Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre accused Prime Minister Mark Carney of “numerous falsehoods” about his financial portfolio Monday, and called on him to sell all of his personal investments to avoid conflicts of interest.

Speaking at a press conference in Ottawa, Poilievre also accused Carney of using his political pull to personally profit by advancing programs or offering endorsements that would benefit companies in his portfolio.

The accusations follow the disclosure Friday by the ethics commissioner of

a report on Carney’s conflicts of interest involving over 100 companies that the prime minister had interests in

. Carney had agreed with the commissioner to establish an extensive conflict-of-interest screen that would include recusing himself from any discussions directly involving Brookfield Asset Management, payment-processing giant Stripe, or a wide range of companies those organizations owned or controlled at the time the prime minister set up a blind trust earlier this year.

Before entering politics, Carney was chairman of Brookfield Asset Management, where he co-led efforts to raise capital for two major clean energy funds. He was also on Stripe’s board of directors.

Poilievre said the Liberal leader deceived voters during the federal election campaign earlier this year when he described his efforts to avoid financial conflicts.

“Mr. Carney was not upfront or honest with Canadians,” the Conservative leader said. Poilievre said that during the election campaign, Carney claimed that he had only cash and real estate holdings, and it turns out he held hundreds of stocks, stock options and deferred profits from Brookfield and other companies.

In the

early days of the election Carney said he had set up a blind trust.

“I actually don’t own – directly – any stocks in those companies,” and “I own nothing but cash and personal real estate,” Carney said at the time.

Carney also said then he no longer had any financial connection to Brookfield Asset Management and that he didn’t know what was in his blind trust, both of which Poilievre said aren’t true.

Carney’s declaration on the ethics commissioner’s website last week said the new screen will prevent him from giving preferential treatment to any of the companies with which he has a financial link. It also means that Carney cannot be involved in “any official matters or decision-making processes” that would further either his or the

interests of the 103 companies

, many of which operate in the renewable energy and real estate sectors.

The screen will be administered by Carney’s chief of staff, Marc-André Blanchard, and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Sabia.

Poilievre said Carney hasn’t gone nearly far enough because Canadians have never before had a prime minister with such an array of potential conflicts.

Carney has said that he’s gone beyond what is necessary or convention to separate his new job from his personal finances.

If Carney doesn’t sell all of his corporate assets, Poilievre said, the prime minister may need to recuse himself multiple times per cabinet meeting to avoid conflicts.

Under this new set of procedures, Carney must remove himself from the room and make a public declaration of recusal if a matter is being discussed that involves one of the companies under his screen.

But the prime minister isn’t barred from all discussions that may affect those companies. Carney’s screen contains a caveat where he can participate in discussions or decisions on matters that broadly affect any of the 103 companies if they are part of a larger group, “unless those interests are disproportionate to the other members of the class.”

Nor is the ethics screen without challenges, because the prime minister’s job involves virtually every issue and public policy question and Carney’s screen involves so many companies. There’s also the sticky matter that his Liberal government has vowed to make Canada into a conventional and clean energy superpower, while some of Carney’s assets are directly involved in the clean energy sector.

One of the screens the prime minister will be subject to involves Westinghouse, one of the world’s largest nuclear power companies. Brookfield Asset Management acquired a majority ownership stake in Westinghouse while Carney was co-head of the investment fund.

As Poilievre pointed out, Carney mentioned Westinghouse while praising nuclear energy during a leaders’ debate during the election campaign. He also alleged Carney had promoted modular homes, heat pumps and specific kinds of jet fuel that benefited companies he has invested in.

Other noteworthy conflict of interest screens relate to some of Brookfield’s investments in India’s clean energy and renewables sector — Leap Green, Avaada Group and CleanMax — through the Brookfield Global Transition Fund, which was co-managed by Carney.

The ethics disclosure also contains an extensive list of companies — running across 16 full pages — of shares and share options Carney owns that held in a blind trust or in an investment account managed by a third party that he does not control or direct.

In his blind trust, Carney put shares of North of 60 Advisors, Stripe, Partners Value Investments LP, Cultivo Land PBC, Watershed Technology, and options and deferred share units of the Brookfield Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management.

