Video

of Elias Rodriguez

— the suspect

charged

in the

shooting deaths

of two Israeli Embassy employees outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday — bears striking resemblance to scenes that have been witnessed at anti-Israel protests on Canadian streets and university campuses in recent years. The senseless murder of a young couple solely because they were Israeli and taking part in an event at a Jewish museum is the logical conclusion of calls to Globalize the Intifada.

Although Rodriguez was clean cut and not trying to hide his identity, he was seen waving a keffiyeh and began the now familiar chant of “free, free Palestine” as he was being led away by police. A

manifesto

posted online after the shooting, purportedly written by Rodriguez, reiterates many of the usual talking points against Israel, but laments that, “Thus far the rhetoric has not amounted to much.” Rodriguez then attempts to justify “the morality of armed demonstration,” and claims others will understand that what he did was “the only sane thing to do.” The

social media post

was accompanied by a call to “Escalate For Gaza” and “Bring The War Home.”

Notably, Rodriguez does not appear to be a radicalized Muslim or a recent immigrant from a Middle Eastern country with high rates of antisemitism. He more closely resembles your run-of-the-mill social justice warrior: the

type of person

who worked as an “oral history researcher” on African-American communities at an educational non-profit;

attended

Black Lives Matter protests and other anti-capitalist demonstrations; gave an interview to a socialist magazine lamenting how Amazon was responsible for the “whitening of Seattle”; and had past ties with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, an

anti-Israel communist group

.

According to his manifesto, Rodriguez wasn’t even aware of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until 2014. In the same fashion as the kids who were radicalized in mosques after 9/11 and went on to fight with the Taliban and ISIS, Rodriguez appears to have transformed from a fairly typical American lefty into a cold-blooded killer in just over a decade. In too many cases, the progressives have become indistinguishable from the Islamists.

While we don’t know how Rodriguez — who has a BA in English from the University of Illinois Chicago — was radicalized, those who have been paying attention to the antisemitism and anti-Israel bias that has come to dominate universities, the media and left-wing narratives should not be surprised that it eventually led to blood being spilled in the streets of a western capital.

At the

encampment

set up at the University of Toronto last spring, for example, signs reading Revolution Until Victory, Glory to All Martyrs, This is the Intfada (sic) and Globalize Resistance were commonplace. Based on the

clueless statements

made by some students during last year’s encampment craze, it’s clear that at least some of them did not fully appreciate the meaning of these phrases, or the history of the Middle East conflict. Those people now need to take a hard look in the mirror, because the deaths of Sarah Milgrim, 26, and Yaron Lischinsky, 30, is the fruit of their labour.

The two were,

by all accounts

, a promising young couple with their whole lives ahead of them. Lischinsky, a Christian born in Germany, and Milgrim, an American-born Jew, had been trying to make a career of promoting peace and intercultural understanding, and both shared a deep love for the State of Israel. Lischinsky was reportedly planning on proposing to Milgrim in Jerusalem next week. But before that, they attended an interfaith dialogue at the Jewish museum in Washington, where at least part of the discussion centred around efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza.

None of this mattered to their killer. Whether the young couple were targeted because they worked for the Israeli Embassy, had ties to Israel or were simply attending an event at a Jewish museum is not known. But it is also beside the point. Washington is not a war zone. These people were murdered simply because of their perceived nationality or religion. There was a time when western liberals would have condemned senseless violence such as this as antithetical to everything people in countries like the U.S. and Canada hold dear. Unfortunately, that time has long since passed.

Rodriguez has gained a growing following of

online apostles

, who have taken to social media to cheer on his heinous crimes and spread antisemitic conspiracy theories. While they remain a fringe minority, the ideology that gave license to this senseless violence unfortunately does not. This is what a globalized intifada looks like: young love cut tragically short, the blood of innocents flowing through western streets, mothers and fathers who will have to carry the pain of losing their children around with them for the rest of their lives.

