Based on my family background, which is 100 per cent Saskatchewan-Socialism Diaspora, I’m naturally inclined to like the Saskatchewan NDP even less than I like the other NDPs. So you’ll pardon me for giving a little “Yeah, what’s up with that?” shoutout to
On Sept. 3, the RCMP in the province descended on a decommissioned school in the village of Richmound to round up members of the weird Romana Didulo cult who had bought and occupied the building.
, a leftover of COVID-era online-conspiracy madness who has recruited a couple dozen followers, has been an object of national and international attention for years. Didulo’s group settled in Richmound in September 2023, and a disturbingly familiar pattern of cult-vs.-neighbour conflict began almost immediately.
Initial news reports on the arrests made it sound as though the police raid was motivated by
on the premises — a legitimate fear, certainly, when dealing with a personality cult in a remote rural area, one said to have been making occasional hair-raising threats to neighbours. But the police seemingly didn’t find any actual weapons when they invaded the defunct school — only replicas of guns — and almost everybody they detained, with the exception of Didulo and the owner of the building, was immediately released without charge.
If you stuck to big news outlets, it was only a little later you began to hear about the sewage thing.
The Didulo cult has a strong “Freeman-on-the-Land” character, believing that obeying what you and I understand to be the law is optional, and the followers have apparently been talked into magic-bean monetary-crank beliefs to boot. Several of Didulo’s followers are in a state of personal ruin because they think tax bills and mortgage payments are suggestions. As a consequence of this anarcho-stupidity, the cult stopped paying sewage bills ages ago. According to
published by the village’s mayor Aug. 8, the village plugged the school’s sewer drains
in the spring
, and followed up by cutting off potable water.
At which point the Queen and her followers apparently rigged together a system of hoses and started dumping their feces onto a nearby park (now closed as a health hazard) and baseball diamonds. After the mayor’s plea for help, there was some
on the cult’s innovative waste management/biological warfare techniques. (How long do you figure you would be able to get away with openly effusing sewage onto your neighbours?) But it took another month for the RCMP to act — and their raid was quickly followed up by personnel of the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA), which very suddenly condemned the building as unfit for habitation.
MLA Senger is now politely asking the Saskatchewan government why the reaction was so slow. Of course, one can imagine good answers to her questions. The appearance of coordination between the cops and Saskatchewan Health is as obvious as its wisdom, and the double descent on the school would have taken time to arrange. Those agencies couldn’t have known in advance that the whole thing wouldn’t turn into a Waco-style mass-casualty fiasco without some planning.
This being the case — and Senger specifically acknowledges it — why did Saskatchewan’s justice minister feel the right countermove was to condemn Senger and the NDP for their “unrestrained” and “reckless” desire to “interfere in independent police matters”? Even if you accept the narrow point, the Saskatchewan government is still wholly responsible for its health authority; and if the SHA couldn’t act until the police did, which is probably the case, talk of the political independence of the police is pure hee-haw. It is a bad sign for the Saskatchewan Party if they can’t get this right — and especially if the left starts being appropriately sensitive to rural Canadians’ sense of general abandonment by the state.
National Post
This week marked the 24th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., but it also provided a stark reminder of how the Canadian government has lost the moral clarity it once had, and failed to protect the victims of hate and extremism here at home, while turning its back on fellow democracies.
on Doha, Qatar, targeting senior Hamas officials who were responsible for the October 7 massacre.
Its message was clear: we will no longer allow the leaders of a terrorist organization whose stated purpose is to destroy us and has been holding Israeli hostages for nearly two years to receive safe harbour in other countries.
by then-U.S. president George W. Bush after 9/11: “We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
At the time, Ottawa sided with freedom and democracy over terror and religious fanaticism, sending troops
to topple the Taliban regime and root out the al-Qaida terrorists it was protecting. But this time, Canada’s response was far more meek — as it has consistently been since October 7.
Following the strike on Qatar, Prime Minister Mark Carney wasted no time condemning Israel and praising the dictator who has given asylum to those responsible for one of the worst terrorist attacks in modern history.
“Canada condemns Israel’s strikes in Qatar — an intolerable expansion of violence and an affront to Qatar’s sovereignty. Regardless of their objectives, such attacks pose a grave risk of escalating conflict throughout the region,”
Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani for playing a “highly constructive role” in peace negotiations, despite failing to secure a lasting ceasefire for the past 23 months.
The prime minister’s latest condemnation of the Jewish state comes as violent hate crimes targeting Jews continue to escalate throughout the country.
, signed by himself and 31 of his Liberal colleagues, condemning the hatred and violence targeting Canada’s Jewish community and calling for a series of public policy changes.
Noticeably absent were the signatures of the other 137 Liberal MPs, including the prime minister and his nearest rival for the Liberal party leadership, Chrystia Freeland. They have, in effect, chosen to avoid saying that violence against Canadian Jews is bad.
After all, Housefather’s letter was not about the war. It was just about protecting Canadian Jews from violence. But even that was apparently a bridge too far for the vast majority of Liberal MPs.
the letter “was drafted and signatures gathered over 24 hours on a holiday weekend. Originally it was going to be from (the) Jewish caucus and then we asked some others,” and that, “Virtually everyone who was asked signed on.”
