National Post (Politics) Archives - Page 122 of 358

Barely a month out of the political spotlight, former New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh has entered a potentially more fraught arena — that of the ongoing feud between rappers Drake and Kendrick Lamar.

On Sunday night, Singh posted a message to

his Instagram account

after attending one of the two Toronto shows on the Grand National Tour, headlined by Lamar and fellow rapper SZA, at the city’s Rogers Centre.

Singh had been widely noticed at the event, with Drake himself posting a screenshot of an Instagram message and referring to the politician as a “goof” for his patronage of the concert.

Drake calls former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh a Goof for going to Kendrick Lamar’s show in Toronto pic.twitter.com/ZjE2Xsk0oP

— DailyRapFacts (@DailyRapFacts) June 15, 2025

Singh then took to Instagram himself to apologize.

“I shouldn’t have gone at all,” he wrote on his post.

He explained, “I went for SZA, not Kendrick,” adding: “I was born in this city. I love this city.” Drake is a native Torontonian, while his rival Lamar hails from Compton, California.

Singh then went on to say: “But real talk, I get it. I shouldn’t have gone at all.”

He concluded: “OVO and Drake have lifted up this city and (Canadian flag emoji). For me it’ll always be Drake over Kendrick.” He signed off with a peace sign.

OVO is a reference to to OVO Sound, short for October’s Very Own, a record label Drake founded in 2012.

The concert included a performance by Lamar of his hit Not Like Us, a diss track aimed at Drake.

The Canadian Press reported

that the song received a standing ovation from the crowd, along with chants of “one more time.”

The song is the subject of a

lawsuit by Drake

against Universal Music Group, which was filed in a New York court. It alleges that the label falsely pumped up the popularity of Not Like Us on Spotify and other streaming services.

Universal has called the suit a baseless “attack on the commercial and creative success of the rap artist who defeated him.”

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.

Click here for more Canada

KANANASKIS, ALTA. — U.S. President Donald Trump said that he feels a new trade deal with Canada could be achievable shortly, telling media at the G7 that ejecting Russia in 2014 was a mistake and that he is open to adding China to the summit.

Trump’s remarks during a photo op with Prime Minister Mark Carney at the onset of the summit Monday set the stage for what will be a high tension two-day G7 meeting in Kananaskis, Alta.

“I think we have different concepts,” said Trump on trade with Canada. “I have a tariff concept. Mark (Carney) has a different concept, which is something that some people like. But we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Asked if a new deal could come within days or weeks, Trump said yes but noted that both parties had to come to an agreement.

Trump and Carney met for roughly one hour at the Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge, half of which was one-on-one before they were joined by a coterie of advisors and their countries’ respective ambassadors.

“We’ve developed a very good relationship. And we’re going to be talking about trade and many other things,” Trump told U.S. and Canadian reporters crammed into the small meeting room.

The heads of the world’s seven most powerful economies are meeting amid a U.S.-led tariff war and global uncertainty over conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.

On the opening day of the summit, Trump was sporting a lapel pin featuring both Canadian and U.S. flags for what appears to be the first time in his current presidency.

In remarks made before the media on Monday morning, Carney wished Trump a belated happy birthday, which was Saturday. Trump also told reporters that he believes China, the world’s second largest economy, should join the leaders of the seven most advanced economies in the world.

“Well, it’s not a bad idea. I don’t mind that,” said Trump. “If somebody wants to suggest China coming in, I think we — but you want to have people that you can talk to.”

The idea is likely to raise hackles among the Canadian delegation. During the election campaign, Carney said he believed China was the greatest threat to Canada’s national security.

Trump also criticized the decision to eject Russia from the G8 in 2014, following that country’s annexation of Crimea, and said that Vladimir Putin “was very insulted” by the decision.

He also wrongly blamed former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for pushing for Russia’s ejection, which happened while Stephen Harper was prime minister.

In fact, Russia’s membership in the G8 was suspended in March 2014. While Obama was the American president at the time, Conservative Stephen Harper was Canada’s prime minister. Months later, Harper made international headlines at the Group of 20 Summit in Australia when he admonished Putin, then Russia’s president, to “get out of Ukraine.”

“The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn’t want to have Russia in, and I would say that that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if you had Russia in, and you wouldn’t have a war right now if Trump were president four years ago,” Trump said. “It was a mistake in that you spend so much time talking about Russia, and he’s no longer at the table, so it makes life more complicated, but you wouldn’t have had the war.”

However, while saying booting Russia from the G8 was a mistake, Trump stopped short of saying that Putin should be invited back.

“I’m not saying he should at this point, because too much water has gone over the dam, maybe. But it was a big mistake,” he said.

Monday morning’s meeting is the first since the two men met in Washington, D.C. in early May. Canada has been a major target of Trump’s trade and rhetorical belligerence. Although Trump has largely scaled back talk of annexing Canada, making its northern neighbour the 51st state, trade troubles remain top of mind for observers and Canadian diplomats. Canada will be pushing Trump this week on lowering the 50-per-cent tariffs placed on Canadian steel and aluminum and further tariffs on foreign vehicle imports.

