At last week’s Republican midterm convention, U.S. President Donald Trump promised that “if the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate — both of them.… I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.”

His pledge combined two dumb notions — vote-buying and tariffs — into one package. True, Trump didn’t invent the idea of purchasing electoral support, nor is protectionism an original idea of his. But the president brings brazen excess to his promotion of the awful combination.

The payments are possible, he insisted, “because our country is making so much money.” He added that it would be “very much like a successful company will do a cash distribution to its shareholders.”

“The reason the Democrats can’t do that is because they don’t do tariffs,” he said.

So, the promised payments to Americans will be funded by tariff income, the president says, but only if Americans vote for the Republican Party. At its core, politics is usually about courting voters with promised goods and services to be funded by somebody else. But rarely in modern times do we see such an overt offer of pay for ballots. Depending on how you look at it, it’s either bare-faced corruption or the distilled essence of democracy. Or both.

Alexander Fraser Tytler, the 18th-century historian, wrote of democracy : “The people flatter themselves that they have the sovereign power. These are, in fact, words without meaning. It is true they elected governors; but how are these elections brought about? In every instance of election by the mass of a people — through the influence of those governors themselves, and by means the most opposite to a free and disinterested choice, by the basest corruption and bribery.”

Tytler also noted that under democratically elected rulers, the people abandon “their natural liberty … as if they were under the rule of a monarch,” though the inherently authoritarian nature of all governments is a subject for another conversation. For the moment, it’s sufficient to focus on the observation that democracy is largely an exercise in vote-buying.

Before he became America’s first president, George Washington offered evidence for that point by winning election to Virginia’s colonial-era House of Burgesses through plying voters with booze. Smithsonian magazine recounted that “Washington floated into office partly on the 144 gallons of rum, punch, hard cider and beer his election agent handed out — roughly half a gallon for every vote he received.”

Honestly, it seems that Washington got a better bargain than the $5,000 promised by Trump.

Openly buying votes — or else intimidating voters — was common through the 19th century. The Ohio Capital Journal noted in 2020 that “Political parties would offer food, drink and inducements ranging from offers of bribes to threats of beatings to encourage voters to cast the party’s official ballot.” The adoption of the secret ballot largely ended the practice of overt bribery and arm-twisting. Now, American politicians, like those elsewhere, try to bribe the whole electorate with promises of “free” stuff that will supposedly be paid for out of somebody else’s pocket.

Soon after the passage of his now nearly bankrupt Social Security program in 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt admitted to his advisers that the scheme’s funding mechanism was economically unsound but was “politics all the way through” designed to win over voters.

That’s typical. Since open bribery went out of fashion, politics has involved extravagant promises of goodies to be paid for by envied and resented others — or just by borrowing. We see that in politicians’ proposals for government health schemes, student loan forgiveness, and more. President Trump revived the overt bribe while insisting it would be funded by tariffs paid to the U.S. government by foreigners.

The problem is that trade barriers are mostly impositions on the people of the countries that impose them, not on foreign manufacturers of imported goods. According to Kimberly Clausing and Maurice Obstfeld of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, “study after study of the 2018-19 U.S. tariffs found that U.S. buyers of imports suffered essentially the entire burden of the tariffs, with nearly complete pass-through shown in the data.”

The second problem is that Trump’s “dividends” commit the U.S. government to paying voters vastly more money than the government has collected in the form of import duties. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget reported as much last week.

“Issuing this dividend in 2027 would cost the federal government over $1.2 trillion, which is far more than all three COVID-era stimulus payments combined, the projected cost of the President’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) next year, and is 50% larger than the entire primary deficit projected for 2027,” it wrote.

Despite the president’s insistence that “our country is making so much money” from tariffs, it’s not enough to fund such a vast expense. Erica York of the Tax Foundation warned that “The revenue raised by the new tariffs in 2027 would cover only about one-tenth of the cost of the promised $5,000 dividend payment. It would take almost a decade of collections from the tariffs to cover the cost.”

That’s if tariff revenue is stable and predictable. But the president’s trade barriers are based on executive orders of dubious constitutionality that have been voided by the courts one after another. The Cato Institute’s Alfredo Carrillo Obregon recently noted that “net tariff revenue has been negative since May, as the government has had to refund the tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court earlier this year.”

And despite his love of acting unilaterally, President Trump absolutely can’t authorize $5,000 payments to every adult citizen on his own say-so, no matter how the election goes. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) says “he’d need Congress to act” on the “dividend,” though he promises to try to make it happen.

In a strange way it’s refreshing to see President Trump remind us that, at its core, democratic elections are based on what Tytler the historian called “the basest corruption and bribery.” We’ve become accustomed to grandiose political promises of subsidies, “free” services, and payoffs while too often forgetting that they’re fundamentally vote-buying schemes.