The key word there is “virtually,” which means that some members of the governing caucus outright refused to put their name to a letter condemning violence against Jews. And troubling questions remain, like: did Housefather ask Carney to sign on?
If so, it either speaks to the powerlessness of Liberal backbenchers, who were already forced to resort to a public letter to attempt to pressure their own government to protect innocent Canadians; or it means that the prime minister made a conscious decision not to speak out against antisemitism.
At the very least, Housefather — who has consistently been one of the few principled members of the Liberal caucus — should have known that failing to wait a few more days to collect signatures would be a bad look and open his party to attacks from the Opposition.
Sure enough, late last week, the Tories released their own
condemning the “vile antisemitic attack” in Ottawa, the rapid proliferation of “anti-Jewish hatred” since October 7 and the government’s lack of response.
The succinct yet strongly worded statement, which was signed by every single member of the Conservative caucus, concluded with a straightforward message: “All Conservatives will stand up and protect the Jewish community in Canada, even when the government won’t.”
Part of the Tories’ rationale for releasing the statement was surely political. But the party has consistently stood against rising antisemitism and supported Israel’s war of self-defence against Hamas — displaying a moral fortitude that has completely eluded Mark Carney and his predecessor, Justin Trudeau.
for Liberal prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King’s refusal to grant the MS St. Louis safe harbour in 1939, sentencing its nearly 1,000 passengers, including over 900 Jews, to their deaths at the hands of the Nazis.
Although the situation today is thankfully not as dire as it was then, the fact remains that we once again have a government that is refusing to protect Jews.
Back then, Ottawa’s policy towards the Jews was “none is too many.” Now, it’s one of sheer indifference towards violence perpetrated against Jewish-Canadians, and active hostility towards actions intended to protect the world’s only Jewish state.
For those who have deep admiration and affection for the United States, these are days to weep. To weep for Charlie Kirk and his young family; to weep for a land where shootings at schools and on campus are frequent enough to invoke standard protocols; to weep, in part, because many have forgotten how to weep.
The United States House of Representatives could not manage to get through a simple moment of silence and prayer upon the assassination of Charlie Kirk without rancour. It may be that the “People’s House” is not that representative of the people, but it must be, at least in part.
“Political violence has become all too common in American society, and this is not who we are,” declared House Speaker Mike Johnson.
If it has become too common, that means it is part of “who we are.” Not the whole, not the most important part, but very much a part of the American identity, a lamentable part. Lamentable things ought to be lamented. They are reasons to weep.
When Robert F. Kennedy landed in Indianapolis on April 4, 1968, for a campaign stop, he was informed that Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., was dead, killed in Memphis by an assassin’s bullet.
“My God, when is this violence going to stop?” he said, physically pained by the news. The violence did not stop. Two months later, RFK himself, like his brother before him, would be assassinated.
to deliver that night, and he knew how to lament, extemporaneously offering one of the greatest speeches in the history of American oratory. He began where Speaker Johnson began this week, but knew better than to make a declaration about what events had proven to be a pressing question: “In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it’s perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.”
He had learned the art of the lament from his studies of classics, and reached for his “favourite poet Aeschylus,” quoting from memory: “Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.”
Last week the film version of
Hamilton
opened in cinemas to mark the tenth anniversary of its premiere on stage. It tells the story of Alexander Hamilton, founding father and author of 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers.
The musical reminded Americans that he was fatally shot by Aaron Burr, the
sitting vice-president
of the United States. It was not an assassination but an agreed-upon duel. Still, that the first secretary of the treasury was killed by the vice-president was rather a shocking start to the new republic.
When will the violence stop? Why would it stop if it has been there from the beginning?
Twenty-five years before
Hamilton
the theatrical stage offered another take, when the reigning maestro of the American musical, Stephen Sondheim, wrote
Assassins
, a sort of tragic farce imagining an assemblage of those infamous historical characters who had killed, or attempted to kill, the American president. It was, after a fashion, an exploration of “who we are” and what the prominence of assassination reveals about the character of assassins — and the character of America.
When it opened off-Broadway in 1990, the reviews were mixed at best, tending negative. Crowds uplifted by
West Side Story
were not expecting a meditation on the psychology of the assassin. It took a while, but when it was revived on Broadway in 2004 it was a smash hit, winning five Tony Awards, including best revival of a musical. Sondheim knew the American songbook had to make room for the American assassin.
. He wrote on Aug. 31, prompted by the usual mass shootings of that week — two in Minneapolis alone. He wrote 10 days before Kirk’s assassination. Ten days or 35 years, the assassin is always approaching.
In the closing scenes of
Assassins
, Sondheim has John Wilkes Booth attempting to persuade Lee Harvey Oswald to kill JFK.
“People will hate me,” objects Oswald.
“They will hate you with a passion,” counters Booth. “Imagine people having passionate feelings about Lee Harvey Oswald.”
Sondheim wrote before the disorderly and deadly passions of Columbine, before Sandy Hook, before Emanuel Church in Charleston, before the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, before Nancy Pelosi’s home was invaded and her husband’s skull fractured with a hammer, before President Donald Trump suffered two attempts on his life, before legislators in Minnesota were shot and killed, before the governor of Pennsylvania’s residence was firebombed. But he wrote nearly 200 years after Burr killed Hamilton, after four dead presidents and many others, like Kirk, had been felled by the assassin’s bullet.