According to Brookfield’s annual report, Carney was entitled to 209,300 stock options at US$35.13 each and 200,000 options at US$40.07 each, for a market value of more than US$6.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2024. The expiration date on these options is either 2033 or 2034.

The assets held by an investment account managed by a third party include shares from Airbnb, Amazon, American Express, Apple, Blackrock, Coca Cola, Costco, DoorDash, Lockheed Martin, Lululemon, Moderna, Netflix, Palantir Technologies, Pfizer and Uber.

Advocacy group Democracy Watch agreed that Carney should sell his investments and that his blind trust isn’t blind enough. The problems with the prime minister’s current arrangement are that he knows what’s in the trust, he chose the trustee and the instructions for the trustee and can receive regular updates.

“His blind trust isn’t blind at all because he knows what stocks he put in it,” said Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, which advocates for democratic reform.

— With additional reporting from Christopher Nardi and Catherine Lévesque.

National Post

• Carney to recuse himself from dealings with over 100 companies in sprawling government conflict screen
• Large majority of Canadians want Carney to disclose business interests: poll

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.

When U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to increase tariffs on Canada in a letter last week, he complained that the federal government had “financially retaliated against the United States.”

In the letter, posted to Truth Social on Thursday, Trump said the U.S. tariff on Canadian goods would jump from 25 per cent to 35 per cent on Aug. 1 and he warned Prime Minister Mark Carney not to consider raising Canada’s counter tariffs on the U.S.

In response to Trump’s tariffs, Canada has announced tariffs on $96 billion worth of U.S. merchandise, according to an Oxford Economics analysis. However, Carney has also since exempted a number of products from these tariffs. The Oxford Economics analysis also found that at least $56 billion is eligible for exemption or remittance from tariffs.

Here’s what we know about the current state of Canada’s retaliatory tariffs against the United States.

What has Canada levied tariffs against?

Over the course of the spring, Canada announced several rounds of tariffs.

On March 4, a 25 per cent tariff on $30 billion worth of U.S. imports.

On March 13, a 25 per cent tariff on a further $29.8 billion worth of U.S. goods, including steel and aluminum.

As of April 9, a 25 per cent tariff on $35.6 billion worth of cars and parts that are not compliant with existing free-trade agreements.

At present, the government of Canada lists 37 pages of goods that are facing tariffs.

It includes items such as food, clothing and cosmetics.

On page 37, for example, scent sprays and other toilet sprays are listed as being subject to a 25 per cent tariff.

The same tariff is applied to everything from chicken and powdered milk on page 1, to prune wine on page 7 and négligés on page 16.

All in, Oxford Economics estimates between $32 billion and $40 billion in U.S. product remain tariffed by Canada after exemptions are accounted for.

What are the exemptions?

A number of exemptions have since been carved out.

Canada, like the U.S., has exempted goods that are compliant under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, which has been in effect since July 1, 2020.

For example, this would include much of the auto sector. A 25-per-cent tariff remains on non-USMCA compliant automobiles and auto parts.

There are a further set of exemptions, too. The first is an exemption for some auto manufacturers that continue to produce vehicles in Canada and carry out planned corporate investments. This represents a $35.6-billion exemption, analysis suggests.

The second, writes Tony Stillo of Oxford Economics, is for “manufacturing, processing, and food and beverage packaging, and on those used for public health, health care, public safety, and national security.” This, likely worth a bit more than $20 billion, includes some steel and aluminium. This exemption will run for six months, from mid-April to mid-October 2025.

“A lot of those intermediate goods that go into manufacturing, food packaging and things of that nature, are eligible for relief,” said Stillo in an interview.

Are there any unclear categories?

Yes. “There’s still a degree of uncertainty about what qualifies for exemption,” said Stillo.

There are several exemption categories that are less clear. This includes the public health, health care, public safety and national security products, which Stillo estimates are worth around $3.2 billion.

Why are some things tariffed and others not?