Trump’s open offer of voter bribes funded by nonexistent money underlines the true nature of politics.

National Post

In the Jewish tradition, the 10 days between the celebration of Rosh Hashanah and the observance of Yom Kippur are known as the “Ten Days of Repentance” or the “Days of Awe.” Jewish tradition teaches that the Book of Life is written on Rosh Hashanah, but it is only on Yom Kippur that it is sealed. We are taught that our actions matter and can ultimately alter the decree.

This is indeed a sacred time of judgment. The question is who is being judged?

These are difficult, uncertain and painful times. Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl taught us that, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response.”

For three years, this country’s Jewish community has been hoping that Canadians will stand up and refuse to accept the continued, virulent and persistent vilification of Jews, thinly disguised as anger at the current Israeli government or anti-Zionism. Canadians have a choice to make.

Too often, it is only when Jews are targeted that people have the audacity to explain away hatred. Why is it that anti-Zionism is tolerated when Zionism — the Jewish right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland — forms the core identity of the vast majority of Jews?

Would any other religion, race or ethnic group be subject to questions about their lived experiences and what hate feels like to them? A foundational principal in anti-racism work is: nothing about us without us. Except when it comes to the Jews, apparently.

When political rhetoric becomes a vehicle for denying Jews the right to national self-determination, when Jewish students are targeted because of their connection to Israel or when tropes about Jewish power, conspiracy and collective guilt are repackaged as political activism, Canadians should have the courage to call it what it is: Jew hatred.

Two recent reports should serve as a wake-up call. Judge Mary Lou Benotto’s independent review at Toronto Metropolitan University examined serious incidents surrounding campus protests and concluded that the events were problematic and symptomatic of a deteriorating campus climate that requires remediation.

The federal government’s Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences report’s findings are also deeply disturbing, with 84 per cent of Jewish respondents saying antisemitism is a serious problem on campus and more than 95 per cent saying they experienced or witnessed at least one instance of antisemitism in the previous year.

And our universities are but a microcosm of trends within the broader Canadian society. In July, Statistics Canada data showed that Jews continued to be the most targeted religious group in the country in 2025, accounting for 71 per cent of all religion-motivated hate crimes, despite comprising less than one per cent of the population.

Even more concerning is that political leaders no longer universally condemn Jew hatred. When Edmonton Coun. Michael Janz wrote horrible and malicious lies about Israel, Mayor Andrew Knack failed to condemn him, instead saying: “Well, I would say anyone that’s not sharing accurate information, that’s not what we want to see.” His lack of condemnation is a green light for haters to declare open season on Canadian Jews.

Many years ago, human rights activist Natan Sharansky identified the three Ds of antisemitism — double standards, delegitimization and demonization — that help us understand Jew hatred pertaining to Israel.

It is a double standard when Israel’s conduct is singled out and not similarly condemned when practised by other democratic countries. Delegitimization is when Israel’s very existence is portrayed as illegitimate or Jews are denied the right to self-determination. Demonization is when Israel or Jews are portrayed using extreme, dehumanizing or conspiratorial language or imagery.

An example of how the three Ds manifest themselves can be seen at the United Nations. According to data from UN Watch, between 2015 and 2024, the UN General Assembly passed 173 resolutions against Israel, compared with 80 concerning all other countries combined.

While the UN has a long history of singling out Israel, these types of double standards have now migrated to Canada. It’s why, across the country, security was particularly robust at all Jewish institutions on Rosh Hashanah, and why rabbis devoted entire sermons to the topic of antisemitism.

It is hard to say what the tipping point will be as to when Canadian Jews will start looking for safer places to live. As leaders of the National Holocaust Monument Committee, we think about this a lot, but have not yet lost hope that the pendulum can swing and Canada can once again be a safe country for Jews to live in.

To bring us back to Victor Frankl, we choose to hope that you — our fellow Canadians — will stand up to Jew hatred. We choose to believe that you can influence political leaders and university administrations to take meaningful action against antisemitism.

At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, the shofar, akin to a trumpet, is blown. I urge all Canadians to hear it as a clarion call to action. Hear it as an urgent appeal to confront Jew hatred.

Jewish tradition teaches that, “It is not your responsibility to finish the work, but neither are you free to desist from it.” There is no singular way to combat the scourge of antisemitism, but Canada’s Jews need more from our fellow citizens. We need more people speaking out when they see the 3Ds actualized, in whatever form.

May the blast of the shofar be a wake up call for us all.

Hear the shofar, and act, before it’s too late.

National Post

Joel Diener and Lawrence Greenspon are co-chairs, and Andrea Freedman is a member, of the National Holocaust Monument Committee.