Before flying to Canada on Sunday, Trump said, without providing any details, that he thinks “

we’ll have a few new trade deals

” to announce while at the G7.

“Our primary focus would be trade and trade with Canada, and I’m sure we can work something out,” Trump told reporters.

Carney told Trump that the G7 is “nothing without U.S. leadership and without your personal leadership.” Trump responded that he and Carney have developed a “very good relationship.”

Trump then took multiple other questions, about the Iran-Israel conflict and about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in American cities that have seen major street protests mobilized in response. Eventually, Carney stepped in, ending the questions, saying that the leaders had to get to other meetings.

The Trump factor generally is looming over the G7 meeting. In 2018 in Charlevoix, Que,. the defining image of the G7 summit that year was Trump sitting down, arms crossed, a look of curious disdain on his face, while Angela Merkel, then the German chancellor, leaned over a table towards him. That year, Trump refused to sign on to a joint declaration with the other countries and criticized then prime minister Justin Trudeau as “dishonest and weak” over his criticism of tariffs. For 2025, Canada ditched the plan to issue a joint communiqué at the end of the summit, avoiding an overt show of disunity.

With additional reporting from Christopher Nardi

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

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.

Click here for more Alberta

BANFF, Alta. — The heads of the world’s richest economies are converging on Alberta today for one of the most high-stakes G7 meetings in recent memory amid a U.S.-led global tariff war and the growing crisis in the Middle East.

On many of the G7’s key issues — namely the global trade war and Israel’s military operations in Gaza — Trump and the rest of the G7 leaders are largely on opposite sides.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s job as chair of the summit in Kananaskis, Alta., is to mediate discussions to make sure the tense alliance doesn’t blow up.

And that job has never been so complicated, G7 observers say.

On top of global issues such as Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, ongoing Israeli military campaigns in Gaza and now Iran and the U.S.-led reshaping of global trade via sweeping tariffs, Carney will have to contend with the volatility and unpredictability of American President Donald Trump.

According to a schedule published by Carney’s office Sunday, the prime minister will meet Trump during a bilateral on Monday morning. It will be the first tête-à-tête between both men since Carney travelled to Washington last month.

Canada has been pushing for Trump to remove his recent 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium as well as additional tariffs on foreign vehicle imports, both key Canadian exports to the U.S.

Speaking to reporters before flying to Canada, Trump said “

I think we’ll have a few new trade deals

” to announce at the G7 without specifying with which countries.

On many issues including trade and the Israel-Hamas war, the G7 summit is like a game of tug-of-war. Pulling on one side are the leaders of the U.K., France, Italy, Japan and Germany, and pulling on the opposite side is Trump, with Carney in the middle of the rope trying to keep it from ripping.

The fact that the longtime Iran-Israel conflict has pivoted from proxy wars to full-on conventional war in the last few days makes Carney’s job even more difficult.

“It makes the already very difficult job of Prime Minister Carney to manage the G7 even more difficult. It adds another layer of risk and complexity,” said Thomas Juneau, a national security researcher and professor at the University of Ottawa.

Seven non-member countries also attending the G7 from the sidelines: Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea and Ukraine. Delegations from NATO, the UN and the World Bank will also be present.

On the eve of the summit, Carney had a first G7 bilateral with U.K. Prime Minister Kier Starmer during which the men dined and then watched the Edmonton Oilers play the Florida Panthers.

Before travelling to Kananaskis on Sunday, both leaders put out a press release promising to boost bilateral trade and increase collaboration in artificial intelligence, defence, intelligence sharing, quantum, critical mineral development and military cooperation.

Carney’s schedule Sunday showed he will be hosting bilateral meetings with the leaders of all those countries except South Korea and the World Bank. Those meetings will allow Carney to hammer out the final details of new partnerships or iron out irritants in each relationship without Trump in the room.

Though there have been tensions between G7 members going into a summit in the past, never has the volatility of a U.S. president so risked blowing up the entire meeting agenda, he said.

During the last G7 on Canadian soil in 2018, Trump and the U.S. had initially agreed to sign on to the final joint statement, only to pull out in spectacular fashion via a post on social media lobbed from Air Force One calling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “dishonest and weak” over criticism of American tariffs.

Juneau and other observers interviewed by National Post say that volatility has only increased in Trump’s second mandate, increasing the risk of implosion of the 52-year-old alliance.

“It just adds another major level of risk for Prime Minister Carney to manage this in a way that it doesn’t blow up,” Juneau said. “Carney is not an experience politician, but he’s a very experienced, knowledgeable, skillful individual, and that makes a difference.”

But absent the discussions will be leaders from Middle Eastern countries. Canada invited the heads of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), but both leaders declined last week.

The leaders’ meetings will cover global economic outlook, economic growth, security, public safety, energy security and the Ukraine-Russia war.