The sad truth is that unless our political leaders, school administrators and media elite get serious about pushing anti-western and antisemitic ideologies to the fringes of society, where they belong, Lischinsky and Milgrim likely won’t be the last individuals to die meaningless deaths. Prime Minister Mark Carney has

condemned their murders

“in the strongest terms,” but will he take any action to ensure something similar doesn’t happen here at home?

• Arsen Ostrovsky: This is what ‘globalize the intifada’ looks like
• Alan Kessel: Carney hands Hamas the propaganda victory it was hoping for

We surveyed Canadians on the top three fixes for the country’s ailing economy. Respondents unanimously agreed: pipelines, pipelines, and pipelines. Okay, we didn’t
actually
run a survey, but any sensible Canadian knows what the real answer to our economic woes is — even those who carry a carbon footprint like an albatross around their neck.
And even, it now appears, Quebecers
. 
 

We are tired of being broke, and at (trade) war with the vastly superior economy of the U.S. We want to unleash our oil and gas potential.
 

Does our new Liberal government feel the same? That’s a clear “no” from Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture Steven Guilbeault, who
insisted this month
that peak oil is imminent and that Canada is hardly using our existing infrastructure — two false claims. (Perhaps to be expected from the
ex-Greenpeace activist turned politician
.)
 

And then there is Industry Minister Mélanie Joly, who has her own zany idea: to attract the flotsam of America’s crumbling, postmodern academic institutions in an attempt to drive Canadian economic growth.
 

Yes, calling all intersectional-colonialist-gender-justice scholars: Canada’s economy, as per Joly, could really use your help right now. 
 

During an
interview with CBC’s Rosemary Barton this week
, Joly downplayed the importance of our energy sector (or its potential), listing it off alongside other sectors including artificial intelligence and digital technology — and then said that she has other ideas for growth.
 

“Meanwhile I think that we can drive the economy through different sectors,” said Joly. By poaching America’s disgraced Ivy League academics. “Because I’m in charge of research, and what we’re seeing with President Trump going after Harvard, and other universities, we can attract the best and the brightest here in Canada. And that will be my goal,” she said.
 

What Joly is proposing is none other than the net zero version of brain drain. No brain power will be crossing north of the 49
th
parallel under Joly’s scheme. The atrocious state of academia in America, including at Ivy League schools such as Harvard, beggars belief. And when Joly talks about Trump’s “attacks” on academia, she makes it clear that any of the “best” or “brightest” she is referring to will be the refugee zealots of the U.S.’s failing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) racket.
 

In 2024, we saw former Harvard president Claudine Gay
resign from her post
in a haze of
plagiarism and antisemitism-related moral relativism
. President Trump has since
frozen billions
of dollars of federal funding for the school. His administration has made
policy demands
, including an end to DEI programs and race-based admissions, and ensuring adequate viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions. 
 

“The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are antithetical to ideological capture,”
reads the demand letter from the Trump adminnistration
. It goes on to say that Harvard has failed, morally and academically. 
 

Precisely what it is that makes Minister Joly look at the Harvard situation and see flashing Canadian dollar signs, rather than a dumpster engulfed in a kerosene blaze, is troubling.  
 

It suggests that Joly, despite now working for Prime Minister Carney, is still living in Justin Trudeau’s 2015 “
diversity is our strength
” Liberal era — that time before we wised up to Trudeau’s thought-terminating slogans.
 

Another consideration: that Joly does not keep up to date on American Ivy League achievements. If she did, she might have
seen the recently-published paper
from the heretofore prestigious Yale University, entitled “Transfeminist pregnancy: reproductive speculation, genre, and desire.” 
 

Joly certainly — we can hope — missed this scholastic bombshell, in which the scholar, Carlo Sariego, asserts: “I argue that pregnancy is not to be defined by biological phenomena but instead as a genre of political, aesthetic, and affective experience and expectation … involving birth and becoming in a larger sense.”
 

