LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow acknowledges

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow has done a decent job sticking to a tight script during her bid for re-election. It’s a script that casts her as a centrist concerned about public safety and affordability — two of the electorate’s main concerns.

But at a recent debate she let the mask slip and reminded Toronto voters of her true colours — that she has never been an ally of the police. That’s not something you want to do, especially when we need law and order more than ever.

Chow’s re-election slogan is that she’s working for “a more affordable, safe and caring city.” The use of “safe” certainly gives the impression that Chow recognizes the city’s troubling state and intends to get tough on crime. But before accepting that conclusion, voters should unpack what she’s really saying.

As one of her lead safety talking points, Chow has touted how the city hired dozens of additional 911 operators under her watch, which cut 911 response times in half.

This is good news and wise policy and it’s a scandal that we had that brief period where callers were put on hold for a service most people have long assumed answers immediately.

I unfortunately learned the other year what it was like to be put on hold by 911 for almost a minute, when I called to deal with another person’s medical emergency. The 45 seconds or so on hold felt like an eternity.

Answering the phone is only one part of the solution though. Are there sufficient resources to deploy to the emergency once the call is made? Far from it. The number of police officers today is fairly flat compared to a decade ago, yet the population has grown significantly. The resources are being stretched thin.

The Toronto Police Association (TPA) — the police union — released an unexpected statement Tuesday that will be interpreted as an endorsement for Chow’s re-election. They thank Chow for listening to them and say that “her support of the Multi-year Hiring Plan will be instrumental in creating a safer Toronto for everyone.” There is no doubt a lot of backroom politics going on here, along with some hedge-betting on the part of the TPA.

Because at the recent mayoral debate hosted by the Daily Bread Food Bank, Chow made clear what Toronto political insiders have long known about her: that Chow has never been considered a supporter of the police.

During the debate, lead challenger Coun. Brad Bradford pressed Chow on why, as mayor, she never sat on the Police Services Board as was the tradition. There are many city boards and the mayor can’t be on all of them, but none are as important as the police board and so the mayor has always sat on it.

Sidestepping the question, Chow pivoted to how she believes her policies have improved public safety via youth programs and violence prevention initiatives.

Then the real answer came: “We have hired a lot more mental health crisis workers,” she said. “Because police are not the only answer. People who have mental health issues need help. Guns are not the only solution.”

There we have it, a philosophy laid bare. At a time when Toronto residents feel the city is less safe and see the daily chaos on our streets and public transit, Olivia Chow is downplaying the role police can play in fixing things and dismissing them as gun-waving distractions.

It’s incredibly disrespectful to the many police officers who have spent years working on the streets of Toronto without once firing their weapons to dismissively say “guns are not the only solution.”

It’s now all too common to encounter mentally ill and addicted people acting irrationally and violently on the streets, in public spaces and within the tight confines of public transit. Do they need help? Of course. Could a mental health worker provide that help? Yes, in some circumstances.

But once they become a potential risk to public safety, it then becomes the role of a police officer to intervene. Everyone knows this. It’s just common sense.

Residents have come to feel less safe in Toronto in recent years. The problems are broad. The buses and subways have more violent and anti-social behaviour on them. Drug addicts feel entitled to take over public spaces. Petty criminals loot liquor stores in broad daylight. Organized crime conducts wave after wave of auto-thefts with impunity. And even average drivers who otherwise follow the law are now dangerously running red lights all the time, knowing they’ll never get a ticket.

This potpourri of lawless activity has a variety of underlying causes. But there are a few common threads that can’t be denied: these things have gotten worse since Olivia Chow became mayor, and adding more 911 operators and crisis workers is only scratching the surface — yet those are the only solutions Chow is offering.

Chow may be campaigning on making things safer, but without meaningful policies that include meaningful backing of the police, the voters shouldn’t buy it.

Anthony Furey is a former journalist and past Toronto mayoral candidate who now works in corporate consulting.

Editor’s note: This column was updated to include the statement from the Toronto Police Association.


David Eby holds a news conference in a B.C. liquor Store on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026.

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 Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa called a snap election in 1976, the official reason was that he needed a new mandate to address “a number of very important events (that) will affect the future of Quebec.”

Bourassa already had a majority government. He also had two years left in his mandate; Quebecers weren’t scheduled to go to the polls until the fall of 1978.

But optimism was riding high in the wake of the 1976 Montreal Olympics, and Bourassa pegged it as a good time to cash in that goodwill for a mandate that could at least last into the 1980s.

The result was one of the most catastrophic backfires imaginable. Instead of renewing his majority, Bourassa was steamrolled by the first election win by the newly founded Parti Quebecois – a party that Bourassa had spent the campaign mocking. The Quebec Liberal even lost his own seat to a separatist poet.

On Tuesday, B.C. Premier David Eby called a snap election, also with a majority, and also with two years left in his mandate. The stated reason was that U.S. President Donald Trump is an “existential” threat to B.C., and the NDP premier needs his mandate renewed immediately to deal with it.

The more likely reason is that, after an entire summer of polling behind the B.C. Conservatives, the opposition’s sudden collapse under leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay suddenly turned the tide, yielding two weeks’ worth of polls with an NDP lead.

It’s a gamble, and a gamble that has often paid off for premiers in recent years. Ontario Premier Doug Ford secured his third consecutive majority with a snap election in 2025. Eby’s own predecessor, John Horgan, used a snap election in the opening months of the COVID-19 pandemic to secure not only a majority, but the most decisive result in B.C. NDP history.

But such gambles have also precipitated some of the most catastrophic reversals in Canadian political history.

The textbook example of snap election backfire is Ontario Premier David Peterson. In 1990, after just three years of his four-year mandate, he called an early election to capitalize on polls showing his Liberal party with a commanding 50 per cent of the vote.

In an instant, Ontarians who had been telling pollsters they liked Peterson changed their tune once it meant they had to mark it on a ballot.

The first poll issued after Peterson’s election call showed that his lead had instantly evaporated, and that he probably wasn’t going to retain his majority.

“I’m getting a lot of questions about the early election. Maybe we didn’t do a good job explaining why we called this early election,” one Liberal candidate, Bernard Grandmaître, told the Ottawa Citizen at the time.

