LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

US President Donald Trump delivers a special address during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 21, 2026.

Donald Trump said the U.S. won’t use military force in its bid to acquire Greenland for “national security” reasons.

During his lengthy speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday, Trump said the U.S. likely won’t be able to achieve its goal without employing “excessive strength and force,” which he said would be “unstoppable.”

“But I don’t have to use force, I don’t have to use force, I won’t use force,” Trump said.

The president broached the Greenland issue early in his speech and, despite repeatedly deviating to other topics, returned to it often.

He said he respects the people of Greenland and Denmark, but said “every NATO ally has an obligation to defend their own territory and the fact is no nation, or any group of nations, is in a position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States.

He went on to say that were it not for U.S. intervention in WWII, Greenland would have fallen to the Germans, remarking to the audience that they’d now be speaking German or Japanese.

More to come.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a special address during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 21, 2026.

DAVOS, SWITZERLAND AND OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney left the World Economic Forum in Davos without meeting President Donald Trump Wednesday as the U.S. leader warned Canada should be more “grateful” for its southern neighbour.

“Canada gets a lot of freebies from us by the way,” Trump told a WEF audience, after mentioning the U.S. plan to build a missile defence system called the Golden Dome. “They should be grateful also but they’re not.”

Trump’s remarks come one day after Carney delivered a striking speech in front of the forum, declaring the old rules-based order dead and called on middle powers to call out bullies and hegemons, without naming specific countries.

Trump said he watched Carney’s address. “He wasn’t so grateful,” said Trump. “They should be grateful to us, Canada — but they’re not. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that Mark, the next time you make your statements.”

Carney left Davos around 2 p.m. local time, almost exactly when the U.S. president arrived to deliver an over hour-long speech at the glitzy international summit. Carney’s office confirmed that the prime minister did not meet or talk with Trump Wednesday.

Carney was not the only leader to avoid Trump at the summit. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen also delivered a speech to the WEF on Tuesday and jetted out of Davos without seeing the U.S. president.

European allies have been on edge over Trump’s ambitions to take over Greenland, an autonomous territory which belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

During his speech, Trump said “I won’t use force” but reiterated that the U.S. will have Greenland.

“This enormous unsecured island is actually part of North America,” said Trump, while he called for negotiations with Denmark.

The president has threatened 10 per cent tariff starting in February on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland over the Greenland issue. Countries in the European Union are mulling potential countermeasures against the U.S.

Carney has said he strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and the future of the territory should be determined by the people of Denmark and Greenland. During the summit, Carney also acknowledged the growing importance of arctic security among NATO partners and said Russia does pose a “prospective” threat to that region in the world.

While in Davos, Carney met with multiple world and business leaders over two days, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Apple CEO Tim Cook.

Carney wraps up an eight-day international trip that included a visit to China, the first trip by a Canadian prime minister in over eight years. Viewed as a reset in relations between China and Canada, the visit also included a “landmark agreement” that will allow market access of Chinese electric vehicles into Canada in exchange for a lowering of Chinese tariffs on canola exports.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Security video shows Linda O'Leary (in blue jeans and white top) and Kevin O'Leary (in black shirt) beside the speedboat they drove to a neighbour's cottage on the evening of a fatal boat crash.

A three-way flurry of lawsuits and countersuits that started flying soon after a fatal cottage country boat crash involving reality TV celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary has finally been settled after six years of vigorous litigation.

“Yeah, it’s finished. Everything is in essence finished,” said Rui Fernandes, lead lawyer representing Kevin O’Leary and his wife Linda O’Leary. “It’s confidential, sorry,” he said when asked for details. “You’re never going to find out because it’s confidential, right?”

A portion of the negotiated settlement, however, has peeked out from under the cloak of secrecy.

What is known is that the total payout from both boat operators involved in the collision to all the 14 claimants could not have exceeded a combined $2 million; no single operator paid more than half of that; and two of the claimants — both children seeking damages for the death of their mother — were each paid $100,000 minus a $25,000 cut paid to their lawyers, not including taxes and fees.

That is significantly less than amounts initially sought in several multi-million-dollar claims.

The settlement ends all lawsuits, third-party claims, and notices of claim in all courts that were filed after a horrific scene surrounded by some of the most luxurious vacation property in Canada.

 Suzana Brito, 48, from Uxbridge, Ont., and Gary Poltash, 64, of Florida, died of injuries sustained in the 2019 collision. Three others were hurt.

It was a dark, moonless night in the summer of 2019 on Lake Joseph when O’Leary was a passenger in a speedboat driven by Linda, his wife. The couple were returning to their lakeside cottage from a neighbour’s dinner party when it collided with a larger pontoon boat.

The other boat, owned by Dr. Irv Edwards, a physician in Los Angeles who owned two cottages on Lake Joseph, had 12 people aboard out stargazing after a different party and was being driven by Richard Ruh, a doctor from Buffalo, N.Y., who rented a cottage from Edwards.

Two people who were lying down at the front of the pontoon facing the sky were killed when the O’Leary’s boat hit the prow: Suzanne Brito, 48, from Uxbridge, Ont., and Gary Poltash, 64, of Florida.

Afterwards, police charged the drivers of both boats.

Ruh had taken the wheel of the pontoon boat from Edwards and was charged with failing to exhibit a stern light on a power vessel underway; he did not contest the charge and was convicted.