In his last moments in Utah, Kirk had been asked about the number of transgender mass shootings — the category being so capacious that it is necessary to specify what kind is under discussion. “Too many,” was his reply.
And how many assassinations in the “land of the free and the home of the brave” — words written on the T-shirt of the shooter?
Too many. Far too many. When will they stop?
They haven’t yet. They won’t. It is cause to weep. And to await the awful grace of God.
National Post
On Friday in Utah, agents from the FBI and local law enforcement arrested 22-year-old Tyler Robinson for the assassination of Charlie Kirk following a two-day manhunt.
On Wednesday, Kirk had just begun an open-air talk at Utah Valley University when a shot fired from a nearby rooftop struck him fatally in the neck.
While, it is still early, the evidence so far points to the accused killer having left-wing political motives.
Police recovered a typical hunting rifle from the scene, and shell casings engraved with phrases like “ Hey fascist! Catch! ”, “Bella Ciao,” a line from a popular Italian anti-fascist resistance song made popular during the Second World War, which has been revived in recent years as a left-wing anthem.
A friend of Robinson’s from high school told media that he knew him to be the only leftist in an otherwise Republican family. And, according to family members, Robinson had become more political in the last couple of years, and that at a recent family dinner he discussed with another family member how they disliked Kirk and his views. although Robinson’s parents were registered Republicans.
Following Kirk’s murder, Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal was not willing to let the tragedy go to waste, and posted “It’s the guns” on X. A gun may have been used to kill Kirk, but the intent to kill somebody for their political views and power is at the heart of it all.
Based on what has been reported so far, Kirk was shot because his killer believed he was a “fascist.”
However, much of what Kirk believed was hardly on the fringe. He believed sex is binary, was critical of DEI policies and supported Israel’s war against Hamas — views that are held by millions across North America. To call him a fascist is nothing short of slander. He was a staunch right-winger, whose politics were not all that different than those who fought fascists in Europe and the Pacific in the 1940s.
Throwing the term “fascist” around so loosely makes violence easier. Fascism is a violent ideology, and one that had to be defeated by force.
To call someone a “fascist” is to give licence to do them harm, and left-wingers have been demonizing their opponents with the label for decades.
It is why George Abaraonye, president-elect of the Oxford Union, celebrated when news of Kirk’s shooting was announced. He sent the message “Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s go,” before following up with “Charlie Kirk got shot loool.” in an Instagram chat.
Both Kirk and Abaraonye had actually debated face to face at the Oxford Union earlier that year, and the visual contrast between them is striking.
Kirk is dressed smartly in a crisp suit while Abaraonye is there looking like he just rolled off the couch in sweats and sandals. Such an appearance was unbecoming of somebody ostensibly representing the most storied university in the history of mankind.
Hundreds of brilliant individuals had enough respect for Oxford to dress the part, and showing up like a slob is a window into the absence of respect that radicals have for classic debate.
A recent YouGov poll found that just 38 per cent of Democrats felt it was unacceptable to feel joy at the death of an opponent, compared to 77 per cent of Republicans. That is another window into the desperation felt among the Democratic Party’s base that is manifesting in bloodshed.
People were always free to disagree with Kirk and he welcomed their arguments, but those having a party following his death will have their reputations tainted forever, either in public or in private amongst friends. This is a time where good people separate themselves from each other.
Those who hated Kirk are unlikely to ever match his ability to organize for the Republicans and be such a marketable face for the conservative movement. If the initial evidence about the motives of Kirk’s alleged killer ultimately prove founded, the fatal shot undid years of efforts by left wing activists to present themselves as the peaceful faction in American politics.
Since 1992, the Vimy Award has honoured Canadians who have made outstanding contributions to the defence and security of our nation and the preservation of its democratic values. Named in tribute to the bravery of Canadian soldiers at Vimy Ridge in 1917, the award has traditionally recognized generals, colonels, diplomats and public servants whose careers were forged in the crucible of military command and strategic leadership.
This year, the Conference of Defence Associations Institute is presenting the Vimy Award to Michelle Douglas — a woman whose battlefield was not one of combat, but of conscience.
Douglas’s name may not evoke the same associations as past recipients like General John de Chastelain or Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire. Her career did not follow the conventional arc of military service in part because she was pushed out. Yet her impact on Canada’s defence institutions is profound, enduring and transformative.
In 1986, Douglas joined the Canadian Armed Forces as a promising young officer. She excelled in her training, earned her commission, and was poised for a distinguished career. But in 1989, she was dismissed — not for misconduct or failure, but for being a lesbian. Her termination was part of a broader, systemic purge of 2SLGBT+ individuals from Canada’s military, intelligence and security services.
Rather than retreat, Douglas fought back. Her landmark lawsuit against the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) led to the end of formal discrimination against 2SLGBT+ service members. Thousands of lives were changed. Careers were restored. And the military began a long journey toward becoming a more inclusive institution.