The Liberals not only lost their majority, but they lost the election entirely to a majority win by the Ontario NDP.

A similar turnaround occurred in Alberta in 2015. There again, a comfortably established incumbent, the Progressive Conservatives under Premier Jim Prentice, called an early election to consolidate what they assumed was going to be an easy win.

Instead, Prentice walked into a defeat that even the opposition didn’t see coming: An NDP majority, and his own party devastated beyond repair.

Quebec political history even yields a second example of Liberals calling a snap election, only to be punished with a surprise victory from the Parti Quebecois.

That’s what happened to Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest in 2012. He called an early summer election in an apparent attempt to catch the electorate in a good mood, and wound up guaranteeing a defeat bad enough to cost him his own seat.

“He gambled, and he lost,” read one analysis.

One of the most explosive landslides in Canadian history, in fact, was the unintended result of a snap election call.

In 1984, John Turner had just succeeded the hideously unpopular Pierre Trudeau as federal Liberal leader, and thus prime minister. Turner could have continued overseeing a Liberal majority for at least another year. But buoyed by a brief resurgence in Liberal poll numbers, Turner scheduled a summer campaign.

The 1984 election instead transformed into two months of ever-plunging Liberal support until, on Sept. 4, the Canadian electorate handed Progressive Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney a supermajority of 211 out of 282 seats.

The electoral consequences of snap elections has been examined in depth by political scientists, and the usual takeaway is that Canadians don’t like being asked to vote if they don’t have to, and they’re inclined to punish whoever made them do it.

In 2022, a paper out of the University of Toronto concluded that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to call a snap election in 2021 yielded just enough blowback and voter apathy to deny him a sought-after majority.

“Negative attitudes toward the election call are a decisive consideration for many voters, inflicting an electoral cost to the Liberal Party which likely deprived it from a legislative majority,” wrote the report authors.

A 2004 paper in the journal Political Studies concluded that even when incumbents successfully secure power with a snap election, they can expect a measurable hit to their support if the call seems “opportunistic.”

The paper’s test case was the 2000 federal election, where Prime Minister Jean Chrétien dropped the writ a year early for no other reason than conditions seemed good to renew his majority.

He got that majority, but authors calculated it came at the expense of alienating one per cent of Liberal voters. “Some voters are prepared to punish prime ministers for opportunistically calling a snap election, but in this case the electoral penalty was small,” it read.

When snap elections function as intended for the incumbent, it’s often in instances where election day is being moved up a few months, instead of coming in the middle of a term. It also helps if an incumbent’s lead in the polls is overwhelming.

In 2024, Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston had his snap election call rewarded with an even larger majority. But Houston was bumping up election day by just eight months. His Progressive Conservatives also enjoyed a more than 20-point advantage.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford strengthened his majority with a snap election in 2025. But there again, Ford’s entire term up to that point had shown him with a lead of at least 10 points over the opposition.

Eby might be angling to re-enact something along the lines of the aforementioned 2000 federal election.

At the time, Chrétien had a majority and he also had nearly two years left in his mandate. But he plunged Canada into a fall election largely to capitalize on a fractured conservative opposition; the newly formed Canadian Alliance having failed to unite the country’s various warring right-wing factions.

But Chrétien was also extremely popular; most of the 1990s saw him enjoying approval ratings of more than 60 per cent – a record of sustained public support unmatched by any other prime minister of modern times.

In the entirety of Chrétien’s decade as prime minister, in fact, there wasn’t a poll that ever gave his Liberals less than a 15-point lead over the second-place opponent.

As Eby attempts the same, his personal approval rating stands at 41 per cent, according to the Angus Reid Institute. And in the entirety of his two-year term to this point, his party has rarely managed a lead of more than five points over the B.C. Conservative opposition, despite the latter’s near-constant internal chaos.

As late as last week, even as defections from the B.C. Conservatives began hitting double digits, the Angus Reid Institute still put Eby’s NDP at just 41 per cent against 37 per cent for the Conservatives.

IN OTHER NEWS

 The shooter in the attack on a Belleville, Ont. synagogue is dead. Sean Ward, 29, pictured here, began an apparent Sunday night attack on Belleville’s Sons of Jacob synagogue by first opening fire on a police officer stationed outside. By returning fire, the wounded officer, Const. Jeff Smith, likely prevented a massacre. Smith remains in hospital, with a police spokesperson saying he faces a “significant road to recovery.” A fundraiser for Smith started by figures within the Canadian Jewish community has already raised more than $170,000.

In one of the more obscure ways that U.S. President Donald Trump has tried to lash out at Canada, on Monday he boasted about a possible potash deal with Belarus.

“The United States is working on a massive Deal with respect to the purchase of Potash from Belarus,” Trump wrote on social media.

Canada currently supplies 90 per cent of U.S. potash, and Trump promised that Belarusian product would be “cheaper” than the Canadian stuff.

Unmentioned was that Belarus – a dictatorship since the 1990s – remains under heavy U.S. sanctions in part for its participation in Russia’s war on Ukraine. This is why Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe (whose province produces almost all of Canada’s potash) issued a statement on Monday criticizing Trump for seeking “blood potash.”

Anyway, Belarusian dictator Aleksandr Lukashenko swiftly poured cold water on the idea, saying in an English-language meeting transcript that they don’t have any more potash to sell to the United States. This is mostly because it’s actually really hard to ship potash from Belarus to the U.S., so most of their exports are going to closer markets such as China.

But the saga illustrates an uncomfortable material reality about Canada’s ongoing efforts to “diversify” its trade to Europe. Namely, that Canadian exports largely consist of very heavy things like potash, and (as with Belarus) it’s easier to push those things across an adjacent land border than ship them 4,000 kilometres across the Atlantic Ocean.

Also, fun fact: Canada is home to a Belarusian government-in-exile first formed in 1919.

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.


Officials with the Special Investigations Unit are seen exiting an SIU vehicle on Monday, not far from the Sons of Jacob Synagogue in Belleville, Ont.

SDEROT, Israel — When the most-watched TV station in Israel went back on the air following the end of Yom Kippur on Monday evening, Belleville, Ont., was top of the news.