• Jon Love: Antisemitism is a rapidly growing cancer in Canada that must be challenged
• ‘We need resolve, not sympathy’: Why Canada must go on the offence against antisemitic terror

As a child in the 1950s, I remember my idealistic heart swelling as my classmates and I belted out the stirring lyrics to the anthem, “United Nations on the March,” the only contribution the Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich ever wrote for Hollywood , featured in the 1943 film, Thousands Cheer .

The song had many verses, all projecting a world finally cleansed of ancient hatreds, conflict and oppression. The one that sticks in my memory goes, “As sure as the sun meets the morning/ And rivers go down to the sea/ A new day for mankind is dawning/ Our children shall live proud and free,” segueing to the chorus, “United nations on the march with flags unfurled/ Together fight for victory, a free new world.”

Swathed in the song’s sentiments, the actual United Nations officially launched in 1945. Sadly, it wasn’t long before human nature, clashing national interests, ideology, bloc voting and — yes — “ancient hatreds” converged to mock the kumbaya rhetoric surrounding the UN’s founding. Every utopian scheme needs a scapegoat for its failure to achieve its impossible goal, and the UN found its handiest popular whipping boy in Zionism.

Israel is no match for the 57 Muslim-majority members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) , who are collectively consumed by Zionophobia. Even the Muslim states that cooperate with Israel in real life automatically cold-shoulder the Jewish state at the UN. From 2015 to the present, the UN General Assembly has passed 187 resolutions against Israel, and 90 resolutions against all other countries combined. If it were not for the U.S. veto in the Security Council, crippling sanctions against Israel ( under Chapter VII of the UN Charter) might have accomplished what hostile armies and terrorists have so far failed to do.

On Sept. 28, the UN General Assembly will sponsor an event to commemorate the 25th anniversary of its infamous 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, the birthplace of apartheid. It immediately emerged as a complete travesty of its mission: namely, to be the official debut of global attention to racism in general. In fact, it was a weeks-long orgy of Zionophobia and Jew hatred, and the launchpad for the false allegation of “apartheid” against Israel that has spread like an oil slick through western culture.

Last month, UN Watch and NGO Monitor held an informative and evocative webinar titled “25 Years After Durban: The lasting impact of the UN World Conference Against Racism.” The panel of experts had all been witnesses to the debacle, and their shock at the experience has kept their recollections vivid and their combative fervour animated.

Everyone knew what was coming.

Panellist David Harris, who was the chair of UN Watch back in 2001, was slated to be in Durban as a member of the official U.S. delegation, but supported the decision of his boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, to withdraw over the ugly transmogrification of the conference’s mission. The U.S. and Israel left the conference at the same time.

Moderator Dina Porat, a historian who was a member of the Israeli Foreign Ministry delegation to Durban in 2001, recalled a Belgian delegate who left her “speechless” when he candidly told her that the focus on Israel was a cynical diversionary strategy to protect European countries from the awkwardness of public demands for reparations from their former colonies. Porat recalls him saying, “The simple solution was to pick on Israel and the Jews.”

Irwin Cotler, who in 2001 was a member of Parliament and who would later serve as justice minister, was part of the Canadian delegation. He told the webinar that his initial excitement about the conference was quickly extinguished by the “Orwellian” state of affairs he encountered: Jewish students assaulted and told to “go back to Poland,” slogans bruited in the streets calling for the dismantling of Israel as an apartheid state, placards announcing “Hitler was right” and that Israel was a “genocidal” state.

Durban, Cotler said during the webinar, “was a tipping point for the laundering of antisemitism at the UN. What emerged from Durban was the metastasized, newly legalized antisemitism under the cover of the UN.” Cotler left the conference in disgust, arriving home on the fateful morning of 9/11. Since then, he has written extensively about Durban’s pernicious influence.

Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor , walked the webinar through 25 years of the Durban effect on non-governmental organizations. He said that Durban’s parallel NGO Forum adopted a declaration vilifying Israel as a “racist, apartheid state” and calling for its pariah status. NGO Monitor, he noted, was founded to counter the toxic antizionism. UN-laundered and encouraged by Durban , antizionism has characterized some of the world’s wealthiest and most politically influential NGOs, like Amnesty International , Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross .

UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer also appeared on the webinar. He linked Durban to the infamous UN General Assembly’s 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution , which was finally repealed in 1991. But its spirit lived on as a gathering ideological storm, whose inchoate fury was unleashed at Durban.

Israel and the U.S. are boycotting the Sept. 28 commemoration event, and UN Watch has launched a petition calling on other countries to condemn and boycott it as well.

It would be nice if Canada were to do the right thing and absent itself, just as it would have been nice if the founding of the UN had produced a “free new world.” The UN is inherently incapable of delivering on the latter, while Canada is perfectly capable of delivering on the former. Except, of course, that it would be out of (Liberal Party) character.