Or maybe Joly didn’t miss it at all. Maybe Joly has instead been praying for some beleaguered Ivy League asylum seeker to beg her for the research funds to uncover polar bear genders in the Canadian arctic. And maybe she is desperate to award those funds. (Here’s a million bucks, one dollar per bear gender tendered!) Who are we to second guess her plans? 
 

It’s for the economy, stupid.
 

National Post

• Terry Newman: Where’s the ‘crisis,’ Carney?
• Geoff Russ: Canada’s populist movement will have its day

It was not that long ago, merely March, when Prime Minister Mark Carney, fresh off his Liberal party leadership win, began

telling

Canadians that his party needed a “strong mandate” because they were “facing the most significant crisis of our lifetimes because of President Donald Trump’s unjustified trade actions and his threats to our sovereignty.” He insisted a snap election was essential, as was electing him, the self-proclaimed “crisis manager,” to address it.

The election is over now. Where’s the “crisis,” Carney?

In late March, pollster Nik Nanos

found

that Canadians’ top concern was “the potential negative fallout of Donald Trump and the threatened tariffs.” That concern quickly shifted. By mid-April, 34.3 per cent of those

polled

ranked Trump and U.S. relations as the biggest issue. A month later, by mid-May, that number plummeted to 19.3 per cent, with jobs and the economy taking precedence.

So, what happened?

Did Carney give Trump the old “elbow’s up” so hard he submitted? Did he pull Trump’s blazer over his head, as if in a Molson’s “I am Canadian Hockey Fight”

commercial

? Did the two face off in an

Epic Rap Battle

, an eagle over Trump’s shoulder and a beaver on Carney’s back, with Carney emerging victoriously after some sick disses?

Hardly. Closer to the opposite, actually.

Six days into the campaign, on March 28, Carney gave

Trump

a heads up in a phone call that he’d be talking about him during the campaign. In that same call, Carney flattered Trump, calling him “

transformative president

.” The PMO’s

press statement

, of course, did not mention these details. There were four more weeks until election day, after all.

Sounds like any “crisis” ended there.

Why else would Carney feel comfortable enough to share his campaign strategy with Trump? That’s not the kind of card one shows their professed political enemy. It’s something a politician would reveal only to someone they trust, as it could easily backfire.

Carney made Canadians the butt of an inside joke between himself and an American president. Imagine how powerful that would have made Trump feel.

After this cordial chat, Carney kept piling on the crisis rhetoric. At a mid-April Hamilton campaign event, Carney

warned

that Trump’s “strategy is to break us so America can own us.” This was reportedly met with boos, assumedly directed at the U.S. president.

Carney also suggested there was going to be a historic change in Canada’s relationship with the U.S., often repeating the claim that the “old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military co-operations is over.”

Much of Carney’s “our old relationship is over” rhetoric appeared to be based upon the idea that Trump was serious about making Canada the 51st state.

“As I’ve been warning for months, America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country. These are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so America can own us. That will never … ever happen,” he

said

at his election victory speech.

But signs of exaggeration were clear as early as February, during the

Canada-U.S. Economic Summit

, signs that Canadians should not have bought into any of this. According to the CEO of the Canadian American Business Council, Beth Burke, Trump’s comments

were

something that “most Americans don’t take seriously.”

Burke told reporters at the summit: “I would say (Americans) don’t believe, generally, that that’s actually something that’s real, or in a real agenda. Instead, I think our perception is more that it is one from a position of negotiation and posturing and using it as leveraging in the conversation.”

This threat — which helped galvanize Liberal support — evaporated post-election. And when Canada becoming the 51st was asked about by a reporter when Carney visited the White House on May 6, Trump responded, “I do feel it’s much better for Canada. But we’re not going to be discussing that. Unless somebody wants to discuss it.”

This suggests the annexation threat may have never been more serious than the “Oh, Canada,”

meme

which helped spread it in early December. In the meme, Trump stands on the alps, in full business suit attire, next to a Canadian flag, gazing over at Matterhorn, which is in Switzerland, not Canada.