But likely to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s dismay, the growing crisis in the Middle East will likely infringe on discussions on Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

“There will be a focus on Ukraine in terms of the international security part, but there will be, of course, a discussion on Gaza that has now expanded,” said a former government official with extensive experience organizing international summits.

National Post

cnardi@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.

Click here for more Alberta

KANANASKIS, Alta. — It’s an odd thing to be asked your business in your own country, in your own province, in an area where you’ve spent plenty of time hiking and climbing and skiing.

A place where the whole purpose is to be free — or at least freer than in the city.

You expect these questions going through customs or at checkpoints in less salubrious parts of the world. But not necessarily out on a gravel backroad in Kananaskis, Alta.

Of course, with the G7 in town starting Sunday and a massive security operation restricting access to huge swathes of the backcountry, it’s a matter of routine. So, not unexpected, but still vaguely unsettling, to be stopped and warned by the RCMP where you’re not allowed to go and asked what you’re about.

Kananaskis Village is nestled on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, and the meeting of seven of the most powerful people in the world will occur at the Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain lodge. Motorcades will travel from the Calgary International Airport, along the Trans Canada Highway and down Highway 40, also known as the Kananaskis Trail, to get world leaders to the summit.

The location means that there is a massive security cordon set through the area backcountry. A stretch of Highway 40 is fully closed. And the security perimeter runs through miles of wild country, with many backcountry hikes shut down.

When I set out with my bike Saturday morning, that meant I had to traverse a gravel backroad to arrive at Highway 40, for just a 15 kilometre stretch from the intersection of Highway 742 and Highway 40 before I butted up against the checkpoint set for the G7.

Coming in from Canmore, roughly an hour drive on the gravel Smith Dorrien Trail, there were a handful of security checkpoints en route. Mounties asked where I was going and what I had planned, reminding me that hikes along the eastern slopes of the mountains in the region were closed. They seemed vaguely unclear on what I would be allowed to do with my bike, though I’d previously checked with Alberta Parks, so I was fairly sure I had it right.

As an aside, when I phoned Alberta Parks last week, the call began with a recorded message about cancelling reservations in K-Country, suggesting that a good number of tourists had trips planned and backed out when they discovered they wouldn’t be able to do what they wanted.

At other points, police and conservation officers had electric bikes on standby, along with the odd ATV. Mostly, police were just lounging around, drinking coffee in camp chairs. Given that everyone’s aware that there’s limited access to the backcountry, it was a quiet drive. I saw only a handful of civilian vehicles on the drive out there. The parking lot of Chester Lake, a popular (and easy) hike trafficked by tourists, sat empty but for some security.

In stark contrast, I swung by Banff for lunch with a friend after the ride, and it was an utter madhouse, especially with the Banff half marathon scheduled for Sunday.

At the start of the ride, I checked with two Mounties if I was allowed to ride where I wanted to. The officers were from British Columbia and Ontario, shipped to the area for the G7, and informed me that I’d be fine to ride.

In response to a somewhat desperate request, they let me use their port-a-potty, with the caution that if I made a mess, they’d clap me in irons.

And so I set out, pedalling for an easy 15 kilometres north towards where I knew the checkpoint would be. As I rode, an RCMP light-armoured vehicle went barrelling by in the opposite direction. At one point, a Mountie in a pickup truck stopped to ask where I was headed. I told her and she warned me about a grizzly bear and cub that had been frequenting the Opal day use area. (I checked the accessibility of my bear spray and carried on.)

The checkpoint itself was far less exciting than I’d expected. I’d imagined something from an apocalypse movie. All concrete barriers and military vehicles. Instead, there was an events tent and a couple of police officers. We chatted for a bit about skiing in the area and I turned around, discovering to my horror that the 15 kilometres back was quite a bit more uphill than expected and that the headwind on the way in turned out to … still be a headwind, as so often happens.

All in all, the security presence seemed far less intrusive than expected. On the way back, at a checkpoint near Mount Sparrowhawk, one officer did give my bike and vehicle a cursory inspection and declared that he was satisfied, while asking if I had any hikes planned. I did not. I did see a couple of security officials hiking back out of the woods.

Before I left, after loading my bike back onto my car, a woman pulled up to the King Creek parking lot for a hike with her dog. Before she headed out, she declared herself exasperated by all the security: “It’s almost over,” she said.

True, but the G7 itself is just getting started.

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.

Click here for more Alberta

Stephen Buffalo is a very constructive guy. He’s a man who seeks solutions, and he’s open to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s ambitious nation-building campaign. He also wants Carney and all Canadians to understand, though: Indigenous consent to these projects has a price tag.

“Give us a chance to make our own wealth,” says Stephen, long-time advocate for First Nations’ economic development and member of the Samson Cree Nation from Maskwacis, Alta.

“To be part of the mainstream and part of the economy and at the end of the day, everyone benefits: the proponent benefits, the government benefits, and we benefit, you know, First Nations that are participating.”