National Post

Kaybarb@gmail.com

X: @BarbaraRKay

Two candidates pass each other in a corridor: one is heading into a job interview; the other has just finished. Neither will be evaluated merely by ability, education and experience. Who gets the job will also depend on skin colour, gender and other factors of group identity. This is Canada’s federal public service, today.

A new study by the Aristotle Foundation reviewed 301 federal job postings across 59 departments, agencies and Crown corporations. Forty-two per cent prioritized, or potentially prioritized, applicants based on identity characteristics, while 4 per cent restricted, or potentially restricted, a candidate’s eligibility on the same basis.

These figures are striking and yet likely understate the full extent of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) hiring practices in the federal public service, as the review captured only what hiring managers chose to include in public job postings.

Just because a posting did not mention employment-equity targets, identity-based preferences, or group-based restrictions does not mean such practices are not in force. In fact, federal legislation gives departments considerable latitude to incorporate DEI practices into their hiring processes.

However, perhaps ironically, not all DEI measures are created equally.

A policy that offers applicants with disabilities accommodations throughout the interview process is fundamentally different from one that gives selection preference to members of a particular group. Both may be framed as upholding diversity, equity and inclusion, but while the first removes an obstacle to fair competition, the second unfairly biases the competition altogether.

That distinction matters because Canadians can support an inclusive public service while rejecting identity-based preferential and restrictive hiring practices. They can favour inclusive, diverse workplaces without believing that access to public employment should be weighed against an applicant’s race, sex, disability, or other identity characteristics.

And that’s exactly what public opinion reflects. A 2025 Léger survey found that a majority of Canadians disagreed that, when hiring, it is important for employers to take a candidate’s cultural background into consideration. Even among segments of the population that preferential and restrictive hiring policies are purported to benefit, accounting for identity characteristics in hiring was unpopular.

Canadians share a straightforward intuition about fairness: applicants should be evaluated as individuals, based on merit.

But that does not appear to be how the federal public service sees it, particularly in departments like Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, National Defence and Fisheries and Oceans Canada where job postings regularly mentioned DEI, alongside disclosures of preferential hiring practices and references to employment-equity objectives.

And it’s not just those departments. The federal government tracks the demographic composition of its entire workforce in an attempt to meet particular employment thresholds. As of March 2025, most groups met or exceeded the government’s targets, helped by a substantial increase in new hires among members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities.

And there is nothing wrong with that, provided the individuals hired were selected on merit. But the government’s current approach, alongside existing legislation, leaves Canadians wondering whether these results reflect a changing mix of qualified applicants, successful efforts to remove barriers, or identity-based hiring considerations.

Unfortunately, that ambiguity casts doubt, perhaps unfairly, on those employed in the public service, while weakening public confidence in the federal hiring process.

A merit-based system, on the other hand, is unlikely to bring about a contrived demographic outcome across departments and occupations. Nor should it be expected to. Its purpose is to ensure that outcomes are connected as closely as possible to qualifications, experience and demonstrated competence.

DEI practices that remove barriers to participation ensure that individuals of comparable ability have a genuinely comparable opportunity to be successful candidates. But DEI practices that advantage and disadvantage candidates based on identity, with the aim of producing prescribed outcomes, are a different matter entirely.

When individual merit is set aside in favour of identity characteristics, the process becomes less likely to identify the candidate best suited to the job. That harms applicants who deserve to be assessed on their individual capabilities. It harms government departments, which become less well-positioned to fulfil their mandates. And it harms Canadians, who rely on federal institutions to deliver services effectively.

To restore clarity and confidence in the federal public service, Ottawa must respect both equal opportunity and individual merit by drawing a clear distinction between DEI practices meant to remove barriers and those intended to engineer outcomes. It should preserve measures that remove barriers — accessible application processes, reasonable accommodations, structured assessments, and broad outreach — while ending preferences and restrictions based on identity characteristics that candidates did not choose and cannot change.

National Post

Conrad Eder is a research fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and co-author of Does the Government Hire for Competence? A survey of DEI hiring practices in the Canadian government.

• Opinion: Why hopes for regime collapse in Iran are misguided
• Jamie Sarkonak: Steven Galloway’s accuser won’t even argue that she told the truth

Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took an important step toward the long-term defence of Canada and Ukraine.

The new long-term Canada-Ukraine partnership will expand co-operation on the joint production of drones, counter-drone technologies and priority munitions. Such investments help Ukraine protect its cities while strengthening Canada’s own defence-industrial capacity through Ukraine’s hard-earned battlefield expertise.