Either way, the post-election meeting between Carney and Trump did not go as the Liberals’ “elbow’s up” campaign rhetoric suggested.

The warm feelings between the two were palpable. Trump opened by congratulating Carney, complimenting him on how he ran his race, which we know they discussed prior in that phone call.

When asked by a reporter whether he’d like to see his first trade deal be with Canada, Trump

replied

, “I would. I would love that. I have a lot of respect for this man… He ran a really great election, I thought.” Trump doesn’t usually gush over people who attack him. He tends to take negative comments quite personally.

Carney thanked Trump for his hospitality and his leadership, calling him a “transformational president,” saying he wanted to transform Canada much the same. I guess that’s why he’s been photographed signing all those fake American-style executive orders.

By the end of the meeting, Trump tried to reassure confused reporters that, “Regardless of anything, we’re going to be friends with Canada.”

Weighing in on the Oval Office meeting, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, too, confirmed that Canada-U.S. relations were firm,

telling

National Post’s Stephanie Taylor that the last 90 days were “behind us.”

When asked whether Carney and Trump’s meeting was a restart for Canada-U.S. relations, Hoekstra’s face suggested that even the premise of the question was absurd.

“A restart or a reset? No way! … We are great friends. We have been great friends for such a long period of time. You’re not going to change those personal relationships. You’re not going to change those economic relationships, national security… The relationship, from my perspective, and, I think, the president’s perspective, was never in jeopardy.” Well, then.

There were other signs things had improved well before election day. Retaliatory tariffs Carney threatened to wage against Trump went elbows went down as early as April 16, when his government — mid-election campaign — had decided, according to Bloomberg News, citing an Oxford Economics report, “

suspend almost all of its retaliatory tariffs

” dropping them to “

nearly zero.

”

As for Canada’s military and security relationship with the U.S., it appears the period of deepening integration is not, in fact, over. It’s been reported that Trump

said

Canada wants in on Trump’s

Golden Dome

— a missile defence shield that can identify and intercept incoming projectile threats and destroy them mid-flight — with Carney’s office confirming that discussions are ongoing.

Asked Wednesday by Global reporter MacKenzie Gray about this apparent about-face on deepening security relations with the U.S., Carney

responded

with gibberish,”We are in a position now where we cooperate when necessary, but not necessarily cooperate.”

Now, we could chalk all of these crisis flip-flops up to Carney’s superior negotiating skills in going to bat for Canadians, except for that little problem of that early campaign friendly phone call between himself and Trump.

In late March, Carney told reporters “I’ve managed crises before. This is the time for experience, not experiments.”

He’s managed something, alright — a masterclass in political theatre.

tnewman@postmedia.com

X:

@TLNewmanMTL

• Jamie Sarkonak: Looks like the courts aren’t actually systemically racist
• Jesse Kline: Following ‘most consequential election,’ Carney takes extended summer vacation

Canadians don’t believe in terrorism. They believe in peace and democracy. That’s why this week’s news should alarm every Canadian: Hamas, a designated terrorist organization responsible for the brutal murders and rapes of over 1,200 innocent people on October 7 — including the deaths of eight Canadians — publicly praised a joint

statement

issued by the UK, France, and Canada. That statement demanded that Israel cease its military operations—or face “concrete actions.”

Let’s be honest: if Hamas is thanking you, you’re on the wrong side of history.

And this isn’t the first time. This marks the second instance where Hamas has openly praised Canada’s stance. When a terrorist organization applauds your foreign policy — not once, but twice — that should trigger a serious moral reckoning.

Even more troubling, after it was revealed that several UNRWA staff were complicit in the October 7 massacre, Canada didn’t cut back funding to the agency. The government

increased

it. What does that say about our moral compass? Are we so determined to appear “neutral” that we’re willing to reward those tied to terror?