Linda O’Leary was charged with operating a vessel in a careless manner and pleaded not guilty. After 13 days of evidence at her trial in 2021, she was found not guilty. The judge ruled the larger boat had turned its lights off to allow passengers to gaze at the night sky and was stationary at the time of the collision. The O’Leary boat had its navigation lights on.

Kevin O’Leary was the only defence witness to testify at her trial. He said the larger boat was in complete darkness before the crash: “That boat was invisible,” he testified, “and we went right into it. It was chaos. We didn’t know what happened.”

Determining the criminal facts did not decide the civil matters, however. Civil cases run on a different course with different standards of proof.

 Linda O’Leary and Kevin O’Leary arrive at the American Music Awards at the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles in 2017.

Wrongful death and injury lawsuits were filed in Ontario courts in the months following the collision against both boaters. There were 14 claimants from among the pontoon boat passengers or their families, including Brito’s young children, her parents, brother and sister; and Poltash’s family, including adult children.

The claims of Brito’s children — aged 12, 11, and nine at the time — alleged negligence in the operation of both boats resulting in the death of their mother and sought damages for loss of guidance, care and companionship, loss of dependency and loss of services.

The O’Leary’s also sued, jointly claiming more than $3 million for economic loss, pain, suffering, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.

The Federal Court, which decides marine law, took precedence and the Ontario court matters were put on hold while the Federal Court heard a series of claims and motions.

In 2022, a Federal Court judge ordered that both sets of boat owners and operators — namely the O’Learys for one boat and Edwards and Ruh for the other — had limited liability of $1 million each under the Marine Liability Act, meaning that any potential damages from a future liability finding could not exceed that amount against either boater.

That capped a total top amount to answer all claims from the collision for all parties against both boats at $2 million. The ruling did not assess or decide any culpability.

The move to Federal Court also prevented claimants from seeking punitive damages for any alleged conduct that a jury might have considered.

 Kevin O’Leary’s speedboat.

After feisty and sometimes acrimonious interactions, the parties eventually negotiated a settlement, but it required involvement of the Federal Court because Brito’s children were under the age of 18.

Normally, no part of such a privately arrived at settlement agreement would be public, but because a judge needed to approve the children’s portion of the deal to protect their interests, some parts were filed in court.

A decision on that matter, and on a request to have the court file sealed from public view, was released last week. By the time of the decision by Federal Court judge Elizabeth Heneghan, one of Brito’s children had turned 18, leaving only two minors to deal with.

Heneghan assessed the settlement amount of $100,000 to each minor dependent and the $25,000 in legal fees being claimed by lawyers for the children.

By the time legal fees, pro-rated costs, taxes and fees were added and deducted to the various subtotals, each child was given $72,538.56, which is to be held by the court until they turn 18.

Heneghan ruled that was reasonable given the liability cap, that parties denied liability and that without a settlement everyone faced a litigation process that would be “lengthy and time-consuming, with no certain outcome.” She also denied the requested sealing order.

A lawyer for the children told court that had their claims gone to trial, there was a possibility liability would be found against one boat only, reducing the amount of money available to answer claims.

“I am very limited on what I can say on this,” Patrick Brown, lawyer for most of the Brito claimants, including the children, told National Post when asked about the settlement. “There will not be any more pending civil cases,” he said.

“You would hope that litigation moves at a quicker pace, but there were a lot of moving parts. I think when you’re dealing with any matters like this, closure is always important to family members,” Brown said.

Fernandes, who represented the O’Learys, said all parties agreed that the settlement should be confidential. Fernandes would not say whether his clients paid out in the settlement or, if they did, how much.

“What I’m saying to you is somebody paid and one boat owner or both boat owners could limit liability to a million each. But it doesn’t mean that each paid a million. It doesn’t mean that one paid a million, because that’s confidential.”

He agreed with Brown that it is good to conclude the cases.

“I can’t comment on the O’Learys specifically, but I know in all litigation, and I know in this case, everybody’s happy that it’s over. It’s a long time, right, to be dealing with it. I think everyone, all the parties, are happy that it’s over.”

Lawyers representing Edwards and Ruh did not respond to requests for comment from National Post prior to publishing deadline. Lawyers representing other claimants did not respond.

Kevin O’Leary came to wide public attention as a celebrity investor on the reality TV series Dragons’ Den and has since reprised that role on Shark Tank for U.S. television. He is also a former candidate for the leadership of the federal Conservative party and often appears on TV news as a commentator.

The 71-year-old recently made a feature film debut playing a cutthroat empresario in Marty Supreme, a movie starring Timothée Chalamet as a frenetic prodigy in the 1950s world of underground table tennis.

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | Twitter:

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


NDP leadership candidates Rob Ashton, left to right, Tanille Johnston, Avi Lewis, Heather McPherson and Tony McQuail, pose for a photo following the NDP French language leadership debate, in Montreal on Thursday, November 27, 2025.

OTTAWA — The five candidates to lead the federal NDP are standing in lockstep against the Liberal gun “buyback” program, reinforcing a longstanding distinction between the two progressive parties on gun-ownership rights.

All five campaigns told the National Post they oppose the Liberal government’s

fledgling mandatory compensation program

for “assault-style” firearms, which targets the owners of more than 2,500 makes and models of guns the government has deemed too dangerous to be kept in the hands of civilians.

Filmmaker and activist Avi Lewis, a favourite to become the

party’s next permanent leader

in March, said in a statement that he’d swap out the divisive Liberal gun buyback for gun laws that “respect expert recommendations, legal and responsible gun ownership, and constitutionally-enshrined Indigenous and treaty rights to hunt and fish.”