Douglas’s courage didn’t stop at the courtroom door. For more than three decades, she has worked tirelessly to support survivors of the LGBT Purge, advocate for human rights and help reshape the culture of Canada’s defence establishment. As the founding executive director of the LGBT Purge Fund, she has led efforts to memorialize this painful chapter and ensure it is never repeated. Her appointment as the first honourary colonel to the Chief Professional Conduct and Culture organization within the CAF is a testament to her continued influence.
Some may ask: does this align with the Vimy Award’s legacy?
We believe it does — resoundingly.
Defence and security are not static concepts. They evolve with our understanding of justice, inclusion and national identity. Douglas has defended the dignity of those who serve. She has secured the rights of Canadians who were once excluded. And she has helped build a military that better reflects the values we claim to uphold.
Douglas’s story reminds us that courage is not always found in combat — it is found in conviction. In standing up when others are silent. In challenging institutions not to destroy them, but to make them better. Her legacy is one of transformation. She has made Canada stronger through principle, and in doing so, she has redefined what it means to serve.
The Vimy Award has always celebrated leadership, sacrifice and vision. This year, it celebrates a woman who exemplifies all three of these traits. Douglas led the way to end the purge. By being true to herself, she had to sacrifice her military career. She has always had a very clear view of what the Canadian Armed Forces should be, and she has done so much to make that imagined future a reality. Her bravery changed the course of Canadian history, opening the doors to so many who wanted to serve Canada but could not.
We are proud to honour Douglas. And we are proud to expand the definition of national service to include those who fight for justice, equality and the right to belong.
National Post
Tom Lawson is a retired Royal Canadian Air Force general and the board chair of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute. Stephen Saideman is a professor at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.
There comes a point when enough is enough. Manitoba has reached that point. The people of this province deserve better than a government minister posting hateful, vindictive comments about a man who was just assassinated in front of his wife and children. The victim, Charlie Kirk, was a conservative commentator. Whether you agreed with his views or not, he was a human being whose life was stolen in the most brutal way possible. What followed from Nahanni Fontaine, a sitting minister in the NDP government, was not empathy, was not leadership, and was not even decency. It was a disgrace.
Her Instagram reshared a post calling Kirk a racist, xenophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, sexist, white nationalist mouthpiece who made millions inciting hate. She went on to say she extended “absolutely no empathy” to him, only to his children, before calling for a country opposite to everything Kirk stood for. Think about that. This wasn’t some anonymous online troll spewing vitriol. This was a minister of the Crown in Manitoba, a person paid by taxpayers to represent us, publicly celebrating the death of a man killed for his beliefs.
This is how Manitoba’s NDP Minister of Families Nahanni Fontaine chose to react to Charlie Kirk’s killing.
She called him a “racist, xenophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, sexist, white nationalist mouthpiece” and said she has NO EMPATHY for him. pic.twitter.com/oGTUHtNoS7
And here is what makes her attack all the more appalling: Kirk often argued that dialogue — even with those we profoundly disagree with — was the antidote to extremism. Agree or disagree with his politics, his call for courage and dialogue resonates with particular urgency now. That message is the very opposite of what Fontaine expressed.
This is not an isolated mistake. Fontaine has a long history of posting reckless and divisive comments. Not long ago she mocked a person she shared a stage with because of their use of American Sign Language. She has repeatedly lashed out at people online, framing herself as the victim of harassment and bullying while dishing out venom against others. That is hypocrisy defined. I have personally been the target of Fontaine’s online attacks when I sat in the Legislature, and I have seen her demean people who simply disagreed with her. These are not the actions of someone fit to hold public office.
It does not matter what you think of Charlie Kirk or his politics. It is inexcusable to publicly attack him after his murder. A man was assassinated in front of his family for his opinions. That is the reality, and it should shake every one of us to our core. If we have reached the point where elected officials gleefully mock or dismiss the death of political opponents, then we are watching the unravelling of civilization itself. I have seen plenty of disgusting commentary online over the years, but this one, coming from a minister in government, is particularly dangerous.
Nobody has the right to attack someone for their beliefs. Nobody has the right to cheer on violence against people they disagree with. That is the very foundation of democracy: The right to speak, the right to debate, the right to dissent without fear of punishment or death. And let me be absolutely clear on this point — it is never acceptable to use violence on people you disagree with. Yet, what are our political leaders doing? Too often, they fuel the very division they claim to oppose. They introduce policies that pit people against each other, they stay silent when hate comes from their own side, and they preach tolerance while practicing the opposite. This cowardice has created an environment where political violence is no longer unthinkable.
Now here we are, with a Manitoba cabinet minister embarrassing an entire province. The same Premier who swiftly removed Mark Wasyliw from caucus for far less serious comments is suddenly quiet when it comes to Fontaine. Wab Kinew has a decision to make. If he fails to act, then he and his caucus are complicit in normalizing hatred from their own ranks. Fontaine should be immediately removed from cabinet, expelled from the NDP caucus, and she should resign. Nothing less will restore any measure of integrity.
The importance of free speech cannot be overstated. Free speech is not about protecting words we agree with. It is about protecting the words we despise. It is about ensuring that even those we find offensive have the right to speak without being attacked or killed. When elected officials mock the dead and dismiss their humanity, they undermine that principle and give license to violence. The dangerous idea that “if you don’t think like me, I will cancel you” has already seeped deep into our culture. Now it is bleeding into our politics in ways that threaten to dismantle the very freedoms our democracy depends on.
Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in Winnipeg just this week, spoke briefly about Kirk’s assassination. His words should resonate with anyone who cares about the future of civil society. “You can have vigorous arguments without ostracization, cancellation, and ultimately, assassination,” Harper said. “We need to raise our voices and say, stop, because this is getting really scary.” Harper is right. We are at a tipping point. If we do not push back against this culture of hatred, if we allow government ministers to spew venom unchecked, then we are signalling that this is acceptable. It is not.
What has become of us? When did we start celebrating the deaths of those we disagree with? When did compassion become optional, reserved only for those who think like us? When did leadership turn into cheering for division instead of unity? These are not rhetorical questions. They are the hard truths we must face. Because if we continue down this road, there will be more division, more violence, and more families torn apart by hatred.
This is not about left or right. This is about democracy itself. It is about drawing a line and saying no, we will not allow this kind of rhetoric from our leaders. It is about demanding that politicians of all parties act with dignity, even toward those they oppose. If we cannot even expect that from our ministers, then what hope do we have of expecting it from the public?
Fontaine’s words were not just unprofessional. They were unworthy of the office she holds. Manitoba deserves leaders who rise above the fray, who show that disagreement does not mean dehumanization, who demonstrate that free speech means tolerance, not violence. Anything less is an insult to every Manitoban who still believes in democracy.
And let us not pretend this is a closed matter. Fontaine’s comments are being circulated widely on X and Reddit, spreading far beyond our province. This is how Manitoba is being introduced to people across Canada, the United States, and beyond: Through the words of a minister mocking a murdered political activist. Every share, every repost, is another stain on our reputation. Manitobans should not have to carry that burden.
The time for excuses has passed. The Premier must remove her from cabinet, eject her from caucus, and demand her resignation. Anything less is complicity. Anything less tells Manitobans that hate and hypocrisy are acceptable in government. That is not the Manitoba I believe in, and it should not be the Manitoba anyone accepts. I want to be perfectly clear: I believe this is wrong on every level, and I do not accept it and neither should you. As a post from PC MLA Kelvin Goertzen said on a post to social media showing Fontain’s post, “Let the Premier Kinew (know) what you think of them. Email Premier@manitoba.ca
In an interview with CJOB, Premier Wab Kinew was asked about the Winnipeg Sun story on Nahanni Fontaine’s post that has been widely shared on social media. After the post was read to him, Kinew responded, “that’s terrible.” He later added that he would be speaking with her today.
A spokesperson for the Manitoba government responded to our request for comment and provided the following statement from Minister Fontaine: “I apologize for sharing a post yesterday on the murder of Charlie Kirk. Violence has no place in our democracy. Political debate is achieved with words and discussion. In a world too often divided, we should strive to show empathy to everyone, even those we don’t agree with.”
We have not yet received a response from the Premier’s office. But let’s be clear: Calling for empathy today does not erase her words from yesterday. Fontaine wrote, “I have absolutely no empathy for people like that.” That was not a slip of the tongue. That was deliberate. And no apology can rewrite the fact that she celebrated the death of a man murdered for his beliefs.
Prime Minister Mark Carney may not be as obnoxiously progressive as Justin Trudeau, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t stubbornly left wing in his own right, though he has managed to convince many critics otherwise.
Over the past decade, the Liberals were particularly self-righteous over climate policy, so much so that the deviations made by Carney since assuming office have been met with praise — or, on the left, with scorn — that he is somehow pro-business and represents the return of the centre-right Liberals. Some even think he’s a conservative. Others have suggested that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is now entirely redundant.
This narrative is just more proof of how utterly captured the media is in this country by the Liberal party. It is true that Carney gives the appearance that he is abandoning many of the government’s environmental policies. He set the carbon tax rate to zero, paused the EV mandate and, on Thursday,
None of this, however, should be taken as evidence that Carney represents some sort of rightward or pro-business shift in the Liberal party. He is not proposing to let markets determine what infrastructure projects get built. Nor is he proposing to minimize regulations to attract investment.
Instead, Carney wants to command the economy by himself, laying bare the reality that what attracts left-wing politicians to climate policy is not saving the planet from carbon, but using environmental objectives to manage the economy. It was about control before green policy became popular, and it is about control now. For Carney specifically, before he entered politics, “decarbonizing” markets was quite remunerative in his various banking roles.
that the prime minister said on Thursday would be fast-tracked under the Major Projects Office was an oil and gas pipeline. Also noticeable was the fact that all five of the projects had already been approved, but the government tried to pass them off as something new anyway.
Even if the projects had been all brand new, the lack of a pipeline would still be of no surprise, as what private investor would be willing to back a pipeline when the Liberals’ Impact Assessment Act, tanker ban and emissions cap all exist to conspire against energy projects of any kind.
Carney did propose to address this omission, as he is at least aware that energy investment is necessary to keep Albertans from open revolt. But he doesn’t plan to repeal or modify existing legislation.
passed in June, in order to expedite the approval of a pipeline. That law allows the government to deem infrastructure proposals in the national interest, which would exempt them from much of the regulatory process. For example, the public consultation phase under the Impact Assessment Act would not apply to a national interest project.