The “new” Liberal government has pledged — in the recently tabled “One Canadian Economy Act” — to speed up approvals for major energy and infrastructure projects that strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security, have undeniable national benefits, are likely to be successfully executed, drive Canada’s clean grown potential and reflect priorities of Indigenous leaders.

Carney assured that fast-tracking major projects won’t shortcut meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples whose Charter or treaty rights may be affected. A Major Projects Office, created to assist project proponents through the assessment and consultation process, will lean on an Indigenous advisory council for advice.

And in an effort to reinforce Indigenous voice in governance, Carney’s cabinet includes three Indigenous ministers: Rebecca Chartrand, as minister of northern and Arctic affairs; Mandy Gull-Masty, as minister of Indigenous services; and Buckley Belanger, as secretary of state for rural development.

I ask Stephen: Do Carney’s announcements signal real change in the federal government’s paternalistic relationship with Indigenous communities? After watching the undermining of Jody Wilson-Raybould’s leadership by the previous Liberal administration, I’m wary.

He restates my question. “Can we take this as a reset?”

He grins, and answers: “I’m trying to.”

This isn’t the first time I’ve sat down with Stephen for a no-holds-barred conversation about how Indigenous leaders perceive what’s going on in the world. As CEO of the Indian Resource Council, Stephen speaks on behalf of 130 First Nations across Canada that have oil and gas production on their land, or the potential for production. He also speaks forcefully — as a 53-year-old father who wants to see his kids have the opportunity to thrive in mainstream society.

When we met 18 months ago, he was lobbying to have the Indian Act repealed because it was getting in the way of First Nations’ full participation in resource development. “We cannot live in soft communism,” he chided, “where bureaucrats tell us how to live, what to do.”

Today, we meet for coffee at Grey Eagle casino in Calgary, and while he’s fairly upbeat about the potential for change, his sense of urgency is more palpable. Managing poverty and addressing social issues, every day, is challenging for his leaders, he reports; it takes them away from other important stuff.

Canada’s Indigenous communities are captives of welfare. “Socialism right now is ruling the day,” he laments.

“It saddens me,” he shares, “some of our people are stuck in the dark, that troubled life. There’s not a city in Canada, you go downtown and you don’t see a lot of our people that have gone through struggles.” And, he adds, “Funding we get under the federal government is heavily scrutinized and has a lot of red tape. The option is to come to the major centre and try to make it. It doesn’t quite work out for everybody.”

He endorses government-backed loan guarantees to enable Indigenous ownership in projects. For eight years, Stephen’s been on the board of Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, a provincial Crown corporation, and now we have a national loan guarantee program.

“Not too many Nations can dig in the pocketbook and say, ‘OK, I’ll put down $100 million.’ Not too many Nations can do that,” he chuckles.

Last month, he explains, Canada Indigenous Loan Guarantee Corporation’s inaugural guarantee made possible the purchase of a 12.5 per cent ownership interest in Enbridge’s Westcoast natural gas pipeline system by 36 First Nations in B.C. On June 1, Carney doubled the federal Indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion — and opened it to sectors outside of energy and natural resources.

“But,” Stephen redirects the conversation, “back to the commodity that’s going through the pipe: What does it do for the (First) Nation, the province and the proponent?” It’s not enough, for Stephen, that Indigenous communities can invest in infrastructure; he wants them to be able to own an interest in the resource upside too.

“You know,” he says, “there’s fear-mongering in and around everything — be it coal mining, uranium mining, Ring of Fire. We are doing environmental disruption, no matter what we do. But at the end of the day … this thing called FPIC — consent — now has a price tag.”

FPIC is the acronym for free, prior and informed consent under the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Stephen’s convinced there’s an opportunity for Indigenous communities to change the narrative, and to participate in resource sharing. “That’s consent with a price tag on it,” he reiterates.

Some Canadians, I suggest, will find Stephen’s conclusion cynical. And yet, quite honestly, I find his candour refreshing and arguably constructive. All that back-and-forth emotional blather between federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser and Assembly of First Nations Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak — Fraser’s apology for potentially eroding a precarious trust by even discussing FPIC in terms of veto power — feels disingenuous.

The truth is, many Indigenous peoples in Canada are not anti-development but yes, their consent does have a price tag.

Right now, there are Indigenous naysayers who warn against the fast-tracking of nation-building projects. Some predict expedited approval processes will trigger litigation and projects will be hung up by court proceedings.

Protesters went to Queen’s Park to denounce Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government passing of Bill 5 — giving the province sweeping powers to speed up mining or development projects including those in the remote Ring of Fire region of Northern Ontario — and warned of protests and blockades akin to those seen during the Idle No More movement.

But, Stephen and I agree, that’s old thinking that risks holding us all back. Many of the tough questions have previously been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, Stephen suggests; we have precedent. Carney could decide to exercise federal powers to move a project forward for the greater good, something I find tempting. Yet I don’t disagree with Stephen’s expectation that leaders sit down with people, to understand the true reasons for dissent, including the possibility of foreign interference.