While it’s tough to say exactly why some decisions were made by the federal government, Stillo has a hunch: There are some goods that are easily replaced. For example, Canadians can buy Canadian chicken instead of American chicken. Or chicken could be sourced from other countries. This is similarly true with all sorts of food and all sorts of cosmetics and clothing.

However, there are some goods and materials moving through North America’s heavily integrated supply chain that can’t easily be swapped out.

“What the government’s trying to do, and I think this is really a good plan, is we realize that it’s going to be tough for a lot of our manufacturers to source from non-U.S. sources, and they’re giving them time to find an alternative source,” said Stillo. “I think the Canadian government appreciates the damage that a trade war can inflict, and they strategically aim to target counter tariffs that would be more harmful to the U.S. and Canada.”

What does this all mean?

Well, it means fundamentally that some goods cost more in Canada now than they would without tariffs. And it means some are less expensive because they aren’t tariffed.

It also means that, fundamentally, the United States has an effective tariff rate of 14.1 per cent on Canadian goods, while Canada’s effective tariff rate is more like 2.8 per cent, if you account for all the tariff relief.

“We’re less than proportional, for sure,” said Stillo.

• Canadians are cool to Carney government forcing through ‘national interest’ projects unilaterally: poll
• Carney says deadline for new deal with U.S. delayed as Trump threatens 35% tariffs on Canada

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.

A California mother has been charged with manslaughter and child cruelty after her infant son died from allegedly being left inside a car on a 100-plus degree day while she was getting lip filler injections at a medical spa in late June.

The Bakersfield Police Department alleges that Maya Hernanendez, 20, knew when she walked away from her vehicle that leaving one-year-old Amillio Guiterrez and his two-year-old brother was “irresponsible,” according to documents filed in Kern County Superior Court and obtained by National Post.

“But she intentionally left them in the vehicle regardless, placing the value of her appearance over the value of the safety and well-being of her children,” Det. Kyle McNabb wrote in his report.

The name of the surviving child has not been released by authorities or relatives.

According to police, Hernandez had contacted the spa earlier on June 29 to ask if her children could accompany her and was told they could, so long as they stayed in the waiting room of the medical facility. A spa nurse allegedly later told police they were not aware that the children were waiting in the vehicle.

Figuring her appointment could go long, police say Hernandez told them that upon arriving around 2 p.m., she decided to leave the boys strapped into their car seats, with snacks and milk, inside the running car with the air conditioning on while they watched shows on her phone.

“(Hernandez) stated she was certain that her car would stay on with the air conditioning running the whole time she was gone, because she had been in her car for extended periods of time before and had even slept in her car,” McNabb wrote.

However, police later learned that her vehicle, a 2022 Toyota Corolla Hybrid, automatically shuts off after one hour if left in park.

Hernandez said she returned to her vehicle at approximately 4:30 p.m. and found Amillio red in the face and then appearing to suffer a seizure with “foaming at the mouth and shaking.” The other boy was faring better, but his hair was still “soaking wet” with sweat. She sought assistance from spa staff and called 911.

Paramedics told police that Amillio was unconscious and not breathing upon their arrival.

Both were transported to hospital where staff worked on Amillio for 40 minutes before pronouncing him dead. A doctor interviewed by police said the infant’s body temperature was recorded at 107.2 degrees.

According to

historical weather data

, the peak temperature at that time of day was 101 Fahrenheit (38 Celsius). In his report, McNabb noted that the internal temperature of a car can climb to 143°F (62°C) in just one hour of 100-degree weather.

Police estimate that the boys were left in the scorching hot car for at least 90 minutes.

Amillio’s brother, whose body temperature was registered at 99 degrees, had normal vital signs and has since recovered from the ordeal. Police were informed that kids two and older can sweat to cool themselves down, whereas most infants can’t.

“Based on the totality of the evidence at this time it is clear that Maya Hernandez’s actions caused the death of Amillio Gutierrez,” McNabb wrote.

Hernandez, who has pleaded not guilty to one charge of involuntary manslaughter and two counts of child cruelty, is being held on $1 million bail. She appeared in court briefly last Friday and is due to return Tuesday, according to

ABC in Bakersfield.