But helping Ukraine resist Russian aggression abroad must be matched by a willingness to impose consequences on the Russian state and its agents here in Canada. That means continuing to pursue accountability for Russian war criminals and scrutinizing the unusually large Russian official presence in Canada. Parliamentary testimony has put that presence at more than 60 Russian diplomats . Not every Russian diplomat is an intelligence officer. But it would be equally naïve to ignore Russia’s long-standing use of diplomatic postings as cover for intelligence and influence operations. Those who abuse diplomatic status to undermine Canadian security should be expelled.

In August, a man walking in front of the Russian Embassy in Ottawa approached a blue and a yellow balloon on a pole left outside by anti-war protesters. He punctured them and walked away. The video posted on X by Bulgarian investigative journalist Christo Grozev would be almost comic if the context were not so serious. Grovez identified the culprit as a Russian diplomat.

Canada’s security service (CSIS) has previously warned us about the hostile activities targeting Canada that the Russian mission is engaged in. A recent Senate Standing Committee on Security and Defence report concluded that in Canada, “Russian disinformation has been growing and evolving at a rapid pace.” These disinformation activities are designed to sow discord in our society and create or increase social fractures that challenge our democratic institutions. They include but are not limited to seeking to discredit Canada’s Ukrainian community by branding it as “neo-Nazi;” blaming the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for Russia’s genocidal full-scale invasion of Ukraine; spreading falsehoods about the West’s response to its aggressions and more. These narratives are designed to erode Canadian public support for Ukraine and to delegitimize and incite hate towards Canadians of Ukrainian heritage.

The hate that such narratives seek to incite has violently manifested itself. In February 2022, Toronto’s Future Bakery was vandalized with pro-Russian graffiti, including the words “Russia is power.” Weeks later, its Stand With Ukraine banner was slashed and splattered with paint.

When a “diplomat” from the Russian mission is filmed engaging in petty vandalism of Ukrainian-coloured protest symbols placed on public property, outside the Russian Embassy, it both illustrates and reinforces the atmosphere of contempt for the Canadian value of freedom of expression and intimidation that Kremlin disinformation operations seek to create.

Canada needs to act publicly to address such activities. And previous governments have done so. For example, in 2018, Ottawa expelled four Russian diplomatic staff who were identified as intelligence officers or as individuals who used diplomatic status to undermine Canadian security or interfere in our democracy. One was the Russian Embassy press secretary Kirill Kalinin. Investigative journalist Justin Ling later told Parliament that Kalinin had repeatedly tried to seed stories about alleged Ukrainian Nazis in Canada and had actively sought to defame then Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland. Ling described the embassy as a hub for Russian disinformation operations and said Kalinin was expelled for his involvement in them.

Kalinin’s expulsion should have set a precedent — that diplomats who abuse their status to run disinformation warfare against Canadians will not be tolerated — but after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Canada stopped using expulsions as a tool through which to impose consequences.

Canada does not need to sever diplomatic relations with Russia to act. It should review Russia’s diplomatic footprint, in close consultation with CSIS and allied intelligence services, and reduce it where officials are believed to be conducting intelligence, intimidation, disinformation or other activities incompatible with their diplomatic status. Diplomatic accreditation should not be a shield for hostile-state activity.

Unfortunately, Ottawa has recently moved in the opposite direction. In August, Canada removed former senior Kremlin official Anatoly Chubais from its Russia sanctions list, restoring his admissibility to Canada, while saying on that there was “reasonable grounds to do so,” without elaborating.

Estonia offers a useful model for what Canada should do. Shortly after Russian diplomats in Estonian helped organize the deadly 2007 Bronze Soldier riots in Tallinn, Estonia repeatedly denied entry in 2009 to Johan Bäckman, a Finnish Kremlin-aligned activist known for hostile, Stalinist attacks on Estonia and for denying the Soviet Russian occupation. In March 2022, Estonia expelled three Russian diplomats for directly undermining its security and spreading propaganda justifying Russia’s war. Weeks later, it expelled 14 Russian consular staff, including seven diplomats. And in August 2025, Estonia expelled a Russian Embassy first secretary for what its foreign ministry described as activities undermining Estonia’s constitutional order and seeking to divide Estonian society.

Estonia has made it clear that foreign representatives who abuse their presence to undermine the state or target its society will face predictable consequences.

Former Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves put it plainly when we asked him about the Ottawa incident: “We have seen similar behaviour by Russian ‘diplomats’ throughout Europe and indeed by the Russian embassy staff in Washington, D.C. as well. Foreign diplomats are not allowed to engage in political activity in the country where they are accredited. Vandalism already calls for a PNG designation.”

Canada knows that a clear strong response to Russian intimidation is needed. In its formal response to a 2023 House of Commons recommendation, the government of the day agreed that Russian diplomats engaged in activities that are inconsistent with their official status should be expelled. It also noted that Canada can declare a foreign representative persona non grata under the Vienna conventions and is not required to explain that decision publicly.