This isn’t about speeding up approval processes, so much as it is about giving Carney the authority to pick and choose what gets built. And approved projects would still have to meet the government’s climate goals and consult with Indigenous groups — not according to the guidelines already set out in law, but presumably under new guidelines.
One way Carney suggested the government’s climate goals could be met would be if a carbon capture project was built alongside a new pipeline.
Again, the prime minister isn’t stepping away from climate objectives, as some of his critics on the left worry. He wants to set the terms himself, altering them as he sees fit, or as becomes politically necessary. For example, the inclusion of an Indigenous advisory council only came after some First Nations objected to projects being fast-tracked without their consultation.
When Carney won the Liberal leadership race in March, he declared in his victory
. NATO must react firmly and decisively to this unprecedented provocation, otherwise the alliance’s credibility will fall into further disrepute, inviting more escalation from Moscow.
The attack on Poland was part of a larger Russian overnight barrage on Sept. 9 and 10, which saw 415 drones and 43 missiles launched against Ukraine. According to Warsaw, at least 19 drones entered Polish airspace, some via Belarus, and although some were
of some of the drones suggests they were in the process of looping back into Ukraine in a possible attempt to bypass Ukrainian air defences. However, several drones flew deep into Polish territory,
that during an exchange between Russia and Ukraine, some drones went astray due to electronic jamming. Belarusian officials said they shot down some of these drones in their own country’s airspace, and reportedly warned Poland and Lithuania that an incursion was imminent.
, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that, together with NATO allies, his government had assessed that the drones “did not veer off course, but were deliberately targeted.” He added that, “Lies and denials are default Soviet responses.”
It’s hard to disagree with the Poles here, as it would be quite a remarkable coincidence if such a large number of drones just happened to get hopelessly lost in Poland at the same time. But why would Russia want to violate Polish sovereignty? The answers are fairly straightforward.
Russia has a keen interest in disrupting Ukrainian supply lines within Poland. The Rzeszow-Jasionka Airport, located only around 100 kilometres from the Ukrainian border, has become a
More broadly, though, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been waging a hybrid war against his adversaries — in both Europe and North America — for years, with the goal of destabilizing them.
— essentially, large volumes of Middle Eastern migrants were lured to Belarus, transported to European Union borders and instructed to sneak across and claim asylum.
After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian agents began
Putin has been testing the West. He has been carefully ratcheting up his aggression in a manner that allows him to retain plausible deniability while shifting the norms of permissibility. And the West has consistently failed these tests by meekly accepting his behaviour. There seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge that Russia’s aggression is not, in fact, confined to Ukraine, and a misguided belief that the best way to stop a bully from harassing you is to ignore him.
It would’ve been unthinkable for Putin to violate Polish sovereignty two or three years ago, but his calculations seem to be changing. The absence of a strong response to previous provocations has evidently emboldened him — as has the Trump administration’s wavering commitment to its allies, along with China and North Korea’s strong and
If NATO does not react sternly now, then its already-weakened credibility will further erode. A tepid response will signal to Putin that he can send more drones into Europe — to test air defences, disrupt everyday life and spread unease — without facing real consequences. It will encourage him to ramp up his other hybrid warfare tactics, since evidently the political and military costs of their deployment would be marginal.
This cannot be allowed to happen. Weakness will not bring peace.
of NATO, which requires members of the alliance to gather for consultations when, in the opinion of any member, their “territorial integrity, political independence or security” is threatened. It should be stressed that this clause is not the same as Article 5 — known as NATO’s mutual defence clause — and that demanding consultations does not necessarily lead to military action.
While this is a good start, we need more than boardroom meetings and
. Give us more sanctions against Moscow, more weapons for Kyiv and an openness to confiscating Russia’s frozen assets. Bombing Poland should have consequences.
The co-founder of Blackberry, Jim Balsillie, joins veteran policy adviser Robert Asselin and National Post’s John Ivison to discuss the problems with Canada’s traditional and arguably outdated approach to innovation, trade and competitiveness — and why it leaves us dangerously vulnerable to U.S. economic power.
The man credited with remaking the smartphone industry with Blackberry in the early 2000s says Ottawa’s decision to give tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to foreign companies like Volkswagen to build battery cell manufacturing plants in Canada was a “catastrophically disastrous move.”
Jim Balsillie, the former chair of Research in Motion and more recently the co-founder of the Council of Canadian Innovators, told National Post’s John Ivison that he thinks Canada’s approach to trade and competitiveness is outdated and ignores the fact that in the knowledge economy, prosperity flows from ownership of intellectual property.
“The issue is Ottawa has had a flawed conception of how businesses prosper and make rents and returns over the last several decades. They say you have to buy technology (but) that’s a production economy model. Whereas in fact, what you have to do is you have to be the one that sells the technology and then you capture the value add. (Otherwise) you’re always just going to be at a commodity level of labour, competing against Kuala Lumpur,” he said.
“These are foundational policy failures by policymakers that do not understand how business operates in the global economy.”