Lewis’s statement got a thumbs up from Tracey Wilson, a vice-president with the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, who called his defence of law-abiding gun owners “shockingly based.”

Lewis said federal Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangree gave away the Liberals’ game, and killed whatever credibility the program had, when private comments

recorded without his knowledge

surfaced online last fall.

“The … program is in shambles in large part because of hot mic comments from (Anandasangree) suggesting that it’s driven by cynical politics rather than effective policy,” said Lewis.

Anandasangree implied

in the leaked audio

that the Liberals were moving ahead with the buyback to placate voters in Quebec and expressed doubts about whether it could even be properly enforced.

Edmonton MP Heather McPherson, the only sitting MP in the NDP leadership race, said that, while she thought it was important to rein in the weapons targeted by the program, Ananasangree’s comments make the gun buyback dead on arrival.

“Getting assault-style rifles off our streets must be a priority … but even the Liberal minister has admitted the buyback program wouldn’t work or be enforceable,” said McPherson, suggesting that authorities focus on intercepting illegal firearms at the Canada-U.S. border.

McPherson added that the Liberals haven’t put in the work to secure buy-in from the provinces, pointing to Manitoba NDP Premier Wab Kinew’s recent announcement that

his government won’t be participating

in the buyback.

“The Liberals are forcing this program ahead without properly working with provinces … so Manitoba is right to be frustrated,” said McPherson.

Even the

leadership race’s token pacifist

, organic farmer Tony McQuail, said he disapproved of the Liberal gun buyback.

“As a rural farmer, I’m also a gun owner and feel that Canadian gun owners deserve better than (a) hasty and unproven (program) with ineffective implementation,” said McQuail.

The two remaining candidates, Rob Ashton and Tanille Johnston, said authorities should focus on stopping the most “horrific” instances of gun violence that are carried out using illegal firearms entering Canada from the U.S. Johnston was

asked about the gun buyback

after the party’s November leadership debate in Montreal.

Leadership applicant Bianca Mugyenyi, wife of disqualified candidate Yves Engler, also said she was against the buyback, calling it a “bureaucratic failure.”

True to

her anti-Israel positioning

, Mugyenyi said the Liberals were hypocritical for disarming citizens at home while abetting violence abroad against Palestinians.

“It is … grotesque that this government claims to care about ‘safety’ while shipping military-grade weapons to fuel a genocide in Gaza,” said Mugyenyi.

Ex-NDP MP Charlie Angus says that, despite taking shape at the time of the Liberal-NDP

supply and confidence agreement

, the gun buyback has always had the Liberals’ fingerprints.

“It’s a Liberal policy. The Liberals have mishandled this policy a hundred times. We’ve been burned by it a thousand times,” said Angus.

The Liberals faced

criticism from the NDP

over preliminary efforts to classify certain firearms as “assault-style” weapons, with the NDP raising concerns about potential adverse effects for hunters, farmers and First Nations.

The program wasn’t mentioned in the text of the Liberal-NDP agreement and the NDP’s platform heading into last spring’s election contained

no references to gun control

.

Angus, who held a northern Ontario seat for two decades before retiring from politics last year, said it was critical for the party to stay engaged in issues important to rural voters like gun-ownership rights.

“As far as the party goes, it’s going to come down to (whether we can) be present in the cities and also speak to the working class,” said Angus.

Angus

recently endorsed McPherson

to be the party’s next leader but says he’s also talked to Lewis about needing to keep a foot in rural and remote communities.

“I’ve told Avi (Lewis) that if he wants to win, he needs to be able to speak to (places like) Thompson, Manitoba and Red Deer(, Alberta),” said Angus.

Clement Nocos, director of policy at social democratic think tank the Broadbent Institute, said that the wholesale rejection of the Liberal gun buyback among NDP leadership hopefuls is consistent with the party’s past policy positions.

“The Liberal government’s ‘Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program’ is largely a distraction that has the appearance of improving public safety, given the visibility of the gun violence issue in the United States … while failing to address the root causes of violence in Canada such as inequality and the cost-of-living crisis. It also does not address the source of illegal assault rifles in Canada: their import from the across the U.S. border,” said Nocos.

“Canada already has gun control laws that clearly lend to a difference in gun violence when compared to the United States (and) violent crimes committed with assault rifles have also made up a insignificant proportion of all gun crime in Canada,” Nocos added.

Nocos noted that former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh

previously announced a commitment

to add more than 1,000 new personnel to the border to stop the flow of illegal guns entering Canada.

National Post

rmohamed@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with President of China Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China on Friday, Jan. 16, 2026.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Arrests, extended detainments, agricultural product bans, tariffs and expelled diplomats have been the hallmarks of Canada-China relations in recent years — and they formed the backdrop to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s historic trip late last week to Beijing.

But Carney made it clear he aimed to diversify Canadian trade, and while few geopolitical experts predicted much to come of his meeting with Xi Jinping, apart from initial discussions about electric vehicle (EV) quotas and canola tariffs, the two men struck a deal.

By March 1, Beijing is expected to cut its canola seed tariffs from 85 to 15 per cent and to exempt canola meal, lobsters, crabs, and peas from tariffs, which officials believe will unlock CA$3 billion in annual exports. Canada, for its part, will allow 49,000 Chinese EVs in at a tariff rate of 6.1 per cent — far lower than the 100 per cent EV tariffs imposed in 2024. Less tangibly, the countries have signed memorandums of understanding (MOUs) related to energy and clean tech that could lead to future deals.