A little context may be helpful: Hours before the onset of the holiest day of the year in the Jewish calendar, a young father of six was murdered in a terror attack. His funeral was held at the close of Yom Kippur, one day later. Iran and its Houthis allies continue to escalate threats and attacks in the Middle East. There’s a lot going on.

Before Monday night, not many people in Israel had heard of Belleville. That has changed. But it takes a lot these days to shock Israelis, or Jews.

It took 14 hours for Prime Minister Mark Carney to react with a tepid, detached statement more suited to a routine traffic report. His government colleagues maintained the message discipline, avoiding any strongly worded expressions of shock, horror or disgust, which they customarily deploy when the slightest infraction or prejudice is demonstrated towards other identifiable religious and ethnic groups.

Approximately 17 hours after 29-year-old Sean Ward, a resident of nearby Quinte West, is alleged to have discharged dozens of bullets from a firearm outside the Sons of Jacob Synagogue, his name was released to the public. It is noteworthy that, by that point, any social media presence he may have had no longer appeared to exist. Was it scrubbed? If so, by whom?

At a press conference held Monday at the scene of the shooting, Belleville’s deputy police chief, Sheri Meeks, and Kristy Denette, a communications official with the Ontario Special Investigations Unit, confirmed that the attack had occurred at approximately 7 p.m. ET on Sunday night.

This was the precise time when the approximately 25 attendees were entering the sanctuary for the beginning of the service. Quickly realizing that they were being attacked, the synagogue’s president told everyone to get on the floor and take cover. Meanwhile, outside, Belleville police officer Jeff Smith, a 13-year veteran of the force, was guarding the building.

Denette stated that the sequence of events remains unclear, but the outcome is not. Smith is in hospital in critical but stable condition. His quick reaction to Ward’s alleged shooting spree likely averted a massacre in the synagogue. Ward was sent to hospital and pronounced dead on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, the shooting was being mentioned in Israeli media, more in passing than shock or horror. Once a committed ally of Israel’s, Canada under Carney is seen very differently in this country.

Violent incitement and hatred targeting Jews in Canada has been “normalized” — the euphemism of the moment. Most political leaders and law enforcement authorities have demonstrated — for three years now — that they are loathe to enforce existing laws to protect Canadian Jews from harassment and violence.

The consequence of their ongoing reluctance to circumscribe the actions of anti-Israel protesters — under the disingenuous pretext of protecting their constitutional rights — is that those who commit anti-Jewish violence have become emboldened.

Also on Yom Kippur, mere hours after the Belleville attack, Jews attending services in Toronto were, according to a report and video posted to social media by CBC journalist Neil Herland, accosted by what has become a typical throng of antisemitic protesters spewing hatred in a threatening manner. This is the not-so-new normal in Canada.

On Israel’s most-watched television station on Monday night, a clip was shown of Denette replying to a reporter’s question as to whether this was a terror attack targeting the Jewish community: “I’d be speculating, but … I think that common sense would say that probably was the case.”

One would think that is obvious. As is the fact that the synagogue’s stained-glass windows were riddled with bullet holes, as evidenced in photographs published by the media.

Belleville police were circumspect, as well, declining to attribute any motive to Ward’s alleged actions, which beggars belief. Are we to accept that an armed man just happened to show up outside a small synagogue at the precise hour when congregants were assembling for the most important religious service of the year and began shooting?

Had a similar incident occurred outside a mosque or a church, I am confident in speculating that the police and politicians would have concluded differently. And the prime minister would not have taken 14 hours to issue this tepid statement :

“Last night, on the holiest night of the Jewish calendar, a shooting took place outside the Sons of Jacob Synagogue in Belleville. A police officer was shot and the community has been left shaken. Jewish people must be able to worship safely. To live free, open, proud Jewish lives.

“Canada’s government will do everything in our power to support law enforcement in ensuring that the perpetrator is held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. My thoughts are with the injured officer and his family, and the entire Jewish community.”

This breezy response to a violent attack on Jews attending Yom Kippur services illustrates why Jew hatred is flourishing in Canada. It is why people attending Yom Kippur services in Toronto were accosted by hateful mobs. Their conduct often contravenes the law, but nothing ever seems to be done to prevent these “protests.”

Interestingly, a very active group called Belleville Justice and Peace assembles each Sunday afternoon in the quiet city to hold public demonstrations. Its advocacy appears to focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict, according to social media posts.

Among its more prominent members is local resident Shahid Mahmood, who was detained by Israeli authorities in May. Mahmood had been a participant in the Global Sumud Flotilla, which was intercepted by the Israel Defence Forces before reaching its intended destination — the Gaza Strip.

This is not the first shooting of a synagogue in Canada since October 7. Jewish schools have been similarly targeted, as have neighbourhoods with high concentrations of Jewish residents, community centres and Jewish-owned businesses.

The result is Belleville. Israelis understand that. Canadians, it seems, do not.

History has taught us, repeatedly, that in societies that demonize Jews, the targeting of others ensues, as surely as night follows day.

National Post


Prime Minister Mark Carney puts on a hard hat at the Canada’s Building Trades Unions’ annual conference held at Hilton Lac-Leamy in Gatineau, Quebec on Wednesday, April 29, 2026.

A newfound acceptance of Canadian oil and gas was revealed when Mark Carney campaigned on making Canada an “energy superpower” in the 2025 election. Many were skeptical that the federal Liberals could make the changes necessary for the oil and gas sector to grow. It became a popular joke that we were getting MOUs instead of FIDs (Final Investment Decisions). Carney was criticized for making great speeches but not progress.

It is time to acknowledge that many policies have indeed been improved and that the Canadian oil and gas sector is once again investable; competitive even. What has changed on the ground?

The term “energy superpower” was popularized by Stephen Harper in 2006 when the oilsands were emerging as an enormous, and investable, resource. The shale revolution eventually overtook oilsands growth, and the Trudeau government destroyed the investability of Canadian greenfield oil and gas projects with a series of policies that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has coined the “nine bad laws.” But when U.S. President Donald Trump called Canada the 51st state, oil and gas suddenly became popular in Canada, and the public wanted our resources to be unleashed.