Balsillie pointed the finger at François Philippe Champagne, the then industry minister and now finance minister.
“They talk about drawing investment, but most of that ‘investment’ is the high value-added machinery companies bring into Canada. We don’t get all the wealth effects, we don’t get all the profits. (The foreign companies) are given multi-decade profit holidays in Canada. We don’t get any of the value-added supply chains off that. And in this more automated type of factory, the number of workers is less and less every year. The value added is less and less. So our attitude is about maintaining a viable automotive industry, rather than being forward-looking. It’s been palliative to just maintain a diminishing share because the production piece is much, much less valuable and (employs) fewer people,” he said.
“You have to capture it more on the upstream and on the downstream aspects of it, whereas Canada is only focused on the midstream. You have no strategic control. And so what happens then is we’re vulnerable to predation.”
Balsillie said the focus on subsidizing foreign firms has the opposite effect than desired when it comes to diversifying markets because those companies do not have global product mandates.
Balsillie and Ivison were joined by Robert Asselin, a former advisor to Liberal ministers and prime ministers, and now the chief executive of U15, the association of leading research universities.
Asselin said that from his experience, there is an orthodoxy in the federal finance department about the so-called “Washington consensus.”
“The government’s role was seen as basically to be a spectator and to make sure that we provided a few R&D tax credits. As long as we signed free trade agreements, we’d carry the day. (But) I think we’ve realized, to our shock, that the world has changed and that countries are moving fast in terms of economic competitiveness. And so you have to be very intentional. At the end of the day, you have to align talent, capital, research in advanced industries where you can compete, and where you have critical mass and scale. And I think this kind of ‘peanut butter’ approach that Canada has had, of giving a bit to everyone in all regions and being captured by subsidies is something we really have to change,” he said.
Balsillie said the outmoded thinking was exemplified by Mark Carney’s recent visit to Germany.
“What did he say? We will supply you LNG and we will supply you raw materials, and the Germans will supply us submarines and bring refining technology for us to refine this stuff. So we’re persistently consigned to a low value-added economy that’s resource based. So the structure of Canada’s economy is much more akin to Russia’s, even though we have the potential to be a very, very high value add, very sophisticated, very sovereign economy. But it’s been a catastrophic policy failure in our policy community over the last 30 plus years as the economy transitioned, our policy community did not transition to the nature of the economy and the commensurate security that comes with that economy,” he said, saying there is “a closed-mindedness and parochialness” that has reinforced a losing orthodoxy.
Asselin said that Canada has a very competitive research sector that lacks the bridges to translate the ideas to the Canadian private sector.
Balsillie cited examples where the bridges led out of Canada.
“There were recent patents granted for University of Waterloo research with Huawei, giving away the best battery technology from Dalhousie to 3M and Tesla, giving away the best AI technology from Edmonton and University of Toronto to Google. We don’t have a capture structure. So until we fix that, which we have not, I’m extremely wary,” he said.
Asselin agreed with Balsillie that when thinking about economic growth, it is important not to focus on jobs but “to focus on where economic value derives”.
“Subsidizing jobs from foreign companies to come into Canada is the wrong way to think about it. Where the value is, is in the design of the technology, building the innovation assets that we have and keeping them in Canada,” he said.
He pointed to Ottawa’s establishment of a new defence research bureau, Borealis, as a promising source of new intellectual property, if it is well executed.
The idea is to co-design technology and allow the government to de-risk it for the private sector, crucially keeping the IP in Canada.
“For me, the promise of Borealis is that it is the first time that the government actually understands that on the public procurement side, it has a responsibility and an opportunity to buy Canadian technology. And to have the government as a buyer is really important,” he said.
The key for Balsillie is the “capture structure” to ensure good ideas are commercialized in Canada.
“I was in Ottawa yesterday dealing with them on this. We have to get the ex-ante capture structures right before we throw more money into it. But that’s been a product of this colossal policy failure because they’ve used production economy attitudes where it’s a market failure, that you fix the market with a grant,” he said.
First Reading is a Canadian politics newsletter curated by the National Post’s own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent directly to your inbox, sign up here.
TOP STORY
When the Carney government dropped its first list of “nation-building projects” on Thursday, critics quickly noticed that the document lacked any mention of an oil pipeline.
With Ottawa actively hunting for resource projects to boost GDP, an oil pipeline was always one of the most obvious ways to do that. Canada sits atop one of the world’s largest petroleum reserves, and a relative lack of export infrastructure has long limited production and depressed prices.
The idea has also become rather popular, particularly as a way to spite the United States, which currently exercises near-total control over Canadian oil exports. A June poll by Nanos Research found that 73 per cent of Canadians favoured a new pipeline to move oil to the Atlantic Coast.
In a statement, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said that the “major projects” list didn’t mean that any of the five projects were anywhere closer to approval, merely that they were now under consideration by a major projects office that “isn’t even staffed up yet.”
Later, in a social media post, Poilievre mocked Carney’s comments that he understood the “frustrations” of Albertans pushing for independence. “You know what would heal those frustrations, sir? Approving an oil pipeline,” he wrote.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has said multiple times that he was willing to break with his party’s prior track record of opposing new export pipelines. This was why, after Carney’s April election win, both the oil sector and figures such as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith briefly entertained the notion that Canadian oil might soon have new means to get to market.