This is not a matter of foreign policy nuance. This is a question of moral clarity. Hamas — an organization committed to Israel’s destruction — welcomed the joint Western statement describing it as a “an important step” in the right direction. Why? Because it lets them off the hook. Why release the hostages or stop fighting if even the West is behind us?

The Canadian and friends statement contained no demand for Hamas to disarm and to stop firing rockets. There was no appeal to Qatar or other regional powers to pressure Hamas to lay down its arms — instead, the statement expressed

support

for their efforts.

The blame — once again — was placed squarely on Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. That double standard is antisemitism, plain and simple.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney amplified this misguided posture with sharp rhetoric, and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand

added fuel to the fire

by falsely accusing Israel of weaponizing food, citing unverified and inflated casualty statistics — without once acknowledging Hamas’s role in provoking and perpetuating this war.

Let’s remember: this war began with the slaughter of innocent civilians by Hamas. Israel has a right — and an obligation — to defend itself.

And yet, our government, instead of standing with the victims, appears to be echoing the demands of their killers.

By giving voice to terrorists, our leaders risk legitimizing terrorism — and endangering Jewish lives. We are already seeing the consequences. Just this week in Washington, two young Israeli embassy employees were

shot dead

by a gunman who shouted “free, free Palestine,” as he was arrested. When government leaders fail to recognize the weight of their words, these kinds of attacks become more frequent, more brazen, and more deadly.

Of course we support humanitarian aid for civilians in Gaza. But that aid must not be hijacked by Hamas to further entrench its terror network. Our worry is that Canada, in its rush to want a global voice, may take reckless steps that damage its relationship with Israel and inflame antisemitism here at home.

Jewish students are being spat on at universities. Families are harassed while walking to synagogue. Hate crimes are rising. Rather than protecting Canadians, our leaders are giving oxygen to narratives that incite hate and violence.

Everyone wants peace. Everyone wants an end to the suffering. But peace begins with Hamas laying down its weapons, releasing hostages, and surrendering control of Gaza. Until that happens, punishing Israel is not only unjust — it is dangerous.

We call on our government to recalibrate its course. To defend truth. To stand with democratic allies. To reject terrorism, in all its forms.

Canada must remember who we are—and what we stand for.

Avi Abraham Benlolo is the Chairman and CEO of The Abraham Global Peace Initiative, a Canadian think-tank.

On Monday, the governments of Canada, France and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement condemning Israel’s military operations in Gaza, threatening punitive measures against the Jewish state and calling for an immediate ceasefire and increased humanitarian aid. They offered a brief mention of the hostages still held in Hamas tunnels, but directed the bulk of their ire at the victim of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history.

As a result, Hamas issued a public statement thanking Canada, France and the U.K. This was the second time since October 7 that Hamas has publicly thanked Canada. That fact alone should set off alarm bells in Ottawa. If a terrorist organization responsible for the slaughter, rape and kidnapping of innocent men, women, children and Holocaust survivors is commending your foreign policy, you’re not advancing peace — you’re legitimizing terror.

Worse, Canada has never issued an equivalent statement directed at Hamas. Not once has the Government of Canada said: “If you do not release the hostages and lay down your arms, we will do the following …” There have been no credible threats, no meaningful consequences and no red lines. Instead, Canada’s condemnation and pressure has been reserved for Israel.

Hamas launched its October 7 massacre not in pursuit of peace or Palestinian statehood, but to destroy the possibility of either. Its goal was to shatter the growing diplomatic progress between Israel and key Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, and trigger a war that would cement its grip on Gaza while drawing international pressure against Israel. The recent statement from London, Paris and Ottawa plays straight into that strategy.

Yes, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire. But placing the blame squarely on Israel while ignoring Hamas’s deliberate embedding of military infrastructure in hospitals, schools and apartment buildings is not just a moral failure, it’s geopolitical malpractice.