Speaking with a reporter outside court, spa patron and witness Ian Blue said he told emergency responders he saw no signs that the air conditioning was running when he walked past Hernandez’s car.

Katie Martinez, the patriarchal grandmother of the deceased boy, said Hernandez is “a really loving mom” and struggled to understand the tragedy.

“They were strapped in their car seats. They couldn’t even get up to save themselves,” she told another

ABC outlet.

“She literally locked them in their car seats and shut their doors.”

Her son, the boys’ father, is currently serving time for unrelated charges and learned of his one-year-old’s death the following day.

• How to avoid forgetting your child in a hot car
• One child dies per year in Canada after being left in a hot car, researchers say

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.

The Department of National Defence said Monday that the

four military-linked individuals accused

in an alleged terror plot did not get their weapons from the Canadian military.

In a statement emailed to National post, the DND said: “

Of note, the weapons, ammunition, and explosives that were seized as part of the RCMP-led investigation that resulted in the arrests on July 8, 2025, did not originate from the Canadian Armed Forces.”

Also, at a court appearance Monday morning in Quebec City, one of the four men was granted bail. Matthew Forbes, 33, was ordered to comply with a lengthy list of conditions including wearing a GPS tracking bracelet.

The other three — Simon Angers-Audet, 24, Raphael Lagacé, 25, and Marc-Aurele Chabot, 24 — will remain detained until their bail hearings, set for July 24-25.

In its statement, the DND confirmed that two of the four suspects, Chabot and  Forbes, are currently serving in the Canadian army at CFB Valcartier, just outside Quebec City.

“Corporal Chabot enrolled in the Canadian Army as a Reservist in June 2019,” the statement said. “He transferred to the Regular Force from the Voltigeurs de Québec to the 2e Bataillon, Royal 22e Régiment in July 2023. He was not deployed.”

It added: “Bombardier Forbes enrolled in the Canadian Army in October 2016 and joined the 5e Régiment d’artillerie légère du Canada in November 2017. He was deployed to Operation CADENCE in 2018 and Operation REASSURANCE 2019.”

Operation Cadence

was the military’s contribution to the RCMP’s security operation for the G7 Summit in Quebec’s Charlevoix region.

Operation Reassurance

 involves Canada’s participation in NATO land, maritime and air activities in Central and Eastern Europe, with deployments in Latvia, Romania and the Mediterranean.

Regarding the other two men, the DND said Angers-Audet enrolled as a reservist with the Voltigeurs de Québec in June 2019 and was released in May 2022 as a Private. Lagacé has not served in the CAF, but was a civilian instructor with the 630 Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron in Beauport, Québec, between January 2021 and September 2024, the DND said.

Of the two active CAF members, the DND said: “

We can confirm that these individuals have not been performing military duties and do not have unescorted access to the military base.”

It added: “At any time, should the integrity of a CAF member be called into question, various actions include restricting access to the base, weapons, and individuals’ security clearances in addition to other administrative measures. The CAF continues to take this matter very seriously, and all options will be pursued and acted upon as appropriate.”

The RCMP announced the arrest of the four men last week. They were scheduled to appear at a bail hearing in Quebec City on Monday.

Three of the men are accused of taking actions to “facilitate terrorist activity” and planning to form an “anti-government militia.” Forbes also faces multiple charges, including possession of firearms, prohibited devices and explosives, and possession of controlled items.

The alleged target was not specified, but it was not a government facility or a political landmark, the RCMP told National Post. It was described as land that could be used to build their group or used as a base to start a “new society.”

“They took part in military-style training, as well as shooting, ambush, survival, and navigation exercises. They also conducted a scouting operation. A variety of firearms, some prohibited, as well as high-capacity magazines and tactical equipment were allegedly used in these activities,” the RCMP said in a news release last week.

The group was active as far back as 2021. The RCMP investigation began in March 2023, a spokesperson said.

In January 2024, 16 explosive devices, 83 firearms and accessories, about 11,000 rounds of ammunition, nearly 130 magazines, four pairs of night vision goggles and other military equipment were seized, the RCMP said. Among the weapons seized were military-style assault rifles.