“We are forging a new strategic partnership that builds on the best of our past, reflects the world as it is today, and benefits the people of both our nations,” the prime minister said Friday in a statement. He also noted to reporters in Beijing that the deal sets Canada up “well for the new world order,” noting that Canada’s relationship with China has become “more predictable” than its relationship with the United States.

So far, U.S. President Donald Trump has responded congenially.

“If you can get a deal with China, you should do that,” he said.

Still, with a review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement looming this summer, and amid tariff threats over support for Greenland, the China deal comes at a precarious time. Could Carney’s inroads with Xi help or hurt him in his dealings with the White House — and could improved relations with China help him politically at home?

CUSMA in peril?

The president has suggested that he may not be that committed to CUSMA.

“There’s no real advantage to (CUSMA), it’s irrelevant,” Trump said last week. “Canada would love it. They need it.”

But would the president really undo what his first administration forged and labelled as the “gold standard” of free trade agreements?

Stephen Nagy, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and professor of politics and international studies at the International Christian University, said he expects the Trump team to see any China deal as a violation of CUSMA. He could see a world in which Trump pressures Carney to follow U.S. guidelines — against China — or threatens not to renew CUSMA.

“That’s bad for Canada. We trade about $900 billion a year with the United States, and 70 per cent of our trade is with the U.S., so losing that market — even just 10 per cent of it — would really hurt the Canadian economy.” 

Others see the deal as genius.

“This is a master stroke,” said Reza Hasmath, a politics professor at the University of Alberta. “You’re able to get more joint ventures through more Chinese capital to Canada, you alleviate the issues you have with the Prairies, particularly canola trade, and when it comes to CUSMA … it gives [Ottawa] leverage because it shows Canada is looking for other markets.”

Hasmath does not believe the U.S. will abandon CUSMA, as that would be the “nuclear option.” 

“You can threaten it … but to actually do it is a detriment to both our economies,” he said. “So we hope both sides are not going to press the nuclear button to do that.”

Still, the deal could lead to disagreements, particularly over Chinese access to the North American market and security.

Nagy, for example, pointed out that the Chinese EVs will mean not only disrupting the Canadian market but the broader market as well.

Whitney Lackenbauer, a professor and Canada Research Chair in the Study of the Canadian North at Trent University, looks at it through a security lens with a focus on the Arctic. He said the deal could pose some challenges in dealings with the U.S.

“In a way,” he said, “it is playing into certain primordial MAGA narratives about a country like Canada being unreliable or susceptible to Chinese influence.” 

But Lackenbauer also noted that it’s a tradeoff in the sense that it shows Canada is diversifying its trade.

“Canada has had to do the unthinkable, which is buttress against American- or Trump-inspired economic uncertainty,” he added. 

That defensiveness explains the China pivot, according to Anna Ashton, a China expert and head of Ashton Analytics. 

“The last year of U.S.-Canada trade relations has been so brutal that, at this point, it seems predictably enough set on a negative course that I think Canada is looking to stop the bleeding and shore up big trade relationships where it can.”

She echoed Carney in saying that China offers trade relations with a more predictable partner.

“China may not be offering the kind of loyalty and alliance that Canada has had with the United States, but what it is offering is more predictability.”

Ashton also pointed out that the U.S. has not exactly been dealing with the U.S. on CUSMA matters in good faith.

“Even where [Canada] followed the letter of the agreement, the spirit of the agreement has been consistently violated by the U.S. side,” she said.

So a big CUSMA blowup is unlikely, but China brings its own traps, experts say.

Driving a wedge

Nagy warned that China’s concessions are part of an attempt to “drive a wedge” between Canada and the U.S., noting how, when Beijing’s partners align with them politically, they’re rewarded. When they don’t, China turns to economic or political pressure, as seen with tariffs, inspections, and hostage diplomacy, Nagy added.

Carney, he said, needs to be prepared for China’s charm versus coercion approach. 

China may be letting Carney stick his toe in, but “they’re going to cut it off as soon as they have a chance,” Nagy warned. He pointed to China’s current strained relations with Japan as an example.

“Japan and China have terrible relations right now, and their economic relationship is worth about $300 billion,” he said.

“And [Beijing is] still willing to put pressure on the Japanese, because of a political disagreement, over the economic relationship.”

The Canadian relationship, meanwhile, is worth only a fraction of that, he said, referring to the CA$130 billion as merely a “drop in the bucket” to China.

In the future, China may resort to economic coercion with Canada, Hasmath acknowledged, noting that it cannot be stopped. Its impact, however, can be mitigated, he said.

“If China wants to use this sort of economic coercion … we can’t fully stop it, but we can reduce its impact.”

Canada can’t decouple from China, he said, without losing something like 20 per cent of the Canadian economy. But it can pursue a 10-20 year plan of derisking and pursuing the Indo-Pacific strategy, gradually reducing Canada’s economic vulnerabilities to China, including the over-reliance on some supply chains and markets.

But avoiding great power economic coercion, he said, does not mean needing to avoid China altogether. 

“It’s done by all great powers,” he said. 

Ashton agreed. “China can be coercive … that’s something that is well known by all of its trading partners,” she said, but the same is true of the United States.

“It was the Trump administration itself that pushed for the CUSMA deal, and it is the Trump administration that is kind of turning its back on CUSMA and trying to create a situation where it can demand and receive without reciprocating.”

Despite needing to diversify trading partners, Carney was also responding to domestic pressures with his China deal. Could his diversification efforts lead to an even bigger electoral win for the Liberals in the near future?