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew’s style of leadership, Stephen adds, is particularly compelling.

“He’s an NDP,” Stephen chuckles, “and he’s saying, we can’t deal with social issues without a strong economy.”

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.

Click here for more Alberta

Chief Crystal Smith has been at the forefront of the Haisla Nation’s transformation into a driving force in Canada’s LNG sector. The First Nation, which is governed from Kitamaat Village in the northern coastal area of British Columbia, believes “careful and appropriate economic development will bring our people necessary self-sufficiency,” according to their website. They have partnered with natural gas companies and now own a majority stake in Cedar LNG, a floating liquefied natural gas export facility that is being built off the North Coast. It will accept natural gas coming from the main Coastal GasLink pipeline and liquefy approximately 3.3 million tonnes per year for export to Asia. Smith spoke with National Post about what economic self-determination means, how the First Nation balances growth with cultural preservation, and what others can learn from their experience. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

Can you share the Haisla Nation’s vision for economic self-determination and how that has evolved over the years?

Our involvement in economic development started with a desire to no longer sit on the sidelines. Historically, major projects like aluminum smelters, pulp mills, and methanol facilities were built in our territory without our say — or benefit. We watched as others gained generational wealth while our people lived in poverty.

Thanks to leadership like Ellis Ross, we began learning everything about Aboriginal rights and title to leverage that knowledge. When I joined leadership in 2013, we focused on identifying acceptable projects. LNG emerged as the most vital opportunity, and our partnership with LNG Canada and Coastal GasLink was the beginning of something meaningful. It evolved into our own project — Cedar LNG — giving us not just participation but ownership.

What does “success” mean to you and your community — economically, socially, and culturally?

Success is having a strong, independent nation with people who are mentally and spiritually strong — and who have opportunity. Since 2015, revenues from industry have helped us invest in healing from generational trauma and, perhaps most importantly, in revitalizing our culture and language.

What were the key factors that allowed the Haisla Nation to become a leader in LNG development?

One of the biggest was our use of Aboriginal rights and title case law. It gave us the legal grounding to protect our rights and assert our place in decision-making. We also built strong partnerships — not just with companies, but internally, by involving our own people with the technical expertise to evaluate projects on our terms.

What were some of the biggest concerns going into these ventures, and how did you address them?

Our people are always thinking seven generations ahead. Environmental concerns were top of mind. We hosted countless information sessions and brought in third-party experts — but what really mattered was having our own Haisla people, like Candice Wilson with a Masters in Environmental Sciences, review and explain the information in a way our members could trust.

How have revenues from LNG and other projects been reinvested back into the community?

In many ways. One of our proudest achievements is investing $5 million of our own-source revenue into a cultural and language department — the first of its kind for us. It employs 20 people who document and teach our culture. My twin sister is one of them, and hearing her sing in our language to our grandsons makes this work worth it.

We’ve also built a 23-unit apartment complex for affordable housing, opened our first proper youth centre, and created fully funded elder programs — all without having to follow external government rules that don’t reflect our people’s needs.

What were some of the toughest moments or obstacles in pursuing this economic path, and how did the Haisla Nation navigate them?

One of the most difficult times was during the Coastal GasLink protests in 2019. There was a widespread perception that all Indigenous communities opposed the project. As one of the nations that supported it, we faced heavy criticism. I was personally targeted, and our community was labelled as “sellouts” or “colonized” for supporting economic development.

That backlash was deeply felt, especially during events like our basketball tournament, where we invite surrounding communities to come out and play. Our members encountered tension from other communities, but it brought us closer together. We leaned on each other, stayed focused on our long-term vision, and reminded ourselves — and others — that this was about our people, our culture, and our future.

How did you maintain unity and direction amid that pushback?

Communication. We kept information flowing, held open discussions, and ensured people understood this wasn’t just about jobs at LNG plants. It was about choice. Revenues that gave us the freedom to support all kinds of aspirations — whether someone wants to be a tradesperson, a teacher, or a yoga instructor.

What lessons do you think other First Nations — and Canadians in general — can learn from the Haisla Nation’s experience?

When Indigenous communities are included in economic development, the whole region prospers. What we’ve done here in Kitimat has created jobs not just for our people, but for everyone. I often get calls from non-Indigenous residents thanking us for the work we’ve done in LNG. When our people succeed, everyone benefits.

In your view, what role should Indigenous-led economic development play in Canada’s overall future?

Indigenous communities know their land, their people, and their priorities. When we lead, we ensure projects are done responsibly, and with long-term vision. Respect our ability to lead. Too often, policies treat us like we need to be managed. Give us the room to shape our future on our own terms — because we’re doing it, and it’s working.

This is the latest in a National Post series on How Canada Wins. Read earlier instalments here.

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.

Click here for more Canada

OTTAWA — Quebec Premier François Legault was on fire last weekend.

