the first time, Ottawa pursued its own, independent policy of fighting against a potential European hegemon.

This decision made strategic sense. Like Britain, Canada was a geographically isolated country that was dependent on foreign trade. It could no more afford a European continent dominated by a hostile power than its former British overlords could.

The United States entered both world wars

reluctantly

. Only after German U-boats resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 and Germany proposed an alliance with Mexico did U.S. President Woodrow Wilson decide to enter the Great War on the side of the Allies.

Likewise, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 dragged America kicking and screaming into the fight against Hitler and imperial Japan. In both cases, it took a direct threat to the United States to make Washington realize what London and Ottawa already knew — that it could not allow Europe to be dominated by hostile forces.

This shared interest carried both America and Canada into the Cold War. The United States

fortified Europe

against the Soviet threat through NATO and consolidated military power in the Pacific and the Middle East to prevent the spread of communism in those regions. Canada was one of the

first countries

to join NATO. In 1950, nearly 27,000 Canadians

deployed

to the Korean Peninsula to help repel Kim Il Sung’s Communists.

The American-Canadian alliance persisted after the collapse of the Soviet Union. When al-Qaida terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, Canada sent over 40,000 troops to America’s aid in Afghanistan. When ISIS threatened the stability of the Middle East,

American

and

Canadian

personnel played a crucial role in defeating it.

It’s no coincidence that Canadians and Americans have fought, bled and died together for over 100 years. A world order that is good for America is also good for Canada. Disruptions of that order threaten the lives and livelihoods of Americans and Canadians alike. Crucially for Canada, it cannot maintain this world order without the United States. This is as true today as it was throughout the 20th century.

It is this strategic reality, not the whims of the moment, that are guiding Carney’s policy toward his southern neighbour. A loose

autocratic axis

led by China, Russia and Iran is disrupting the global order that the United States created and has worked hard to maintain since 1945.

These countries also threaten Canada by

funding terrorism

that endangers Canadian citizens,

interfering

in Canadian elections,

threatening Canadian sovereignty

in the Arctic and

disrupting global trade

routes. Confronting these threats without America’s help is far beyond Canada’s military capacity — and will remain so even if Ottawa achieves its five per cent defence-spending target.

Both Carney and Trump understand this. It’s why Trump, with a crucial assist from Israel,

destroyed

key Iranian nuclear facilities with targeted airstrikes last month. It’s why Canada continues to maintain

a military presence

on the Russian border in Latvia. It’s why

both
countries

want to modernize North American air defences. And it’s why Trump recently

promised

to always defend Canada, despite his

bluster

about making it the 51st U.S. state.

This is as it should be. From the trenches of the Western Front to the skies of Mosul, Canadians and Americans have fought to defend a world in which both their countries could prosper. For the sake of Canadians and Americans alike, the prime minister should ignore his short-sighted critics and stay the course. For Canada, America remains the indispensable nation.

National Post

Anthony De Luca-Baratta is a Young Voices contributor based in Montreal. He holds a master’s degree in international relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C.