Domestic dividends vs. Conservative fodder

High Chinese tariffs on Canola have been hurting Western farmers, which is why Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have wanted Canada to re-engage with China to boost agricultural exports. 

The deal is a win for those farmers, and it could win some otherwise Conservative support for Carney’s Liberals as a result. Nagy said he expected this support to be limited, noting that conservatives he engages with personally were opposed to a China deal. 

“They seem to be quite upset about the visit [to China],” he said, noting how Premier Scott Moe’s Conservatives are smaller in number. 

While Western farmers wanted their market opened, the eastern provinces of Ontario and Quebec have been clear about preferring to keep their markets closed, and yet the new deal will see Chinese EVs hitting the Canadian market with comparably lower prices than domestic cars. That could be a win for consumers who can’t afford the higher-priced vehicles, but it could undermine domestic sales.

The deal will upset some, as it
has Ontario Premier Doug Ford
. But Hasmath described the political calculation as low-risk and high-reward. To his mind, the deal will appeal to the Prairies that need canola exports while likely not alienating Liberal strongholds in Ontario and Quebec.

If Carney can get joint-venture EV plans into Ontario ahead of a new federal election, said Hasmath, “he’s setting himself up to score a lot of political points.” 

Will it pay off?

Carney’s approach to taking “the world as it is” — diversifying away from U.S. unpredictability, and closer to Beijing — is bold. This new deal should deliver much-needed revenue to the Prairies and, if EV plants can be built soon, could lead to automotive job growth. If so, and especially if Carney can keep CUSMA on track, the prime minister could be setting himself up for a majority Liberal win in the next election.

And if CUSMA talks go nowhere, some, like Nagy, have said this could potentially be good for Carney, too, at least politically.

“If [CUSMA review talks] go poorly, they’ll probably blame the Trump administration for everything. The Canadians will rally behind that, and I think that will be good for the Liberals,” said Nagy.

The CUSMA review looms this summer, and with Trump eyeing Greenland and threatening sanctions against allies, the real verdict will come in job numbers, affordability, business boardroom satisfaction, and, ultimately, Canadian ballots.

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.


In 2013, almost 3,000 troops from across Canada participated in Exercise Maple Resolve at CFB Wainwright in Alberta, a large-scale exercise involving realistic and intensive training scenarios.

The Canadian military would be “foolish” not to draw up plans on how to respond to a U.S. invasion, says an expert on Canada-U.S. relations.

The Canadian Armed Forces is reportedly looking at employing insurgency-style tactics like those used in Afghanistan in the unlikely event that the U.S. military attacks Canada.

“They’d be foolish if they didn’t, if only because Donald Trump has said he’s concerned about Greenland. He’s concerned about the threat from Russia and China in the Arctic. Sub out the word Greenland for the word(s) Baffin Island or Iqaluit or any other sort of place north and you’d have a potential for American troops up there,” said Asa McKercher, the Hudson Chair in Canada-U.S. Relations at St. Francis Xavier University’s Brian Mulroney Institute of Government.

Canada’s top soldier, Gen. Jennie Carignan, was out of the country Tuesday and unavailable for comment.

“As is routine, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces conducts analysis on a variety of scenarios, both real and hypothetical, to ensure readiness,” Kened Sadiku, who speaks for DND, said Tuesday in an email. “As a matter of operational security, and as a critical element of our defence, we do not confirm such matters in public.”

While a U.S. invasion of Canada is “very, very, very unlikely,” McKercher said it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

After he was elected in 2024, Trump referred repeatedly to Canada as the 51st state. While his talk of annexation and how it would benefit Canada has dried up in recent months, Trump posted a doctored image overnight on his social media platform of a map showing Canada, Greenland and Venezuela covered in the U.S. flag.

“Donald Trump is treated in some ways like a toddler,” McKercher said. “He does silly things and people don’t believe him until he follows through.”

A Canadian insurgency would be effective because many Americans wouldn’t want Canada to be invaded, he said.

“This would create big problems potentially within the United States itself,” McKercher said.

Many Canadians would resent an American invasion, “and could make life difficult for Americans,” he said.

“If it came to that, what would prevent Canadian military members or insurgents from going across the border at any of the many, many points along our border that aren’t patrolled, and blowing up bombs in American cities? It’s inconceivable, but a crazy thing that I think clearly is on the mind of very serious people.”

Citing two unnamed senior government officials,

The Globe and Mail reported

that

the model being developed “was a conceptual and theoretical framework, not a military plan, which is an actionable and step‑by‑step directive for executing operations.”

McKercher said it’s “reasonable” to expect that Canada’s military would be unlikely to stave off a U.S. invasion for more than a day or two.

“We have a very small military; they have a very effective military,” McKercher said. “They have the ability to destroy our command-and-control centres, target our logistics networks, they’re aware of where all our bases are. There’s not a lot of hiding that we could do, probably, from American cruise missiles and drones.”

 Vincent Rigby, who was national security and intelligence advisor to the prime minister from January 2020 until June 2021.

Canada’s former national security and intelligence adviser, Vincent Rigby, said Tuesday that a U.S. invasion “falls into the category of very low probability, but very high impact, to put it mildly.”

Trump “talks a lot of smack,” Rigby said. “It’s part of his playbook. It’s destabilizing.”

But the Canadian military is supposed to plan for all scenarios, said Rigby, a former top intelligence adviser to former prime minister Justin Trudeau who spent 14 years with Canada’s Department of National Defence.