Throughout 2025, the Building Canada Act (Bill C-5), Major Projects Office, and memorandum of understanding with Alberta provided a welcome shift in tone. But the first meaningful policy change the Carney government made was to “scrap the cap” in November 2025, and confirm that the federal government would not move ahead with its proposed oil and gas sector emissions cap.

While the Trudeau government never did finalize the regulations to cap and cut emissions in the sector by 35 per cent by 2030, the threat of the cap served as a sword of Damocles and pre-empted new LNG terminals and pipelines. Both Enbridge and Trans Mountain announced they would seek pipeline expansions in the month it was axed.

The next big move was to allow a carve-out of natural gas-fired electricity generation from the Trudeau-era Clean Electricity Regulations (CER). Note that electricity falls squarely in provincial jurisdiction (the regulations are being challenged in court as unconstitutional for this reason), and utilities have warned that the CER would lead to blackouts when peak demand inevitably hit on cold and dark January nights. The CER also meant Canada missed out on the first wave of global data centre investment, one of the largest infrastructure build-outs in modern history.

In the months since new natural gas generation became allowed in Canada once again, Alberta has announced a $17.6 billion AI data centre and energy project, and Saskatchewan has announced one worth $50 billion . More announcements are on their way.

Perhaps no legislation has been as hated in Western Canada as the Impact Assessment Act, or as it became known colloquially known, the No More Pipelines Act. It turned out to be a no-more-anything act, as only two projects were approved under its auspices between 2019 and 2025 (Cedar and Ksi Lisims LNG).

Furthermore, the Impact Assessment Act was determined to be largely unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in October 2023, in response to which then Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault made minimal changes, prompting Alberta to take the federal government right back to court.

There too, the Carney government has made real inroads. It has developed environmental assessment co-operation agreements with every province except Saskatchewan to achieve the objective of “one project, one review” by respecting jurisdictional lanes.

Perhaps even more consequentially, earlier this month the federal government removed in situ oilsands and natural gas power generation facilities from the IAA altogether, leaving their regulation appropriately to the provinces. It also moved oversight of international and interprovincial pipelines, which are in federal jurisdiction, to just one agency: the Canadian Energy Regulator.

At the Canada Investment Summit last week, the federal government also announced that it would allow for 100 per cent immediate expensing of most new depreciable capital property across a wide range of sectors and assets, including oil and gas, mining and manufacturing. It will make it more attractive to build things in Canada, and help address our anemic productivity and business investment per worker numbers.

Finally, this week, we got the icing on the cake. A suite of reforms introduced on Monday in Bill C-39 (the Building Canada Strong Act) addresses major projects regulation, transportation corridors and labour disruptions. Though the Major Projects Office and Building Canada Act were criticized as band-aids for the country’s deep regulatory wounds, this new draft legislation looks set to fix some of our tougher problems.

The Carney government deserves credit for getting rid of many of the bad policies left over from the Trudeau era. But Canada must also have good policies to attract capital and build infrastructure. In my opinion, we are on the cusp of having that.

We have not given businesses and investors confidence that their capital will find a good home in Canada. The welcome mat has finally been put out. This is progress we should all applaud.

National Post


Bullet holes mark the front doors and windows of Temple Emanu-El in Toronto, on March 3.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered by Ben Mulroney to the Jewish Federation of British Columbia in Victoria Sept. 17.

I’ve got a list as long as my arm of numbers detailing the rise of Jew-hate in Canada. But you don’t need the numbers. You have the experience.

On a Saturday morning in August of last year, congregants arriving at Temple Emanu-El — on a day when a 13-year-old boy was having his bar mitzvah in that building — found a message written on a pillar at the entrance. It called Jews evil. It called them child-killers. It promised revenge. In May 2024, someone poured accelerant on the front doors of a synagogue on Oak Street in Vancouver and lit it; the congregation put it out, and their rabbi said afterwards it could have been a pile of cinders. In a Vancouver neighbourhood, people chalked hate on the sidewalks for months, put a Jewish resident’s name on a sign, posted his cross-street online and told him to his face: “We know where you live.”

In a survey of Jewish British Columbians last year, 61 per cent said they now avoid wearing anything that identifies them as Jewish in public. A Star of David. A kippah. Sixty-one per cent. In Canada. In this decade.

That is not a Jewish problem. When one per cent of the country has to hide who they are to walk down the street, that is a Canadian problem — a problem for every one of us, because a country that will tolerate this for one group will eventually tolerate it for another. It always has.

Last November, I went to Israel. I went with a delegation hosted by the Israeli government, and I’ll say that plainly, because it’s true, and because some people have worked very hard to make it sound like a secret. It wasn’t.

We went everywhere. The Knesset was a sight to behold. And Jerusalem — nobody prepares you for how beautiful it is, or for how much history is stacked, soaked and stained in every stone.

In the old city we went to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built on the place where Christians believe Jesus was crucified and buried. Six different Christian churches share that one building. Greek Orthodox. Roman Catholic. Armenian. Coptic. Syriac. Ethiopian. And they do not always get along. Every chapel, every lamp, every stretch of floor belongs to somebody, and nothing can be changed unless all of them agree. There is a wooden ladder on a ledge above the front door that has been sitting there since at least the 1700s, because nobody can agree on who gets to move it.

And then there is the front door.

For centuries, the keys have been held by two Muslim families. Every morning, a Muslim man unlocks the holiest church in Christianity, because he is the one person every Christian in that building trusts to be neutral.

That is not harmony. It is something better than harmony. It is people who disagree about almost everything making an active choice, every single day, that the doors are going to open anyway.

Then we went all the way south, to Kibbutz Nir Oz, where the Bibas family lived. Where Shiri Bibas and her two little red-headed boys, Ariel and Kfir, were taken from their home, never to come home. You walk through that kibbutz, past the homes, once full of laughter and love, now … not, and you understand that no photograph can hold what happened there.

And then we went north, to Metula, right on the border with Lebanon. After October 7 the whole town was evacuated, and more than half the buildings were damaged by rocket fire.

But the moment I think about most did not happen at a border, or at a memorial. It happened in a coffee shop.