Canada should apply that standard now. Global Affairs Canada and CSIS should immediately confirm the identity of the individual in the video and any connections he may have to the embassy, and then review his diplomatic accreditation, activities and role at the Russian mission. His conduct captured on video all warrant scrutiny. If his activities are incompatible with his status or Canada’s security interests, he should be required to leave the country.

Balloons on their own may be trivial; what Canada is prepared to tolerate from Vladimir Putin’s “diplomats” and agents is not.

The new Canada–Ukraine defence partnership is an important investment in deterrence abroad. It should be matched by consequences for hostile Russian activity at home, including the expulsion of officials who abuse diplomatic cover. Moscow only understands strength and reacts to consequences. Estonia has learned to impose them. Canada should too.

National Post

Stanley Kutcher is a former Canadian Senator.

Marcus Kolga is a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute.

• Jamie Sarkonak: Don’t trust Carney to tell us what EU ‘associate membership’ means
• Sylvain Charlebois: While Canada fights Trump, Mexico is preparing to eat our lunch

‘Another dubious effort to jump-start our export economy’

Re: French nationalist Marine Le Pen would be the anti-extremist choice — Geoff Russ, Sept.10

After reading Geoff Russ’s article on the rise of Marine Le Pen in France amid a collapsing political and economic environment in the European Union, one cannot fail to question Prime Minister Mark Carney’s desire to establish closer relations with that unified state.

While increasing non-U.S.A. trade is a desirable outcome of any attempt to reverse our economic decline, it would appear this decision fails to function as more than another dubious effort to jump-start our export economy. A similar effort was undertaken several decades ago under Pierre Trudeau’s “Third Option” strategy with the European community. That effort failed miserably.

It is unlikely much has changed in the European economy in the intervening years except even more economic decline with its many internal barriers to global trade. Furthermore, the EU tilt toward antisemitism against Israel has manifested itself in a boycott of Israel exports. And Canada has joined that parade of malice to our ongoing shame, even refusing to provide the requisite level of support to our own Jewish population.

Without a functioning Parliament it appears Canada has drifted toward a downward slope in both our participatory democracy as well as having entered a decade of accelerating decline in economic self-sufficiency with no end in sight.

Raymond Foote, Ottawa

---

Tower of Babel redux

Re: Fréchette dismisses anglo concerns, holds firm on French-only election mailouts — Jack Wilson and Kalina Laframboise, Sept. 3

In June, Christine Fréchette, Quebec’s premier, told voters that she intended to strike a “different tone” with anglophones after years of acrimony. Her government’s subsequent refusal to let Élections Québec continue mailing voting information in both French and English was a slap in the face to anglophones; especially unilingual seniors. (Anglophones must use a QR code to link to English instructions on the Élections Québec website.)

In an interview on The Elias Makos Show on CJAD 800 on June 15, Fréchette insisted that her government “cares a lot about the English-speaking community.” Yet the only TLC on display here is Targeted Language Care — because nothing says “I care” like directing that care away from the people who actually need it.

Earlier this month, Fréchette praised her government for “respecting” anglophone rights by keeping ballots bilingual. But what good is a bilingual ballot if voters don’t know when or where to vote?

The biblical story of the Tower of Babel offers a striking parallel. Humanity once shared a single language, and that linguistic uniformity became a tool of ideological control. Speech was used to enforce conformity. God’s response was to break the linguistic monopoly — to introduce diversity as a safeguard against authoritarianism. That makes Quebec’s latest policy quite the achievement: it took the Tower of Babel thousands of bricks to confuse people; this government managed it with one QR code!

Rabbi Mordecai Bulua, Montreal

---

Not just a ‘Trump problem’

Re: Canada can afford to wait out Trump’s trade war, say two prominent policy vets — Andrew Rankin, Sept. 9

​​​​The perspective isn’t “maturity” — it is dangerous, historical amnesia wrapped in sentimental nostalgia.

To suggest that Canada’s economic bruising is purely a “Trump problem” completely ignores decades of reality. Both Democrats and Republicans have consistently waged economic warfare against Canadian industries. Whether it is the decades-long “Buy American” policies, the endless softwood lumber disputes, or the tearing up of trade agreements, Washington’s priority has always been America First, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

Relying on the memory of 9/11 and shared geography is an emotional distraction from a hard truth: the United States treats Canada as a convenient resource pool, not an equal economic partner.

While some preach “balance” and wait for a friendlier face in Washington, Canada is getting pummelled economically. Passivity masked as diplomacy isn’t a strategy — it is a recipe for continued exploitation. We cannot afford to romanticize a relationship that our “neighbour” treats as purely transactional. It is time to stop waiting for Washington to change and start aggressively decoupling our economic future from an inherently protectionist empire.