“They’re very good at it and given the current situation in the world, given the current state of Canada-U.S. relations, given the current state of U.S. foreign policy, I’m not completely surprised that they’re looking at possible scenarios.”

He fears the revelation that plans are afoot will agitate apprehensions amongst a lot of Canadians.

“It certainly stirs the pot a little bit,” Rigby said.

A U.S. invasion of Canada would be extremely unpopular amongst Americans, he said.

“That is a country that is completely and utterly divided — polarized,” Rigby said.

“There would be huge, huge segments of the U.S. population that would be just, ‘You’ve got to be kidding. We’re invading Canada?’ Who knows what that might set off in the United States?”

That “might be the last straw for a lot of Americans in terms of this president is completely and utterly off his rocker,” Rigby said.

Just because Trump posted a doctored photo recently of a map showing Canada covered in the U.S. flag doesn’t mean he’s about to launch an invasion, Rigby said.

“I think it’s part of his negotiation tactics. He likes to put governments on their heels. It strengthens his own bargaining position,” he said. “The crazier stuff that he puts out there, it gives him greater leverage. It’s sort of the mad man theory — do crazy stuff and people will give in. People will make concessions.”

Trump appears focused on Greenland right now, Rigby said.

But “he is thinking about the Arctic, writ large. That includes Denmark and Greenland, but it also obviously includes Canada. And so, we have to keep up our guard in the Arctic.”

Rigby fears Trump “could do something silly in the Northwest Passage, or could do something silly on a Canadian island in the Arctic archipelago. So, is he going to seize all of Canada and try to make it the 51st state? Not in the near term. Don’t see that. But could he do something very aggressive in the Arctic if he feels we’re not doing our job? Absolutely. It’s a tightrope that Canada has to constantly walk right now with the United States.”

A U.S. invasion would likely target Ottawa, he said.

“They’d probably go straight for Ottawa and try to cut off the head of the government,” Rigby said.

“But this is a huge country — 10 million square kilometres, second largest country in the world. Vast parts of the country without huge population density. Would they be able to take every single city? Every single province? No.”

The Canadian military likely wouldn’t be able to stop U.S. tanks rolling across the border, Rigby said. “It would probably be a matter of days, if not hours. But could we put up resistance in the rest of country? We probably could — some low-level guerrilla type activity.”

While the U.S. has the strongest military in the world, “even they have limited resources at the end of the day,” Rigby said. “The notion that they’re just going to take a country as large as Canada and control it in the face of guerrilla opposition and that sort of thing – it’s a little bit much. So, it’s a classic case of be careful what you wish for and how much you want to bite off.”

Canada needs to show the U.S. it is serious about defending the Arctic, Rigby said. “All the stuff we say we’re going to do in the Arctic, including purchasing submarines, increasing our satellite capability, our surveillance capability, we’ve got to do that. And we’ve got to do that fast.”

There was no talk about how to thwart a U.S. invasion when Rigby was national security intelligence adviser during the last year of Trump’s first presidency, he said. “And I don’t think it’s been an issue under any government for a long time…. You probably have to go back almost a hundred years since that was last taken seriously.”

Canada has planned for a U.S. invasion before, McKercher said Tuesday.

“Probably the most famous Canadian military plans regarding an American invasion occurred in the 1920s,” he said.

McKercher pointed to Canadian military Lieutenant Colonel James “Buster” Sutherland Brown’s plan formed over a century ago in the event of a war between Britain and the U.S., “which even in the 1920s seemed pretty crazy, but was potentially conceivable.”

Brown’s plan involved Canadian preemptive strikes “to invade American border towns and then wait for the British Empire to sort of come save us,” McKercher said.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Brig. Gen Robert McBride, a Canadian exchange officer who is currently serving as deputy commanding general for operations with the U.S. 11th Airborne Division. Reports say the Alaska-based division has been asked to ready for possible deployment to Minnesota amid immigration-crackdown turmoil. The Canadian government would have to approve McBride's deployment to the state.

Reports that U.S. troops based in Alaska are being readied for deployment to the streets of Minneapolis amid a turbulent immigration crackdown there could put a Canadian officer in a sticky situation. Brig. Gen. Robert McBride is those soldiers’ deputy commanding officer.

McBride was seconded to the U.S. 11th Airborne Division in 2023, replacing another Canadian, Brig. Gen. Louis Lapointe, as deputy commanding general of operations.

They are part of a longstanding program of officer exchanges between Canadian, U.S. and other NATO countries’ armed forces, situations that have created conundrums for the Canadians in the past.

This time it centres around a threat by President Donald Trump to invoke America’s Insurrection Act in Minnesota, the site of widespread protests over Trump’s drive to deport undocumented immigrants, especially after immigration officers shot dead an American woman in her car. Implementing the Act would give him wide powers to respond to unrest in Minnesota.

U.S. media including ABC News and the Associated Press have quoted unnamed military sources as saying that the 11th Airborne has been told to prepare 1,500 troops for possible deployment to the state.

Critics have said that invoking the Insurrection Act and dispatching active-duty troops — as opposed to part-time National Guard soldiers — to the city would be a needless and almost unprecedented escalation of tensions there.

But could a Canadian officer be stuck in the middle of such an historic American controversy?

Probably not, says retired Gen. Wayne Eyre, who was Canada’s chief of defence staff until 2024, and actually assigned McBride to the U.S. unit. In fact, exchange officers must get Canadian approval — called a national authority to deploy — before departing on any operation with their American unit. The chief of defence staff makes a recommendation and the defence minister signs off, or not, as the ultimate arbiter, said Eyre.