The man who is clearly and unequivocally the most unpopular premier in Canada, according to the

latest Angus Reid poll

, stood before the future of his party, the members of the youth wing of the Coalition Avenir Québec, smiling and ready to fight.

“I want to fight more than ever! For a third term, to finish the job!” he roared. “I need you to continue building Quebec for future generations,” he added.

But the polls suggest that the fight seems lost for Legault, known for years as the country’s most beloved premier. And for the man who has made a punching bag of the federal Liberal government, it’s a cruel twist of fate that Prime Minister Mark Carney may be the only person who can save the Quebec premier.

With nearly a year to go until the election, the man who won one of the largest majorities in Quebec’s history, with 90 out of 125 seats, is facing a massacre. According to the latest Angus Reid report, only a quarter of Quebecers approve of his performance. In March 2020, at the start of the pandemic, his approval rating was 77 per cent.

“Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the CAQ wins zero seat in next year’s election,” said a CAQ insider that was granted anonymity to speak more freely out of fear of repercussions.

The man behind

the poll aggregator Qc125.com

, Philippe J. Fournier, is almost convinced that if there were an election today, the CAQ would not have party status.

“Currently, Mr. Legault is in a situation that is similar or even perhaps a little worse than (then prime minister) Justin Trudeau in December,” he told National Post.

His government has faced numerous controversies over the past two and a half years. Right now, he is being hit on all fronts for his government mismanagement in the health, energy, transport and finances files.

The public, it seems, has simply had enough of this government and no longer trusts it.

Legault sees things differently and presents himself as the nationalist and economic candidate. But the road ahead isn’t smooth.

On the one hand, the separatist Parti Québécois has comfortably taken the lead and is garnering all the attention with a leader who remains perfectly clear about his intentions during the first mandate of a PQ government. Yes, this is a referendum on Quebec independence.

With a popular leader leading the way among francophones, with a similar margin to that of federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a year ago, the PQ has now brought the separatists back home after a decade of desertion.

On the other hand, Legault will have to deal with a new leader of the Quebec Liberal Party starting Saturday, when the party chooses its candidate to become Quebec’s next premier.

The QLP has been in dormancy since the 2022 election debacle and is dreaming of a massive comeback with a new leader. “If the next election is about a possible PQ referendum, it becomes clear that we are the alternative. Nobody believes that Legault is a federalist,” said a Liberal source.

In April, interim leader Marc Tanguay dropped a bombshell by publicly declaring that he had information that preparations for a CAQ leadership convention were underway.

Last week, he claimed his information was still accurate. But Legault insisted he would seek a third term.

After all, he doesn’t have what Trudeau had a few months ago: Carney as a successor.

And Carney may be the only person who can save Legault.

For weeks now, the premier has been unusually nice to the federal Liberals, a party that he wanted defeated last fall when he asked the Parti Québécois leader to tell his “comrade” at the Bloc Québécois to overthrow the Trudeau government.

Now, Legault tells his own members that Quebec “must work hand in hand with the federal government.”

According to him, there is “an exceptional opportunity” with Carney in Ottawa because he is a prime minister “laser focused” on the economy. But also, because Carney’s entourage is prominently from Quebec. François-Philippe Champagne is finance minister, Mélanie Joly is the minister of industry, Marc-André Blanchard will be Carney’s chief of staff and now Michael Sabia, who was Legault’s pick as CEO of Hydro-Québec, is the next clerk of the Privy Council.

“It’s as if the stars were aligned… So, now is the time to take advantage of it,” Legault said in his speech.

The PQ is now calling the Carney-Legault relationship a “love story.”

“If he can seek economic opportunities at the federal level and then take credit for them, of course he will do so, so that is called a political opportunity,” said Emilie Foster, a former CAQ MNA and professor at Carleton University.

During her term as a backbencher for Charlevoix–Côte-de-Beaupré in the National Assembly from 2018 to 2022, Foster said she never heard her premier utter the words “military” and “defence.”

This week, as Carney announced massive military spending to meet NATO’s two per cent target, Legault quickly announced millions of dollars to support Quebec’s defence industry and visited three companies.

In Ottawa, this sudden affection from Quebec City is more than welcome. Many Quebec Liberal MPs were all smiles this week.

None of them were the most popular politician in Quebec. No, the most popular “by far” noted Fournier, is Mark Carney.

Now, Legault wants a piece of it and wants to show the electorate his record of economic success next year. So far, he’s boasted of outperforming Ontario and Canada in per capita economic growth, wage growth and disposable income growth.

Legault wants major projects. Like the Newfoundland-Quebec power line, with the help of Carney, who has introduced a bill to fast track major projects.

It’s his only chance of survival, according to Foster. Over the past few decades, he’s pledged to be an “economic man,” just like Carney. Yet the province has recorded the largest deficits in its history.

But Legault is making the case that the PQ won’t try to achieve success with the federal government because it wants to demonstrate that Canada isn’t working.

“So this is not the time to have the PQ in power, this must be very clear, and it must be explained to Quebecers,” Legault said.