William Perry, Victoria, B.C.

---

Ignore Trump’s bombast over Bombardier

Re: Trump’s Bombardier threat is an ‘own goal’ for Canada-U.S. defence ties, analysts say — Tracy Moran, Sept. 8

U.S. President Donald Trump says that if Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier wants to sell planes in the United States, it must build the planes in the States. Not surprisingly, he isn’t aware that Bombardier already directly employs over 3,500 people at a number of sites in several American states. Additionally, its aircraft are built with American-made components such as engines, avionics and many more key systems provided by American companies. Trump needs to brush up on his homework, if he ever does any.

Alexander Ross, North York, Ont.

---

iPhone ushered in new era for blind persons

Re: Anniversary of the iPhone on the road to AI — Terence Corcoran, Sept. 9

A hearty thanks to Terence Corcoran for his timely history of the Apple iPhone as it enters a new era. I would like to add one more first. Steve Jobs required the iPhone soon after its introduction to be fully operational by a blind person. With the flick of a finger engaging “VoiceOver,” we have full access to all of the phone’s functions. Since then, hundreds of applications specifically designed for blind persons have become available. With one phone call for example, I was connected to a trained agent who, through their computer’s screen using my iPhone’s camera, guided me through a busy retail store. We are informed while standing on a street corner when there are no cars in sight. In short, technology has closed the information gap for blind persons, an insurmountable chasm only a few decades ago.

Jim Sanders, Guelph, Ont., Executive Director, The Sir Arthur Pearson Association Of War Blinded, Past President and CEO, Canadian National Institute For The Blind

---

Trump’s $5K ‘dividend’

Re: Questions loom over Trump’s promised US$5K ‘dividend’ — Aoife Walsh and Victoria Craw, Sept. 11

I cannot understand why people are tearing their clothes and gnashing their teeth over Donald Trump’s buying of votes by promising a US$5,000 dividend to every American adult if Republicans retain control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

Our Liberal government has engaged in this very practice for decades by promising to spend on this and that program or “investment” if only we voters would elect them.

Sure, the American president is more brazen about it but I, for one, appreciate the honesty.

Tim Harkema, Calgary

---

Boycott ‘has nothing to do with bettering the lives of Palestinians’

Re: The Carney Liberals are interfering in Israel’s election — Jesse Kline, Sept. 8

Apparently Prime Minister Carney’s trade war with the United States is not enough of a challenge for him. He has now decided to add Israel to his adversaries. In spite of the fine-sounding rationale mouthed by Carney and his wing-person, Anita Anand, it is hard to see how this is anything but political posturing for personal gain: Carney to curry favour with EU, and Anand to stay in Carney’s good books, as well as securing votes from the substantial Israel-hating mob that has mustered political capital in this country.

Carney and Anand have chosen not to address the impact of the boycott on the local Palestinian population. It has been estimated that as many as 25,000 Palestinians are employed in businesses that will be negatively affected by the boycott, and earning twice as much as they would in businesses not owned by Israelis. It is a reasonable assumption that these Palestinians will lose their jobs and their income if the boycott takes hold. That alone should make it clear that the boycott of “settlement goods” has nothing to do with bettering the lives of the Palestinians, and everything to do with punishing and bullying Jews for daring to choose where they want to live in their ancestral homeland.

The endgame as before, is the destruction of the Jews and their one refuge in the world, the tiny state of Israel. Mark Carney and Anita Anand need to be sent a firm message: it is time to stop bartering Jewish security, Jewish lives, and the only Jewish state in exchange for cheap votes and admission to the EU. A show of honour and integrity would be a welcome and refreshing change. But I’m not holding my breath.

E. Joan O’Callaghan, Toronto

• Letters: Yes, the trade war is about economics, but it’s more about sovereignty
• Letters: Pull the plug on Trump’s ‘Lake America’

---

Kudos to Chrétien for 9/11 speech

The 9/11 Commemorative Service in Gander was done in the most honourable and Canadian way.

It culminated with former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s unifying speech, in which he ended with the most impactful message to the American administration, including U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, who was on the dais. “… we bow to no one …” Chrétien said. “… and the more we are insulted or threatened and abused, the more we will stand up for ourselves and stand united.”

Chrétien said what every other federal politician in Canada has been afraid to say.

It is unfortunate that current Prime Minister Mark Carney missed this milestone tribute to the fallen Canadians of 9/11 and to our fellow Canadians who were there to help others in need.

Kevin Kattas, Toronto

---

Burnbrae Farms responds

Re: There are American eggs in our midst! — Chris Selley, Sept. 9

Regarding Chris Selley’s column on U.S. eggs appearing in Canadian stores, Burnbrae Farms would like to add additional context concerning trade obligations and localized demand spikes.