The DND said no further details on the investigation could be released at this time, and that any other questions should be referred to the RCMP.

— With files from The Montreal Gazette and The Canadian Press

• Canadian soldiers charged in alleged anti-government terror plot
• Sheryl Saperia: Canada failed to learn the lessons of the Air India bombing

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.

Don Cherry said his departure from Hockey Night in Canada in 2019 was not an orchestrated “exit strategy” related to health concerns, as was recently suggested by Ron MacLean, his ex-longtime on-air partner.

The former co-host of Coach’s Corner isn’t ready to call MacLean’s candid comments to the

Kingston Whig Standard

a “betrayal,” but admitted to feeling aggrieved by the narrative created after so many years have passed.

“I’m very disappointed in Ron that he would bring this up,” Cherry, 91, told the

Toronto Sun’s Joe Warmington in a conversation about MacLean’s assertions

. “I’m very disappointed that he would reach back five years and do this.

“He should let it go,” he added.

Cherry said he was “really surprised” when his wife Luba showed him the story, noting to Warmington that as far as she is concerned, MacLean is not welcome at their home or to contact them. Luba told the writer she would speak with her husband’s former peer directly.

⁦@CoachsCornerDC⁩ explains his “disappointment” in Ron MacLean and that he is not welcome to his home as far as his wife is concerned following a recent interview in which conveys personal health information and unsubstantiated narratives how he left Coach’s Corner in 2919 pic.twitter.com/mBI3WmTWds

— Joe Warmington (@joe_warmington) July 12, 2025

Broached with the subject of Cherry and his son Tim possibly ending their podcast Grapevine by Whig Standard sports writer Gare Joyce recently, MacLean was reminded of Cherry’s departure from HNIC and tied it to the pneumonia he was suffering from at the end of a long Stanley Cup Final between the St. Louis Blues and Boston Bruins that June.

MacLean alleged that Cherry was struggling to breathe on their flight to Boston for a decisive Game 7, and he was taken to a sauna upon landing in an attempt to “clear out his lungs.”

A then 85-year-old Cherry would go on air that night, but his account of what occurred after the game differs from MacLean’s.

“Don and I didn’t have our post-show ritual beers (because) he was so sick,” MacLean told the Whig Standard. “I just had a couple of beers by myself and then I got a call from (National Hockey League Commissioner) Gary Bettman — you know, he and I are like, well, pick your poison — and he asks, ‘How’s Don?’ I tell him, ‘He’s good. Why do you ask?’ (Bettman) says, ‘Well, he’s in hospital.’ That was a shocker.”

For his part, Cherry insisted to Warmington that while he was “pretty tired,” there was no hospital visit in Boston.

“I went to my room,” he said, admitting he later visited a hospital upon returning to Canada, where he spent one night being assessed and treated for pneumonia.

Regardless, MacLean went on to suggest the “pneumonia scare” led Cherry to begin “plotting a way out” that ultimately arrived on a November broadcast ahead of Remembrance Day when he spoke about immigrants to Canada not wearing poppies to honour Canada’s fallen soldiers.

“You people come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey. At least you could pay a couple of bucks for a poppy,” Cherry said at the time.

Rogers Sportsnet released him two days later following public backlash, which MacLean said “was the right outcome.”

“Don needed out, and the time was right. (Remembrance Day) was his last swing, taking a stance that’s unpopular, but that feels good in his world. For Don, it’s all a fight. It’s all a battle. So he was happy and I’m happy for him.”

Cherry also flatly rejected that assertion, saying “he wasn’t looking for a way out.”

“He can say what he wants, but it never happened.”

⁦@CoachsCornerDC⁩ says ⁦@Ron_MacLean⁩ in story suggesting he was looking for an exit plan to leave Coach’s Corner and Hockey Night in Canada on Rogers Sportsnet is wrong and than it’s the other way around. They were looking for reason to fire him. pic.twitter.com/I8TnUnmegr

— Joe Warmington (@joe_warmington) July 12, 2025

Cherry said he’s not been in contact with MacLean about the statements, nor does he plan to reach out.

