The Canadian Press’s Dayne Patterson reports Wednesday morning that Alberta’s floundering opposition leader, Naheed Nenshi, is demanding that Alberta’s consultative October referendum on separation be postponed … because of the developing U.S.-Canada trade war. If you’re busy today, just picture me laughing and saying “Whaaa?” for a few seconds and then move on in good conscience. NDP Leader Nenshi never wanted to have a referendum in the first place, so one supposes any excuse for such a demand will do; maybe next week he’ll want the vote called off because of a comet or other celestial portent.

I wasn’t keen on a nebulous separation referendum myself, but it seems to me the thing to do in the face of an electoral test is to go cast a ballot, advocate for a position, try your best to have your side win, etc., etc. All that good democracy stuff, which I do understand to not be the historical strong suit of the Alberta New Democrats.

It seems to me that from a purely strategic standpoint, the trade war is a giant expensive gift to the federalist side of the referendum, which shouldn’t have any trouble winning no matter what happens. The separatist cause in Alberta is fragmented, and contains some radical libertarians who would genuinely like an independent (but landlocked) microstate managed on Javier Milei principles; others are pure scoundrels who pretty obviously see the separation fantasy as a first step toward political union with the culturally superior States.

Whichever future you might imagine in contemplating secession, it involves giving the U.S. greater weight and negotiating power in Albertan affairs — and the more conservative or classical-liberal you are, the uglier the spectacle of the trade war really is. One of my political axioms is that trade is a substitute for war, and that maximizing trade serves practically as a substitute for it. The United States’ scores on quasi-objective indices of economic and political freedom are spiralling , and its Constitution is being subjected to naked violence.

And our instinctive feelings of kinship with the American people are suffering new injuries every day. Most Americans are perhaps confused or even annoyed to find that the president they have elected twice regards Canada as an illegitimate, conniving rogue state, but we are learning the hard truth that this attitude doesn’t truly traumatize or upset them. The median U.S. voter half-agrees with Trump, or is willing to dismiss his territorial belligerence as ironic, cheeky posturing. No doubt one day the Stars and Stripes really will fly everywhere under heaven, and beyond. Trump’s not really wrong, you see, just impolitely early.

In time, Canada and the U.S. may become the friendly continental yokemates they once were; and at that very time there might be a serious danger in the existence of an Alberta “separatist” movement full of republican closet cases. For now, separatists seem to me to be facing maximum headwinds. Hypothetical concerns about foreign “interference” with a referendum are in a state of near-mania. The biggest star in the separatist movement is facing extremely vexing legal troubles . The Albertan Liberal prime minister’s approval ratings appear to net out to about zero in Alberta these days, which is a remarkable, even historic phenomenon.

And, sure, there’s always the conspiracy theory that Ottawa will blast Alberta with export taxes on oil as soon as the separation vote is past , but it’s not 1980 anymore: Saskatchewan’s oil and gas production has flourished, making our neighbour more of a fellow hostage, and Newfoundland’s economy is now just as oil-dependent as Alberta’s, so it’s politically not as easy to single Alberta out to suffer the blows in the front rank of a trade war.

National Post

The Canadian Press’s Dayne Patterson reports Wednesday morning that Alberta’s floundering opposition leader, Naheed Nenshi, is demanding that Alberta’s consultative October referendum on separation be postponed … because of the developing U.S.-Canada trade war. If you’re busy today, just picture me laughing and saying “Whaaa?” for a few seconds and then move on in good conscience. NDP Leader Nenshi never wanted to have a referendum in the first place, so one supposes any excuse for such a demand will do; maybe next week he’ll want the vote called off because of a comet or other celestial portent.

I wasn’t keen on a nebulous separation referendum myself, but it seems to me the thing to do in the face of an electoral test is to go cast a ballot, advocate for a position, try your best to have your side win, etc., etc. All that good democracy stuff, which I do understand to not be the historical strong suit of the Alberta New Democrats.

It seems to me that from a purely strategic standpoint, the trade war is a giant expensive gift to the federalist side of the referendum, which shouldn’t have any trouble winning no matter what happens. The separatist cause in Alberta is fragmented, and contains some radical libertarians who would genuinely like an independent (but landlocked) microstate managed on Javier Milei principles; others are pure scoundrels who pretty obviously see the separation fantasy as a first step toward political union with the culturally superior States.

Whichever future you might imagine in contemplating secession, it involves giving the U.S. greater weight and negotiating power in Albertan affairs — and the more conservative or classical-liberal you are, the uglier the spectacle of the trade war really is. One of my political axioms is that trade is a substitute for war, and that maximizing trade serves practically as a substitute for it. The United States’ scores on quasi-objective indices of economic and political freedom are spiralling , and its Constitution is being subjected to naked violence.

And our instinctive feelings of kinship with the American people are suffering new injuries every day. Most Americans are perhaps confused or even annoyed to find that the president they have elected twice regards Canada as an illegitimate, conniving rogue state, but we are learning the hard truth that this attitude doesn’t truly traumatize or upset them. The median U.S. voter half-agrees with Trump, or is willing to dismiss his territorial belligerence as ironic, cheeky posturing. No doubt one day the Stars and Stripes really will fly everywhere under heaven, and beyond. Trump’s not really wrong, you see, just impolitely early.

In time, Canada and the U.S. may become the friendly continental yokemates they once were; and at that very time there might be a serious danger in the existence of an Alberta “separatist” movement full of republican closet cases. For now, separatists seem to me to be facing maximum headwinds. Hypothetical concerns about foreign “interference” with a referendum are in a state of near-mania. The biggest star in the separatist movement is facing extremely vexing legal troubles . The Albertan Liberal prime minister’s approval ratings appear to net out to about zero in Alberta these days, which is a remarkable, even historic phenomenon.

And, sure, there’s always the conspiracy theory that Ottawa will blast Alberta with export taxes on oil as soon as the separation vote is past , but it’s not 1980 anymore: Saskatchewan’s oil and gas production has flourished, making our neighbour more of a fellow hostage, and Newfoundland’s economy is now just as oil-dependent as Alberta’s, so it’s politically not as easy to single Alberta out to suffer the blows in the front rank of a trade war.

National Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Post