As a Canadian and family-owned agribusiness, Burnbrae Farms strongly supports Canada’s supply-management system, essential for domestic food security and protecting farmers. Under the WTO and CUSMA trade agreements, Canada has committed to allowing a set volume of egg imports into the market. Adhering to this supports Canadian trade negotiators during complex international negotiations.

There are times when local demand outpaces domestic supply, particularly during holidays or major retail promotions, such as the recent one in Quebec. When surges occur, we may need to draw upon our trade allowance of USDA-approved eggs so local store shelves remain stocked for Canadian families.

When we bring in U.S. eggs, we ensure cartons comply with CFIA rules clearly labelling the country of origin.

Burnbrae Farms is deeply dedicated to Canadian agriculture while fulfilling trade obligations to keep food accessible.

Margaret Hudson, President and CEO, Burnbrae Farms

---

National Post and Financial Post welcome letters to the editor (250 words or fewer). Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. Email letters@nationalpost.com. Letters may be edited for length or clarity.

Soon after Mark Carney was no doubt feeling on top of the world after delivering a speech to the European Parliament on Thursday, and after being oddly mobbed for selfies, the parochial nature of Canadian politics asserted itself. Following the prime minister’s welcoming response to an offer for Canada to become the “first associate member of the EU,” Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette demanded “for Québec to be granted special status within this alliance.”

No one, not Carney, nor European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who extended the invitation to Canada, could define what being an “associate member” actually entails, as the designation doesn’t currently exist. But Quebec is certain it wants “a formal seat at the table,” a table that also doesn’t exist.

For Fréchette, her demand is probably smart politics ahead of an Oct. 5 provincial election, but it also highlights that for as much as Carney might feel at home being feted in European capitals, or being addressed affectionately by von der Leyen with a “Dear Mark,” the mundane details of governing this often bewildering country require tending.

Beyond mollifying a gaggle of premiers, all with different interests and competing opinions on how to deal with American trade tensions, and varying levels of commitment to the Canadian project, Carney also has to figure out how to turn Canada into a functioning country with drivable roads, working ports and, presumably, a military. The premiers all have different opinions about those things too.

If von der Leyen was feeling a bit besieged after a handful of EU members objected to her offer to Canada of “associate membership,” she should try negotiating a trade deal with the provinces, even in areas where Ottawa has clear constitutional authority. Cat herders gave up on this country long ago.

In any case, we endorse the general idea of expanding Canada’s economic and security relationship with the European Union, as we also endorse the close economic and security ties Canada has with the United States.

Europe is not equivalent to authoritarian China, and pretending it is, as some critics have suggested, muddies legitimate concerns about what comes with any level of EU membership.

Full membership in the union entails aligning regulations on labour, the environment and procurement; forfeiting the right to negotiate trade deals; and adopting open borders within the bloc. The EU is also suffering intense economic stagnation and decline due to the level of rules and regulations and the sheer size of the European bureaucracy.

Some supporters of full membership suggest the EU is only marginally worse than Canada on regulation, so we wouldn’t be that much worse off, but we think that Canada should avoid that trap.

Even with these problems though, EU members are liberal democratic allies that Canada would do well to engage with at a level short of membership. Indeed, they are likely more concerned about Canada’s vulnerability to Chinese interference than Canada itself.

Luckily, based on what both Carney and von der Leyen said in their speeches, nothing on offer requires a new special designation. We suspect the term “associate member” is intended to make a splash in what are fairly normal areas for allies to co-operate in.

Von der Leyen said the new partnership would go beyond the existing Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and would involve integrating “defence industrial bases,” working together to protect the “Arctic” and cooperate in “energy, critical minerals and batteries,” as well as on “AI, quantum, cyber and economic security.” Carney further discussed “allowing our youth to live, work and study where they want on either side of the Atlantic.”

This last part prompted some, not unwarranted, concern that Europe’s migration problems could be imported here, but so far, there hasn’t been suggestion that anyone is seeking to align Canadian border controls with Europe’s. Carney will need to address these questions directly.

The largest impediment to co-operating more with Europe, however, lie not with negotiating any new deals, but with Canada building the necessary infrastructure, specifically oil and gas pipelines to the East Coast, as well as Atlantic-facing export terminals. Operations at northern ports will need to be expanded to take advantage of shorter trade routes through the Arctic, and Canada’s military must become once again first-class.

Now that Mark Carney’s European vacation is over, and with Parliament set to reopen on Monday, Ottawa has a gargantuan task ahead of itself.

National Post

• Jamie Sarkonak: Don’t trust Carney to tell us what EU ‘associate membership’ means
• Michael Higgins: Mark Carney’s EU adventure isn’t about Canadians