As for the future of the Grapevine podcast, Cherry and his son told Warmington that the show will continue.

• Rex Murphy: Don Cherry’s cruel exclusion from the Order of Canada
• ‘I’ve been through some ordeals’: Ron MacLean is the last Canadian icon

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.

As Canada ramps up defence spending in an effort to meet its NATO commitments, a pollster suggests the military may struggle to find the people it needs. According to a new Angus Reid Institute poll, just under half of Canadians say they’d be willing to serve if war broke out, and younger adults were the least likely to say they would volunteer.

The survey asked Canadians if they would be willing to fight in a war. Only 49 per cent of respondents said they would volunteer for military service in a combat role. Nineteen per cent said, “Yes, if my country called on me,” while 30 per cent said, “Yes, but only if I agreed with the reasons for fighting.” More than a third (39 per cent) said they would not be willing to volunteer to fight, while another 12 per cent were not sure. In 1985, when asked if they would be willing to fight for Canada, 61 per cent said “yes,” while 15 per cent said “it depends.”

“One of the things that’s becoming very clear, and very evident is that the conversation around military readiness, security, defence, is certainly having a moment. We’re seeing a 30-year high in terms of willingness to spend more on defence,” said Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute, in an interview with National Post. “We wanted to understand the size and the scope of the willingness (to volunteer for the armed forces) among Canadians.”

For years, the Canadian Armed Forces has been dealing with a recruitment crisis and public pride in the military has taken a hit following concerns about underfunding and the lingering impact of the 2021 sexual misconduct scandal. In 2019 nearly 80 per cent of Canadians said they felt proud of the armed forces, today that has dropped to 52 per cent.

Willingness to serve was highest among men over the age of 54, with 69 per cent saying they would be willing to volunteer (35 per cent unreservedly and 34 per cent if they agree with the war) and only 21 per cent saying they would not. However, since the army’s retirement age is 60, this willingness is of limited practical use. Meanwhile, younger Canadians, who are more sought after by the armed forces, were less willing to volunteer.

“It’s one thing to just talk about, we’re going to spend money, it’s another thing to commit the dollars and spend the money, but the money is going to be spent on people. So how do you square that circle, knowing, for example, that among the least amount of willingness … is among that 18 to 34 cohort,” said Kurl.

The poll found that 45 per cent of men aged 18 to 34 were willing to volunteer to fight (21 per cent unreservedly and 34 per cent if they agree with the war) while 36 per cent of men said they were not willing to volunteer. Women in that age group were far less willing to serve, despite efforts to recruit more women to the armed forces. Only 31 per cent said they would volunteer (10 per cent unreservedly and 21 per cent if they agree with the war) while 58 per cent said they would not.

Overall, Canadians older than 54 are more willing to serve (55 per cent) than men and women aged 18 to 34 (43 per cent).

The poll also showed that political affiliation played a role in willingness. Nearly six in 10 past Conservative voters said they would volunteer, compared to just over four in 10 Liberal voters. A majority of NDP (54 per cent) and Bloc Québécois (52 per cent) supporters declined to volunteer at all.

“We’ve seen through extensive study at the Institute on other related areas, such as where should Canada’s international priorities be, Conservative voters do tend to say they should be more on defence,” said Kurl.

“It’s notable, again, in terms of some of those who are most willing are older male conservative voters,” which again, is not the demographic the forces’ are looking for.

As Canada recommits to its role in NATO, the question isn’t just how much the country is willing to spend on its military, but who is willing to serve in it.

“We don’t have robot armies yet, so there’s also a human aspect to this,” said Kurl.

The national online survey was conducted from June 2 to 23 among a randomised sample of 1,619 Canadians who are members of the Angus Reid Forum. It was weighted to represent Canadian adults nationwide, according to the census. Traditional margins of error do not apply to online surveys, but, for comparison purposes, a probability sample of this size would have a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

• Canada’s boutique military: ‘Should we not be able to defend ourselves?’
• Less than 1% of students rank Canadian Forces as their top career choice

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.