I sat down with a man from the Druze community named Bahij Mansour. The Druze are a small minority in Israel — an Arabic-speaking people with their own faith, whose sons serve in the Israeli army.

This man had done all of it. Twenty years in uniform. Twenty-four more in his country’s foreign service — the Israeli mission at the United Nations, the embassy in Amman, ambassador to Angola, ambassador to the Dominican Republic. For a stretch of it he ran the interfaith department of Israel’s foreign ministry, which meant that Israel’s dealings with those six quarrelling churches in Jerusalem ran across his desk.

And then he went home. Back to Isfiya, the Druze village on Mount Carmel where he was born, to run for head of the local council. It was the same job his father had held. And his grandfather before him, in 1959. After the army and the foreign ministry, he said he wanted to give something of himself to his village.

And at one point in our conversation, he stopped talking like a man with a title, and he just talked.

I’m paraphrasing, but not by much. He said: Do I think Israel treats my people fairly all the time? Of course I don’t. Do I think we get overlooked? That we are too often pushed to the margins? Absolutely I do. But I fight for my people inside the system. Because the system is this country, and this country is mine, too.

And I’m not breaking a confidence, because he has since written it himself, under his own name, in an Israeli newspaper. We are here, he wrote — in blood and in identity. And we are tired of being on the margins.

And I sat there, and I thought: I know this conversation. I’ve heard it before. At home.

I could just as easily have been listening to a Black-Canadian. Or an Indigenous-Canadian. Someone who will tell you, with complete honesty, that this country has not always treated their people fairly and still falls short — and who will also tell you they are going to fight for their people from inside it, because this country is theirs, and it can be made better.

That is not a contradiction. That is what belonging sounds like in a democracy. The right to criticize your country without anyone questioning whether you belong to it.

He was holding two things at once. Critical and loyal. Impatient and grateful. Both at the same time, and without apology.

There is a loud group in this country, and they have decided that you have to choose. That standing with the Jewish community means standing against someone else. That if you show up at a synagogue, you have taken a side against a mosque. That if you say a Jewish child should be able to wear a Star of David to school, you have said something about a war 9,000 kilometres away.

I want to say this as clearly as I know how.

That is a false choice. It is a manufactured choice. And it is a lie.

To stand for the safety and dignity of the Jewish community is not to stand against anyone. Not against Palestinians. Not against Muslims. Not against anyone who grieves, and there is a great deal to grieve. You can hold the humanity of every child in that region in your heart and still say, without hesitation, that nobody should be writing on the door of the oldest synagogue in Canada. Those are not competing positions. One of them isn’t even a position. It’s just decency.

The people who insist otherwise are doing something very specific. They take the fact that someone is Jewish, or stood beside a Jew, and infer a position from it. Because you are this, you must believe that. Because you stood there, you must support this. And then they hold you responsible for a belief you never expressed and a position they cannot prove you hold.

Think about what that is. Assigning a person a set of opinions based on their ethnicity, and then punishing them for it. There is a word for that, and we used to know what it was.

I know a little bit about this. A few months after I came home from Israel, a coalition of groups announced a boycott of every program I host. Now, I’m a broadcaster. I say things out loud every day. People are entitled to disagree with me, to change the channel and to tell their friends to change the channel. That is how a free country works, and I’d defend their right to do it.

But a lot of what came my way, in my inbox and online, wasn’t necessarily about things I had said. It was about where I had been. That I went. That I stood in Nir Oz. That I sat in a coffee shop and listened. From that alone, people decided they knew exactly what I believed about everything, and exactly what kind of person I must be.

And here is what I want you to understand. I’m a public figure with a microphone and skin as thick as a rhino. I can take it. The Jewish student in this city who gets the same treatment because of the Star of David around her neck does not have a microphone. The shop owner doesn’t. The kid walking to school doesn’t. If this is what people will do to someone with a platform, imagine what they are doing to people without one.

A chant is not an argument. A slogan is not evidence. An inference is not proof. And the moment we let people be made responsible for what a mob assumes they think, we have abandoned the thing that made this country work in the first place.

My father said something about this more than once, including in the last speech of his life, and I think it was the wisest thing he ever said about it. Antisemitism, he said, “is born in ignorance and nurtured in envy.” Ignorance and envy. Not politics. Not geopolitics. Something much older, and much more emotional, primal, dressed up in whatever clothes the era provides.

More than 30 years ago, on a beautiful summer day in Montreal, I had plans. My plans were to spend a few hours by my father’s pool. Instead, I ended up in the basement of a synagogue, listening to him give a speech, which, and I didn’t know it at the time, planted a seed in me that probably changed my life.

The speech had a title. “Israel is the new Jew.” And its argument was that antisemitism was changing its shape. That the people who could no longer say what they meant about Jews would find a way to say it about Israel instead, and that we had better learn to recognize it when it came.

That was the late 1990s. When nobody was talking about it that way.

More than three decades later, on Nov. 9, 2023, a month after October 7, he stood up in New York to accept an award from the World Jewish Congress. He was not well. It was the last public speech of his life. And it was, in every way that mattered, the same speech. The one from the basement. “Israel,” he told them, “has become the new Jew.”

I tell you this because it means he did not arrive at that view in the emotion of the moment. He had been warning about it for more than three decades. He saw it coming when it was still a long way off.

In that last speech he said that to that day, as a Canadian, he could not watch footage of Jewish mothers and fathers and children being sent to the gas chambers without feeling sorrow, and loss, and guilt. Guilt, because this country’s door was closed to them when it mattered. And he ended with a line I am going to steal, because he would have wanted me to.

“Keep the faith,” he said, “in the trying days to come.”


We’re approaching the third anniversary of the shocking Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, and the very consequential war that followed soon after. A fascinating new book offers a never-before seen look inside the Israeli response to the attacks and the crucial decisions about how and when to respond.

In this interview, Rob Breakenridge speaks with Canadian Elliot Kaufman, who’s a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and is co-author of the new book, “In the War Room: The Inside Story of Israel’s Fight Against Hamas and the Iranian Axis.” Drawing on multiple interviews with top Israeli and American officials, “In the War Room” reveals the intense debates that shaped the war’s early days — including whether Israel should tackle the Hezbollah threat in Lebanon before launching an invasion of Gaza.