Demanding that Israel halt its military operations without any credible plan to dismantle Hamas is tantamount to demanding that a mass-murdering terror group be left intact, free to rearm and repeat the events of October 7. No state on earth would accept this. After 9/11, the United States was not asked to co-exist with al-Qaida or accommodate the Taliban. It acted — with the full support of these very same allies.

The October 7 attacks were not only a humanitarian catastrophe but a strategic assault on the very idea of peace in the Middle East. Yet instead of supporting the dismantling of Hamas, the joint statement threatens the one state that’s willing to confront it. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Even the statement’s nod toward a two-state solution is hollow. A two-state solution cannot be built on terror, corruption and incitement. It requires the emergence of a credible Palestinian leadership — one that comes to the table with clean hands, rejects Hamas’s ideology and commits to peaceful coexistence with Israel. The Palestinian Authority must prove itself ready for that responsibility, and the international community must insist on it.

What the joint statement should have said is, “We condemn Hamas’s October 7 massacre in the strongest terms and reaffirm Israel’s right to defend its population from further attacks. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Their continued captivity is a gross violation of international law and an affront to human dignity.

“We recognize the suffering of civilians in Gaza and urge Israel to continue expanding humanitarian access in co-ordination with the United Nations and other trusted partners. At the same time, we condemn Hamas for using civilians as human shields and for placing its military infrastructure beneath civilian sites.

“We are united in our view that Hamas cannot remain in control of Gaza. Just as the international community acted decisively after 9/11 to defeat al-Qaida, we support efforts to dismantle Hamas as a political and military force.

“We call on the Palestinian Authority to demonstrate leadership through governance reform, the rejection of violence and a clear commitment to a negotiated two-state solution. We reaffirm our support for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state — secured through negotiation, not terrorism — living side-by-side with Israel in peace.”

That is what moral clarity looks like. That is what a responsible statement would have done: supported Israel’s right to dismantle the terror infrastructure threatening its people, demanded the release of the hostages and laid out a credible path for a post-Hamas peace.

Instead, by echoing Hamas’s own narrative and drawing a false equivalence between a sovereign democracy and a terror regime, the leaders of Canada, France and Britain have done lasting harm to the cause of peace — and handed Hamas the propaganda victory it was hoping for.

National Post

Alan Kessel is a former legal adviser to the Government of Canada and deputy high commissioner of Canada to the United Kingdom. He is also a senior fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute.

• Michael Higgins: On Israel, Liberals keep making bad moral decisions
• Tasha Kheiriddin: Carney Liberals give Hamas a pass

Here’s a riddle to test the depth of your Canadianness, even if you think you’re already pretty Canadian.

The CBC and Canada Post are both fixtures dating to the early days of Canada’s consciousness. Both have long been tasked with serving a scattered population across a large country that for many decades had little alternative to the important services they provided. Both face new and unique pressures from the inevitable forces of change and progress. Neither can support itself on its own. But while the CBC is treated as a national treasure that must be protected from private-sector competitors whatever the cost, the post office is viewed as an aging anachronism, out of touch with the times, resistant to change, focused on protecting its privileges and paycheques. It must change or be left to wither.

Explain the difference.

If you have an answer, you might want to send it to the leaders of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), which must be wondering why its 55,000 members get such a bad rep while the CBC’s 6,800 employees and army of bureaucrats are pampered and petted like a

pack

of corgis at

Windsor

Castle.

Canada’s posties are currently

engaged

in a bitter labour

dispute

, their second in

less

than a year. They previously went on strike just before Christmas, staying out for 32 days in a confrontation that was never really resolved. The basis of this disagreement is the same as the last: how to keep alive a business that remains essential but unsustainable under the old rules, with a workforce wary of seeing hard-won rights eroded or eliminated.

There’s no serious argument about the financial situation. Canada Post loses

money

every year, about $500 million on average over recent years, reaching $748 million in 2023. It can’t survive by simply delivering the mail, but sees potential in expanding its parcel delivery services. To compete with myriad other delivery operations — including one, as it happens, owned by the proprietors of this publication — it must do at least as good a job as they do. That means working weekends and charging reasonable rates. Posties don’t normally work weekends, get extra pay

when

they do, and aren’t keen on management’s plan to hire a supply of part-timers.