He simply hopes that Quebecers will give the PQ the same treatment that Canadians gave the Conservatives.

National Post

atrepanier@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.

Click here for more Canada

Israel’s strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure are a watershed moment in the region’s history. Reports indicate that the Jewish state has killed several senior leaders of Iran’s military and scientific establishment, and damaged airfields, weapons depots and nuclear sites.

Iran retaliated by unleashing scores of ballistic missiles on Israel late Friday.

The attacks come as nuclear negotiations between Iranian and American representatives were set to be held in Oman this Sunday. A previous deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was signed in 2015 by then-president Barack Obama, which Donald Trump

withdrew

from three years later, calling it “a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.”

Iran’s nuclear ambitions trace back to the post-Second World War era, a moment when the country boasted strong ties with America and Europe, especially under the leadership of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. After Pahlavi was deposed during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ascended to power, remaking the relatively liberal country into a religious stronghold.

The following is a timeline of the major milestones in Iran’s nuclear history.

The Shah Years

1957

– President Dwight Eisenhower and Pahlavi sign a civil nuclear cooperation deal.

1958

– Iran joins nuclear regulatory body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

1967

– The Tehran Nuclear Research Centre, a 5 Megawatt reactor powered by enriched uranium, is established as part of the United State’s “Atoms for Peace Program” for civil nuclear use.

1968

– Iran joins dozens of countries in signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

1974

– Pahlavi creates the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, outlining the ambitious goal of creating nearly two dozen nuclear power plants across the country over two decades.

1975

– Pahlavi pledges Iran has “no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons,” though warns “if small states began building them, Iran might have to reconsider its policy.”

Iranian Revolution and tensions with America

1979

– Pahlavi is deposed, Khomeini assumes power and America imposes a series of orders banning Iranian oil, freezing assets of the new regime.

1980-1988

– The Iran-Iraq War leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

1984

– The American State Department designates Iran a state sponsor of terrorism.

1987

– Iran signs nuclear cooperation deal with Pakistan.

1989

– Khomeini dies and is succeeded by Ali Khamenei.

1990

– Nuclear cooperation pact signed with China.

1992

– Bilateral nuclear deal with Russia signed.

1993

– Collaboration between North Korea and Iran begins, the Islamic Republic gains possession of Shahab-3 ballistic missiles and nuclear expertise from the hermit kingdom.

1995

– Iran signs deal with Russia to build nuclear power plant in Bushehr.

1998

– America warns Iran could be on a path to weaponizing its nuclear program.

2000

– United States imposes first nuclear-related sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

International Negotiations, Sanctions, Threats to Destroy Israel

2002

– Iranian group opposed to Islamic regime publicizes uranium enrichment activity at Natanz and heavy water facility in Arak.

2003

– IAEA passes resolution demanding Iran disclose aspects of its nuclear program and suspend enrichment efforts. The international body

discovers

traces of high enrichment at Natanz nuclear plant.

2004

– Iran agrees to temporarily freeze enrichment as talks unfold in Paris among European powers (known as the “Paris Agreement”); America discovers Iran is

modifying

existing ballistic missile capabilities to carry nuclear warheads.

2005

– Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declares “Israel must be wiped off the map.” President George W. Bush

imposes

sanctions on Iran due to continued pursuit of nuclear program.

2006

– United Nations Security Council imposes sanctions on Iran for continued pursuit of enrichment.

2008 – Barack Obama elected president of United States.

2009

–

“Green Movement”

protests ripple

across Iran as public grows frustrated with political corruption; America joins Iran negotiation efforts alongside United Kingdom, France, China and Russia to form “P5+1”

2011

– European powers and the U.S. sanction Iranian banking sector and access to international financial markets

2012

– Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

calls

Iranian nuclear weapons a “red line.”

2015

– JCPOA deal signed providing sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for restricting nuclear advancements, but critics say so-called “

sunset provisions,

” which only temporarily restrict uranium stockpiles and the number of centrifuges, are problematic. Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei vows Israel will not exist in “25 years” during speech in Tehran.

Trump Years and Latest Escalation

2016 – Donald Trump defeats Hillary Clinton in presidential race; Congress passes

extension

of the Iran Sanctions Act.

2017

– Iran conducts ballistic missile test in violation of United Nations resolution and displays a new weapon,

the Khoramshahr

, during a public military parade.

2018

– Trump unilaterally withdraws America from JCPOA, denounces it as “worst deal ever” and begins reimposing sanctions on Iranian economy.

2019

– Iran vows to walk away from JCPOA unless remaining parties pledge compensation. Islamic Republic activates sophisticated centrifuges outlawed in 2015 deal; Trump imposes

sanctions

on Khamenei and other leaders, designates Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terror group.

2020

– IRGC leader Qasem Soleimani is killed in an American drone strike. Iran targets U.S. military bases throughout the region and

downs

a Ukrainian civilian plane carrying nearly 200 passengers. Iran announces intention to no longer uphold JCPOA as European nations seek resolution to ongoing violations. Trump loses presidential election to Joe Biden.