The book also paints an interesting picture of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose surprisingly cautious approach stands in stark contrast to the public perception of a leader eager to take the fight to Israel’s enemies. We’ll also look at how U.S. policy helped to shape Israel’s approach and how that policy evolved from the Biden administration to the Trump administration.

Plus, the big question: did Israel win this war? What the military victories and diplomatic setbacks for Israel tell us about where things go from here.


British Columbia Premier David Eby.

The next few weeks may be among the most consequential Canada has faced in many years, perhaps in decades.

A future that was already rife with uncertainty faces a set of events of which the consequences are as potentially far-reaching as they are unpredictable.

On Oct. 5 Quebec will hold an election to choose a government in place of the struggling Coalition Avenir Québec. While its lead has been weakening, the Parti Québécois still appears most likely to emerge as the winner with its pledge to hold yet another referendum on independence. Two weeks later Alberta will hold its own vote on a set of questions that include the possibility of a future referendum on whether it, too, should consider leaving Confederation.

Looming over both these decisions are the Nov. 3 mid-term elections in the U.S., which will decide whether the Trump administration is able to continue its global rampage of destruction and disruption or face a Congress more willing and able to try and put a brake on it.

Each of these represents potential dangers for Canada and Canadians. Taken together they constitute an immense challenge to sort out what kind of future the country can expect when so many of the decisions rest on events over which we have limited control.

Into this cauldron of confusion, British Columbia’s New Democratic Party government is adding yet another risky venture. Though Premier David Eby is just two years into his mandate and faces no serious threat to his authority, he has called a snap election in hopes of catching opponents off guard.

The possibility of a vote has nothing to do with offering stable, steady government in turbulent times, and everything to do with cynical, self-serving politics by a government hoping to exploit a chance opportunity to serve its own interests. Eby’s NDP came within a hair’s breadth of defeat in 2024 when disenchanted voters elevated the previously moribund Conservative party to within three seats of power. Only a quick accord with the Green party let Eby cling to office, followed by an internal war among Conservatives that has since granted Eby a level of certainty voters clearly had no intention of providing.

B.C.’s Conservatives have shown themselves to be wholly unprepared for the opportunity that was handed them. Leader John Rustad was forced out by a caucus rebellion a year ago. Kerry-Lynne Findlay was named his successor in May, only to announce her own resignation on Sunday after a growing crowd of members fled the caucus in response to her leadership style. Clearly excited by the opportunity, Eby quickly made clear he saw the Tory troubles as a chance to drag the province through a gratuitous and costly campaign.

New Democrats argue they need a reinforced mandate to deal with the dangers of the Trump administration — even if it’s possible those dangers could be lessened by a Democratic success in the midterms. Waiting for those results before making any rash moves might have been the more responsible track to take, but could also lessen Eby’s hopes of strengthening his own hold on his job. He also needs the spectre of Trump to divert attention from his own record, which has been unimpressive to say the least.

A risky experiment in drug decriminalization proved both ineffective and widely unpopular, and was abandoned in January after months of complaints about crime and public drug use. The province’s once-solid financial record has eroded sharply under an explosion of borrowing and spending, rising inflation, tepid growth and rising unemployment. “The speed at which B.C.’s finances have deteriorated over the past five years is really quite extraordinary,” David Williams of the B.C. Business Council recently complained .

Relations with Indigenous groups are increasingly fraught, the vital forestry industry is in crisis from tariffs and wildfire seasons have become an annual emergency. “It’s pretty clear to me that British Columbians sent us, sent me, a strong message that we need to do better,” Eby confessed in the wake of the 2024 election. Instead he’s looking at another bid to shore up his limpid popularity, two years before the next election is due.

It never does to underestimate the cupidity of politicians when their job is on the line. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau sought to exploit the COVID pandemic in 2021 by sending the country to the polls just two years after winning a minority, only to be returned with a near-identical result and a further tarnishing of his personal standing. Ontario Premier Doug Ford was more successful when he tried a similar gambit last year, gaining a third majority by calling an early vote at a time the Liberals were on their third leader in six years and down to just nine seats in a 124-seat legislature.

Ford wasn’t as unpopular as Trudeau was then, and Eby is now. It’s no stretch to argue the only reason the NDP is still B.C.’s governing party is the absence of a credible opponent. For many years the province’s centre-right Liberal party represented a formidable force that tempered the dangers of an unbridled left-wing regime like Eby’s that feels free of the need to temper its worst instincts. Unfortunately the Liberals lost their will to live, the replacement B.C. United party slid to a quick demise and the unsteady Conservatives were left to fight on alone, poorly equipped as they were.

It’s possible that with time a revived opposition could emerge. There will certainly be public pressure to get its act in order. Eby hopes to avoid facing any resistance at public expense. His willingness to place his personal interest above those of the province is as powerful a reason as any to feel repelled by his plan.

National Post


New Democratic Party leader Avi Lewis speaks during a press conference at Foyer of House of Commons at West Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2026.

There are signs of life in the NDP. The party’s support has crept up on cat’s paws since the last election, reaching double digits in some national polls in recent weeks .

On Monday, the Liberals threw New Democrats another lifeline, in the form of Bill C-39, the government’s omnibus Building Canada Strong Act .

New(ish) NDP Leader Avi Lewis looked like a man recalled to life as he held a press conference on Parliament Hill on Tuesday, flanked by a number of Canadian union leaders. It was just like old times for the NDP, which was shut out of Ontario in the last election, losing seats in union-heavy towns such as Hamilton, Windsor and London.

Lewis has taken the party further left than many of its traditional supporters feel comfortable with, taking hardline positions against Zionism, fossil fuel development and free enterprise.

But on Bill C-39, he is on solid ground for progressives.

“I understand there’s a little Carney-mania going on in the world,” Lewis told reporters. “People are very enamoured of the prime minister internationally and here in Canada. (But) we’re trusting this man with massive changes that will accelerate projects at the cost of Indigenous rights, at the cost of the environment, and at the cost of protections for workers, including the fundamental right to strike.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney described C-39 as “the most consequential economic legislation” of this session.