“I doubt the U.S. would even ask for a Canadian exchange officer to deploy on such a task, and even less likely it would be approved,” he said.

While Eyre said he dealt with many exchange-officer issues in the job, the most controversial arose in 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq. Though Canada declined to take part in the attack, a handful of Canadian soldiers deployed with their American units. That authority was later rescinded, though.

In 1982, a Canadian exchange officer with the British Parachute Regiment was refused authority to join the Falklands War, as was his U.S. colleague, said Eyre.

He actually found himself in a unique — and little-known — position while on an exchange with the Americans a decade ago. He was deputy commanding general for operations with the U.S. XVIII Airborne Corps when it was deployed to Afghanistan in 2014, just as the Canadian mission in the country was coming to a close.

“The government thankfully authorized my deployment, and ironically my U.S. boss put me in command of the NATO Training Mission — Afghanistan — one of the largest commands there, surprising some of our NATO partners as Canada had officially ceased its mission.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


A local resident posted on X about antisemitic graffiti she saw in Toronto's west end on Monday, Jan. 19, 2026.

Toronto City Councillor Brad Bradford says he’s disgusted by antisemitic graffiti calling for the death of Jews in the city’s west end.

Bradford, a councillor for Beaches-East York, said that Toronto’s Jewish community has been “subjected to a shocking increase in antisemitism,” in an emailed statement to National Post.

“Jewish restaurants have been firebombed, Jewish girls schools have been shot at, and Jewish neighbourhoods have been targeted by hateful protests. Hateful graffiti litters our streets, parks and sidewalks. It’s disgusting, it’s abhorrent, and it needs to stop,” he said.

Toronto resident Christine Van Geyn posted

a video on X on Monday

showing the graffiti, which said: “Kill Jews for peace.” It was scrawled in black under a bridge at Royal York Rd. and Dundas St. W.

Bradford shared the post and said that “we are far too used to seeing disgusting antisemitic graffiti like this” in Toronto.

“Leadership is about denouncing it clearly and consistently, and taking action to put an end to it,” he added.

Van Geyn told National Post that she shared the video because it was in her neighbourhood and she believes “people need to understand what the Jewish community is increasingly living with.”

“This is not the first time this bridge was vandalized. On November 12, I reported vandalism in the same spot that said ‘save a child, kill a Rabbi,’” she said.

 A Toronto resident took a photo of antisemitic graffiti discovered in her west end neighbourhood in November 2025.

“Antisemitism has risen dramatically, and it is no longer abstract or theoretical — it is showing up in public spaces, near homes, schools, and places people pass every day. This bridge is right between two elementary schools. The messages on the bridge are especially disturbing because they are calls to violence against Jews as Jews.”

B’nai Brith Canada, an organization dedicated to combatting antisemitism, keeps track of incidents across the country for an annual audit. Last week alone, it said there had been

32 antisemitic incidents reported

. It included the harassment of a Jewish couple in Toronto, and

swastikas spray-painted

on the windows and walls of a synagogue in Winnipeg.

Van Geyn said she has been shocked by what she’s seen over the past two and a half years. “What might once have seemed unthinkable is now being written openly on bridges and walls,” she said. Although she is not Jewish, her husband is and so are her step-children.

“That has made this issue very personal for me. I am worried about my family, and I am worried about the broader Jewish community. Our neighbourhood does not have a large Jewish population. Our home is one of few that can be identified as a Jewish home because we keep a mezuzah on our door,” she said.

“We are once again discussing as a family if this puts us at risk.”

She said the protesters who say they are rallying against Israel deem their activism as anti-Zionism, rather than antisemitism. “But when you see repeated messages calling for violence against Jews and Jewish religious figures, it becomes impossible to credibly argue that this is about foreign policy or criticism of Israel,” she said.

Van Geyn called 311 after she saw the graffiti. She was told that it was classified as high priority and that it would be removed.

Bradford said that it’s up to leaders to stand up and “clearly to denounce hatred, each time it happens.” He said he would continue to be a “loud voice to ensure that every Torontonian feels safe and welcome in our city.”

Toronto police spokesperson Stephanie Sayer told National Post in a statement that since November 2023 there has been an online form that can be filled out to report hate-motivated graffiti.

“Since then, a total of 1,074 hate-motivated graffiti calls were generated through this web form. It is monitored 24/7 for officers to be dispatched to investigate,” she said.

“Since October 7, we have made 300 arrests and laid 805 charges in relation to hate crimes. Police play a critical role in responding to hate-motivated crime and threats, and we act when conduct crosses the criminal threshold.”

However, she added that “not all hateful or offensive speech is criminal under Canadian law.”

“Some behaviour may be deeply upsetting or harmful without meeting the legal standard for police enforcement,” she said. “Addressing antisemitism in all its forms requires a broader response that includes education, community leadership, and action from governments.”

Van Geyn pointed out that the words graffitied under the bridge are not a “political critique.”

“It is a call for violence against a people,” she said.

“I posted the video because we need to be honest about what this is and call it out clearly. If we allow explicit threats against Jews to be reframed as legitimate political expression, we normalize something that should never be normalized: antisemitism.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


French President Emmanuel Macron, right, greets Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney prior to a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland on Tuesday.

French President Emmanuel Macron wore a pair of reflective, aviator-style sunglasses with blue-tinted lenses as he stepped into the spotlight at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland Tuesday.