Still, while sticking letters and flyers in mail boxes may not be a glamorous business, it remains a necessary one. Especially in parts of the country outside urban centres that aren’t as accustomed to having their food, their information and their bills brought to their doors, if not their desktops, without ever having to leave the room. A generation ago mail delivery was so critical a walkout could bring the economy to its knees in a matter of days. That time may have passed, but if we didn’t still need postal service there wouldn’t be such a stink any time it stops.

To alleviate its woes, Canada Post

got

a billion-dollar loan from Ottawa in January. That’s less than the CBC, with a fraction the workforce, is accorded every year, with no requirement it repay the money. The broadcaster’s

federal

funding totalled $1.38 billion in 2024-25 amid endless moaning about how badly it’s treated. Without a bigger subsidy, it wailed, people would have to be let go, services would be reduced, fewer productions could be commissioned, viewers might be denied their favourite programs. Fortunately, along came Mark Carney, before he was even elected,

pledging

to kick in an extra $150 million a year, with additional increases to come, perhaps adding as much as $1 billion a year to its budget.

The CBC is used to special treatment. In 2021 the Trudeau government pledged an extra $400 million over four years to make it “less reliant on private advertising,” yet the ads are still there, siphoning off revenue from other Canadian-owned and operated broadcasters employing Canadian talent, many with better viewership numbers. When BCE Inc. cut thousands of

jobs

a year ago, its CTV network took a substantial hit in people and programming. When CBC

warned

it might face similar cuts, Ottawa

gave

it a $42-million top-up.

The CBC’s one clear distinction is its claim to relative freedom from the taint of foreign (meaning U.S.) impingement. Canadian viewers determined to avoid cultural contamination can safely watch Canadian programming featuring Canadian faces in Canadian locales. The perceived need for protection from contamination has only increased under the new U.S. administration, a point Carney emphasized in declaring “a new Liberal government will never cower to President Trump’s attacks on Canada.”

“Protecting Canada’s identity is part of securing Canada,” he said in announcing the CBC funding boost. “With this plan, we will protect a reliable Canadian public forum in a sea of misinformation, so we can tell our own stories in our own languages.” Nevermind that the first thing CBC executives did when Carney was safely in office was to award themselves a big pay hike, saving themselves from the embarrassment that came with

annual

“bonuses” that totalled $18.4 million in 2024.

Canada Post, like the CBC, has plenty of competitors offering very similar services, but without the government life support. It lacks the pizzazz of news and entertainment networks. The CBC has a history packed with famous names and faces. Randy Bachman had a radio show. Don Cherry was a Saturday night must. Barbara Frum, Peter Gzowski, Anne Murray, Foster Hewitt, Rick Mercer, Lloyd Robertson … you have to work to find a famous name that wasn’t linked to the CBC at some point or other. Two CBC personalities later served as Governor General. The former host of CBC’s Power & Politics was just named to Carney’s new cabinet.

Name one famous postal worker.

So does the CBC deserve more money and better treatment because it has more glitter? Better scandals? Because it regularly invites politicians to be interviewed? It seems that way. What Canada Post needs is to be attacked by Donald Trump, which would guarantee a rapid leap up the priority ladder. Imagine the result if word got out that the U.S. Postal Service planned to expand operations to Canada, treating it as the 51st state. Billions in federal subsidies would quickly be pledged to protect the integrity of the country’s vital mail operations, ensuring it could go on delivering Canadian leaflets to Canadian mailboxes by Canadian carriers.

If I was CUPW’s boss, I’d forget the strike and get to work on that rumour, pronto.

National Post

• Canada Post, union disagree over taking ‘five-minute wash-up time.’ Here’s what it is
• Terry Newman: On election night, CBC shamelessly cheered on Mark Carney