It will give Canada “the tools it needs to build more, better and more efficiently,” said Transport Minister Steve MacKinnon.

It is split into three parts and amends at least 17 existing acts.

Part one concerns regulatory changes that “modernize, simplify and reduce duplication” in the approvals process, and “provide certainty to those deploying capital, while maintaining strong environmental protections.” The goal is to provide proposed projects with one impact assessment that takes one year.

Part two concerns integrating transportation routes and making airports, ports and railyards more efficient.

Part three is the most controversial and provides new rules around the right to strike. The government argues that it “raises the threshold” on its ability to end strikes using Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, the federal back-to-work legislation.

 Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives at the West Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Monday, Sept. 21, 2026.

In the most intractable disputes, the new bill directs the minister to appoint a special mediator, who is obliged to submit a public report to the minister if no agreement can be reached between the two sides. The minister can then direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to order binding arbitration, if the strike is deemed to be having an adverse national impact. The minister is the sole arbiter of what constitutes the “national interest.”

The Liberals have introduced these measures in the full knowledge that they will be controversial with progressives, including inside their own party.

The Conservatives have been silent on the substance of the bill thus far, in the full knowledge that many, perhaps most, of their supporters back measures to simplify the approvals process and reduce days lost to strikes.

Only the NDP is united — all five of their MPs.

The parliamentary caucus stood behind Lewis as he spoke about the bill and the associated measure of privatizing operations at Canada’s largest airports . At the Canada Investment Summit last week in Toronto, Carney said the government will pursue an Australia-style leased-operator model, under which Ottawa would retain ownership of the underlying land. While not included in C-39, there were provisions in the new legislation that flow from privatization, such as stronger protections for workers when contracts for services like de-icing are flipped between providers.

Lewis was also joined at his press conference by executives from the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), Unifor and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Lily Chang, the CLC’s secretary-treasurer, said privatization will result in higher fees or fewer services, pointing to the experience in Australia where Sydney airport cut 40 per cent of its workers after post-sale worker-protection statutes expired.

“Canada needs investment. But in the middle of a trade war, handing over profitable public infrastructure is exactly the wrong move,” she said. On the C-39 labour provisions, she said they will not create stability or labour peace. “They risk doing the exact opposite,” she said.

Lewis has spent the first six months of his leadership fighting the most debilitating political wasting syndrome: irrelevancy. Through no particular resourcefulness on his part, he is now the leader of the resistance.

“No one voted for (airport privatization). The government can’t even explain why we need to do it,” Lewis told reporters. “The realities of privatization are always the same: a handful of investors get rich, and workers and travellers pay the price.”

He offered the example of Highway 407 in Ontario, which was sold for $3 billion in 1999 and is now estimated to be worth $40 billion, after Ontario drivers have paid $28 billion in tolls.

“The NDP is here to say that you don’t make Canada stronger by attacking the workers who build it each and every day, and you don’t save Canada by selling it off piece by piece,” Lewis said.

As someone who has been arguing for years about the need to remove barriers that stop the private sector from investing in Canada, I am firmly with the government on this one. By one calculation , Canada was third behind only Belgium and France in terms of annual average work stoppages due to labour disputes.

Affluence is not guaranteed but stagnation need not be either.

Yet, Lewis is tapping into bubbling discontent among progressives. “The prime minister should explain why the climate guy from a few years ago has turned into Mr. Oil and Gas,” he said.

He pointed to the “massive expansion” in cabinet power inherent in C-39 that will allow ministers to suspend environmental and labour regulations, citing “the national interest,” which is not clearly defined anywhere.

“For people still willing to go along, this is a big gamble,” he said.

Employment Minister Patty Hajdu told reporters on Monday that the new rules provide “additional transparency.”

“The minister will have to show his or her work, clearly outlining why the need for arbitration or dispute mechanisms is necessary,” she said. “There are no changes that we are proposing that weaken the right to strike.”

But the honeyed words are at odds with the facts.

The prime minister has been clear that C-39 is, in part, designed to cut down on the number of disruptive labour disputes impacting ports, railways and airlines. Nearly five million union members across Canada may not appreciate that effort.

National Post

jivison@criffel.ca


B.C. Premier David Eby addresses the annual convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities in Vancouver on Friday, Sept. 18, 2026.

VANCOUVER — B.C. Premier David Eby called an unnecessary election on Tuesday afternoon, not even two years into his existing mandate. The premier already has a majority government and legislation dictates the next vote wasn’t to be held until October 2028.

Given the state of the province, an early election to put the current government back in power is the last thing British Columbia needs. Eby, however, could not resist the opportunity currently presented to him: the cover U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war provides and, more importantly, a fiercely divided Conservative party led by an interim leader.

Despite leading in the polls, the gamble may not pay off for Eby, as the threat of annihilation is focusing the minds of B.C. Conservatives, encouraging MLAs who left or were kicked out to return to caucus. Negotiations reportedly started Monday night to merge with the Centre B.C . party, which is now being led by Pete Milobar, one of the MLAs who left the Conservative caucus over the summer. It is possible that Eby’s naked opportunism will result in a stronger mandate, but it could very well toss him out of office two years ahead of schedule.

B.C. is in a sorry state following years of NDP mismanagement under Eby. B.C.’s projected deficit is now $13.8 billion, according to a fiscal update last week. That’s $500 million more than projected back in February. This projection comes on the heels of record deficits for the past three years: $5.9 billion in 2023, $7.3 billion in 2024 and $9.6 billion in 2025. Deficits over $10 billion are expected in the coming years, as well.

Eby’s fiscal profligacy after he inherited a budget surplus from John Horgan in 2022 is something generations of British Columbians will be left to deal with. The province is a financial and fiscal train wreck of epic proportions and that falls squarely on David Eby’s shoulders. Sadly, that’s not all British Columbians have been subjected to during his tenure.

Eby has also been at the helm for the province’s terrible roll-out of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which sought to align provincial laws with the United Nations declaration of the same name ( UNDRIP ). The UNDRIP principles are fundamentally at odds with British Columbian and Canadian law. For example, Article 26 states that, “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use.” That is to say, if an Indigenous group claims a territory, it owns it and all its resources.