And while the French may be known for their appreciation of haute couture, Macron’s slick eyewear wasn’t strictly a fashion choice.

Why is Emmanuel Macron wearing sunglasses indoors?

During a New Year’s address to armed forces members in southern France last Thursday, Macron’s right eye appeared bloodshot and swollen. He apologized for its “unsightly appearance” and told the assembly it was “something completely harmless,” according to

The Associated Press.

“Simply see an unintentional reference to the ‘Eye of the Tiger’ … it is a sign of determination,” he quipped in reference to Survivor’s 1982 hit of the same name, which served as the theme song for Rocky III.

 French President Emmanuel Macron delivers a speech at the Istres military air force base, southern France, last week.

Has Emmanuel Macron worn sunglasses indoors before Davos?

The day before arriving in Davos, Macron was wearing sunglasses at the Elysee Palace in Paris, where he held meetings on New Caledonia and signed the Elysée-Oudinot Accord — a new constitutional and financial agreement concerning the French Pacific territory.

He hasn’t clarified whether the glasses are meant to protect his eye or simply to hide its appearance.

 France’s President Emmanuel Macron leads a meeting on New-Caledonia at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Monday.

What did Emmanuel Macron say in Davos?

The French president didn’t mention his ocular malaise or the trendy shades during

his address and fireside chat on Tuesday

. But the 48-year-old head of state did respond to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to impose levies on European nations opposing his plans to acquire Greenland.

“Without collective governance, cooperation gives way to relentless competition, competition from the United States of America through trade agreements that undermine our export interests, demand maximum concessions, and openly aim to weaken and subordinate Europe, combined with an endless accumulation of new tariffs that are fundamentally unacceptable, even more so when they are used as leverage against territorial sovereignty.”

 France’s President Emmanuel Macron kisses the hand of Queen Mathilde of Belgium as King Philippe of Belgium looks on during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday.

Macron, who started his speech joking about the world being in “a time of peace, stability and predictability,” also took a subtle jab at Trump’s repeated claim of ending eight wars since his presidency began, remarking that the world saw more than 60 wars break out in 2024.

“An absolute record, even if I understood a few of them were fixed,” he said from behind the glasses.

 French President Emmanuel Macron is seen during the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday.

Near the end of his speech, Macron said France favours “respect” and adhering to the “rule of law” over “bullying.”

He told reporters there are no plans to speak with Trump in Davos, according to the

Independent

.

What did Donald Trump say to set things off with Emmanuel Macron?

Late last week, Macron declined an invitation to join Trump’s “Board of Peace,” a global group he has proposed building off his similar entity created for Gaza.

“Nobody wants him because he’s going to be out of office very soon,” Trump told reporters on Monday night, as reported by

Bloomberg.

“I’ll put a 200 per cent tariff on his wines and champagnes, and he’ll join, but he doesn’t have to join.”

 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One on his way to Davos, Switzerland on Monday/

On Truth Social shortly after, he shared an apparent private text message between the pair in which Macron questions the move on Greenland and offers to set up an informal G7 meeting.

An official close to Macron told

The Associated Press

that the message is genuine.

Trump is due to speak at the WEF on Wednesday morning in an address which will be live-streamed on an

official website

and

YouTube channel

.

He is also planning a Thursday event to launch his “Board of Peace.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney gestures as he speaks during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 20, 2026. The World Economic Forum takes place in Davos from January 19 to January 23, 2026.

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada is open to contributing financially to U.S. President Donald Trump’s Gaza “Board of Peace” if his government receives assurances that the funding will go directly to Palestinians.

“We would write cheques and deliver in kind to improve the welfare of the people of Palestine,” said Carney, during an appearance in front of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland on Tuesday.

“But we would want to see it delivered (directly) to those outcomes.”

Carney was responding to questions from Financial Times journalist Gideon Rachman after delivering a speech to a few hundred WEF attendees.

On Friday, Trump announced the formation of a Board of Peace as part of the president’s 20-point plan to bring “lasting peace, stability, reconstruction, and prosperity” to the region.

In November, the plan was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council through the adoption of Resolution 2803.

Trump himself will serve as chairman, with members that include U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former United Kingdom prime minister Tony Blair and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Carney said on Sunday that he agreed to accept Trump’s invitation to join the board in principle but would like to see more information on the governance and structure of it.

“It needs to coincide with the immediate full flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza,” he said. “We are still not where we need to be, so that needs to come onside.”

Trump also intends to charge US$1 billion for permanent membership on the board. Member countries that don’t pay that fee will be limited to a three-year membership.

Earlier on Tuesday, in contradiction to Carney’s comments, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne told reporters in Davos that his government has no intention of paying to join Trump’s board.

“There are a lot of details to be worked out, but one thing which is clear is that Canada is not going to pay if we were to join the Board of Peace,” he said.

There is also the matter of Trump’s invitation to Russian President Vladimir Putin to join the board.

Champagne would not comment on Putin’s potential membership, but said the world “wants Canada’s voice.”

“The prime minister will have to make the final decision when all the facts are known and all the details have been hammered out, whether this is in the best interest of Canada to be part of it,” he said.

Carney took the opportunity on Tuesday to condemn Russia’s war against Ukraine, which will enter its fourth year next month, adding that Russia is “without question” a threat to Canada and its allies in the arctic.

“The threat is more prospective than actual at this stage, in terms of actual activity in the arctic, and we intend to keep it that way,” he said.

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.