But with oil pipelines seemingly once again on the Liberal back burner, here’s a cursory summary of the times that Carney or his ministers hinted that this time might be different.
“We as a nation need to build some new pipelines for conventional energy”
Before Carney had even become prime minister, his campaign for the Liberal leadership included pledges that a Carney government would be championing some kind of new fossil fuel infrastructure.
In one of his first sit-down interviews since declaring his entry into federal politics, Carney said he supported “the concept” of a pipeline to move oil from Alberta to the Atlantic Coast. “We as a nation need to build some new pipelines for conventional energy,”
“You need to look forward in the future … that may mean you need pipelines that go East-West.”
In the final days of the premiership of Justin Trudeau, his industry minister told reporters that an oil pipeline could very well be a new national imperative. “Times have changed,”
said in February, before adding that Canada may “need pipelines that go East-West.”
The comments had been spurred by threats of ruinous U.S. tariffs against Canadian goods, with U.S. President Donald Trump just beginning to lean into his rhetoric about annexing Canada as a 51st state. Champagne is no longer industry minister, but he was picked for the Carney cabinet and is currently serving as minister of national revenue.
“It’s about getting pipelines built, across this country, so we that can displace imports of foreign oil.”
In March, just before calling the 2025 federal election, Carney flew to Edmonton for a memorably tense meeting with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, followed by a scrum with reporters. Postmedia’s David Staples asked Carney if he would be repealing legislation that the oil sector had identified as a barrier to new infrastructure, such as the 2019 Impact Assessment Act.
Carney didn’t address the core of the question, but he
that Canada needed oil pipelines, if only to ensure that consumption of imported oil in the country’s eastern regions was supplanted by Canadian supply. “It’s about getting pipelines built across this country so that we can displace imports of foreign oil,” he said.
“We have to choose a few projects, a few big projects, not necessarily pipelines, but maybe pipelines. We’ll see.”
Carney soon started adding caveats to his “new pipeline” promises. The above quote, delivered in French, was one of the first instances of Carney dialling back the notion that he would be leading a pro-pipeline government. The comment was
without “consensus of all the provinces and the Indigenous people” — a threshold far higher than anything previously entertained for a Canadian infrastructure project.
“Will I support building a pipeline? Yes.”
Just two weeks after the election, Carney was asked about his support for oil pipelines during an interview with CTV. Carney replied that he not only supported them, but that he had said so “multiple times.”
“First off, I’ve said repeatedly: yes,” he told host Vassy Kapelos on May 13. Carney said he couldn’t unilaterally approve any pipeline, and that “consensus” would be needed. But he added “I’m a prime minister who can help create that consensus.”
“We need infrastructure that gets our energy to tidewater and to trusted allies — diversifying beyond the U.S.”
soon after the election by Carney’s newly minted natural resources minister, Tim Hodgson. The address was notable for its overt support of the energy sector and its call to increase Canadian fossil fuel production.
“Energy is power. Energy is Canada’s power. It gives us an opportunity to build the strongest economy in the G7, guide the world in the right direction, and be strong when we show up at a negotiation table,” Hodgson said on May 23.
Hodgson never specified whether he was talking about oil or natural gas production, but he certainly endorsed getting one or both of those things to the coast via pipeline.
A new oil pipeline would be “highly, highly likely”
This comment was delivered by Carney just two months ago during a visit to the Calgary Stampede, after his government had already passed Bill C-5, a piece of legislation that gave him control to exempt potential resource projects from much of the usual red tape that had delayed their approval.
“I would think, given the scale of the economic opportunity, the resources we have, the expertise we have, that it is highly, highly likely that we will have an oil pipeline that is a proposal for one of these projects of national interest,”
“It’s highly, highly likely that that will be the case. And the only reason why I don’t say it definitively is this is not a top-down approach from the federal government saying, ‘We want this, we want that,’” he said.
IN OTHER NEWS
{“mime_type”:”image/png”,”url”:”https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-09-11-173112.png”,”caption”:” Here are those five u201cmajor projects,u201d by the way. Two mines, a marine terminal, a nuclear plant and an expansion of Canadau2019s one LNG port. In a statement on Thursday, Carney said it was u201cno accidentu201d that all five projects meet his governmentu2019s preferred low-carbon goals.”,”width”:”1324″,”height”:”663″,”shortcode”:”Here are those five u201cmajor projects,u201d by the way. Two mines, a marine terminal, a nuclear plant and an expansion of Canadau2019s one LNG port. In a statement on Thursday, Carney said it was u201cno accidentu201d that all five projects meet his governmentu2019s preferred low-carbon goals.“,”type”:”image”,”channels”:[“desktop”,”tablet”,”phone”]}
Former prime minister Justin Trudeau has found a new job, which is actually very similar to his old job. One of the first controversies Trudeau ever faced as a federal politician was the large speaking fees he had commanded in private life as the son of Pierre Trudeau, largely from charities and non-profits. One of the highest being a single $20,000 gig for the Canadian Mental Health Association. After nine years as Canadian prime minister, his fee has gone up a bit. He now costs
!["Five](http://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-09-11-173112.png")