This has caused incredible uncertainty around who actually owns what. Worse, following the notorious Interpretation Act that the NDP passed, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled UNDRIP was positive law in Canada. That is to say that all the principles of UNDRIP are now law in British Columbia, and apply to previous as well as future laws, with all the consequences that flow from that.

Eby’s NDP also decided decriminalizing hard drugs was sound public policy when it requested an exemption under federal law to effectively legalize possession. The results were a disaster from the get go. While the NDP did finally walk back the policy after public outrage, the results were clear for anyone to see. More open drug use in the streets became a common Vancouver sight and led to serious public safety concerns. Worse, the policy had no effect on opioid deaths and resulted in increased hospitalizations on top of dystopian downtown street scenes.

Such fiscal mismanagement and ideologically driven decision making has seriously harmed the province. GDP per capita is now in the bottom of North American jurisdictions, behind Louisiana and only marginally ahead of Alabama. B.C. residents have noticed and some have become so fed up, they’ve left. In 2025, for the first time in its 151-year history, B.C. experienced a decline in population . High rents, expensive housing, slow economic growth and little prospect of things getting better all added up to 41,000 people deciding they had no future in the province. That’s as damning an indictment of a government as you’re likely to find.

So put that all together. B.C.’s economy is sluggish, public safety has deteriorated and there is uncertainty surrounding who actually owns the land and resources. Add to that the fact that the province is drowning in red ink with no real plan to fix the fiscal mess it is in. That is not the resume of a government that would normally want to go to the polls early. And yet, here goes David Eby dropping the writ on British Columbia.

For this, the B.C. Conservatives and their former leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay must take a share of the blame. Findlay resigned on Sunday after her controversial tenure at the helm became untenable. The party’s infighting and poor leadership is a massive gift to the NDP. When Findlay took over the party, the B.C. Conservatives had 38 MLAs, by the time she resigned the caucus had dropped down to 25 .

Thirteen MLAs left, or were kicked out (some of whom have now returned) and more reportedly had been considering leaving before Findlay finally quit. The Vancouver Sun reported Tuesday that the party’s board was dismayed over a “fall in party memberships and the drying up of party fundraising, while business leaders were withholding donations.” In Findlay’s wake there has been left a trail of destruction, which will be difficult to rebuild.

That said, if a merger between Centre B.C. and the Conservatives can indeed be accomplished quickly, Eby may not get the cakewalk of a campaign he is counting on. Under normal circumstances, the NDP would be facing certain defeat. However, the premier has opportunistically pounced on the current chaos on the B.C. centre-right, which might offer him a path to saving his own skin at the expense of the province. It remains to be seen if voters will go along with his plan.

National Post

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


Royal Canadian Air Force CC-330 Husky taxies on the apron at YOW Ottawa International Airport, in Ottawa, on Monday, May 26, 2025.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has spent the last year and a half asking Canadians to embrace his “Canada Strong” agenda. We’ve all heard the slogans: Build more. Invest more. Approve projects faster. But while much of his plans depend on state action, they also require attracting private capital — and in some cases, trading on the value of public assets currently sitting on the government’s books.

Now Canadians are about to discover what that means for their local airport. Last week, Carney announced that Ottawa will seek private investment through long-term concessions to operate Canada’s four largest airports: Toronto Pearson, Montreal-Trudeau, Vancouver and Calgary. The government would retain ownership of the underlying land and assets, while private operators would obtain the operation rights.

The economic case for doing this is an immediate infusion of up to $40 billion into federal government coffers, which will help offset Canada’s ballooning deficits. That compares to the $8.4 billion in rents Ottawa has collected from its airports since establishing the non-profit corporations that run them close to 30 years ago, including $556 million in 2025.

Privatization could also provide the estimated $28 billion in capital needed to upgrade airport infrastructure over the next decade. Carney has also suggested that proceeds from concessions at the big four airports could support investment in smaller regional airports.

But politically, Carney is taking a considerable risk. Airports are not a mine in the backwoods of northern Ontario. They’re one of the government’s most highly visible assets: five million passengers transit through our eight largest airports every month. If privatization gets your luggage on the carousel faster, passengers will notice. If it produces higher fees, more expensive parking and little discernible improvement, they’ll notice that too.

And there will probably be a mix of both. Unlike not-for-profit operators, private operators will need to deliver shareholder value — and that means maximizing profits wherever possible. That could mean everything from using non-union labour to higher fees for a variety of services. If you’re already irked by extra baggage fees charged by airlines, just wait until you get hit with a $19 charge to drop off a passenger, like at London Gatwick Airport in the U.K.

There are indications the political ground may have shifted. A recent poll by Spark Insights found that three in four Canadians believe that airport infrastructure “would be operated more efficiently if done by a pension fund or other investor that has experience operating infrastructure.”

The notion of the Canada Pension Plan purchasing the lease may comfort Canadians who would see themselves as the beneficiaries of the investment as well. But there’s no guarantee the CPP would buy the concession if a higher bidder came along. And that could raise alarm bells for anyone who remembers the last time a major concession was sold for public infrastructure in this country: Ontario’s Highway 407.

In 1999, the Ontario government leased Highway 407 for the next 99 years for $3.1 billion to a Spanish consortium. Twenty years later, SNC-Lavalin sold its 10 per cent stake for roughly the same amount — which meant the value of the concession had mushroomed to $30 billion. The company running the 407 at the time reported annual revenues of $1.4 billion — making it a serious cash cow that gave zero milk to taxpayers.

Australia also provides a cautionary tale when it comes to airport concession privatization. Between the late 1990s and 2016, Australia’s airports monitor reported that private operators raised fees to airlines by $1.6 billion, based on the same passenger volumes. While passengers reportedly enjoyed nicer terminals and services, they also saw those fees passed along to them.

And then there’s the labour vote. If unions get the boot for lucrative airport jobs, expect them, and the NDP, to howl. With the left already calling Carney a corporate sell-out, this would just add fuel to their fire — and make Canada’s skies far less friendly for both travellers and Liberals alike.

National Post