2021

– Iran begins enriching uranium to 20 per cent level at Fordow facility, the

threshold

beyond which civilian use is limited; Ayatollah Khameini threatens weapons-grade enrichment levels as high as 60 per cent; Biden administration announces willingness to rejoin JCPOA if Iran meets obligations.

2022

– Iran and United States meet indirectly for ongoing talks in Doha. Nuclear talks in Vienna

break down.

Biden maintains military option to prevent a nuclear Iran as a “last resort”

2023

– Iran acknowledges it has reached enrichment level of 84 per cent. Hamas invades Israel on October 7. Iranian proxies, including the Yemen-based Houthis rebels and Hezbollah, attack Jewish state following the terrorist attack.

2024

– Israel believed to be behind targeting of Iranian consular building in Syria, which killed generals and Hezbollah militants. Iran responds with hundreds of missiles and drone strikes at Israel. IAEA notes Iran is

ramping up

centrifuge production.

2025

– Trump administration restarts talks with Iran, begins holding negotiations in Oman. IAEA reports widespread Iranian non-compliance, warns country has capacity to make several nuclear bombs. Israel carries out hundreds of air strikes targeting Iranian nuclear infrastructure.

National Post, with additional reporting from The Associated Press

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.

Click here for more Canada

The practice known as “drip pricing” is front and centre again in an action by the federal Competition Bureau against DoorDash and in a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by a Toronto law firm against Uber Eats.

Drip pricing generally involves enticing customers by advertising low prices, but charging extra mandatory fees, usually when they are checking out.

It continues to come under fire because “disclosure around pricing and fees in various consumer transactions is, at times, less than thorough and transparent,” says Mike Robb, partner with London, Ontario-based law firm, Siskinds.

The

Competition Bureau says

hen “the represented price is inaccurate, it makes it more difficult for consumers to comparison shop and result(s) in unfair outcomes for honest competitors.”

Why is DoorDash under scrutiny?

Canada’s competition watchdog is hauling DoorDash Inc. and its Canadian subsidiary before the Competition Tribunal, accusing them of portraying the online cost of delivery as lower than the price consumers ultimately pay.

The Competition Bureau says it investigated and is

alleging DoorDash customers

paid more, due to mandatory fees, added during checkout.

The extra fees, the bureau says, include charges such as extra amounts for delivering items a further distance and for placing smaller orders. The bureau alleges the discretionary charges were sometimes framed as taxes.

The bureau alleges DoorDash may have used drip pricing for close to a decade to make nearly $1 billion from mandatory fees, according to the Canadian Press.

What remedy is the Competition Bureau asking for against DoorDash?

The bureau is asking the Competition Tribunal to order the company to stop the practice, cease portraying fees as taxes, pay a penalty and issue restitution to affected consumers.

However, DoorDash is pushing back. “This application is a misguided and excessive attempt to target one of Canada’s leading local commerce platforms,” DoorDash spokesperson Trent Hodson told

. “It unfairly singles out DoorDash, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.”

Still, the bureau is standing its ground. “Our litigation against DoorDash is another example of our efforts to ensure consumers are not misled and can trust the prices they see online. We urge all businesses to review their pricing practices and make sure they comply with the law,” said Matthew Boswell, commissioner of competition in

a press release

The Competition Bureau has been more aggressive of late in battling drip pricing.

Last fall, the bureau won a

deceptive marketing case against Cineplex Inc.

, noted Robb.

It had been adding a mandatory $1.50 online booking fee. The company was ordered to pay a financial penalty of almost $39 million.

Last summer, says Robb, the bureau reached an agreement with

SiriusXM Canada

. In that case, the company was ordered to pay a $3.3 million penalty over adding a fee on subscription plans that increased the monthly cost.

Why a class-action against drip pricing?

Meanwhile, legal action against drip pricing is not exclusive to public regulators. Law firms that navigate class actions are getting in on the act too.

Toronto firm,

Koskie Minsky filed a statement of claim

against Uber Eats with the Ontario Superior Court Justice last month. It alleges Uber Eats has been hiding an additional service fee within its overall delivery costs.

The proposed class action alleges that Uber misrepresented the true cost of delivery by not disclosing the service fee until the final stage of the transaction, “often obscured under a “Taxes & Other Fees” line item, a practice known as drip pricing,” says the law firm on its website.

The action has been brought on behalf of Canadian residents who on or after May 16, 2023, placed a delivery order using Uber Eats and paid a service fee.

Further, the lawsuit alleges Uber One members, who are supposed to enjoy benefits such as no delivery fees on eligible orders, have been paying the service fee.

It’s “really a delivery fee as it only applies to delivery orders” and it “constitutes a breach of contract and negates the advertised benefit of the subscription.”

Is there an advantage in a lawsuit over a regulator crackdown?

Robb says “the existence of parallel proceedings in these cases is not necessarily surprising or unusual.”

He explains that the Competition Bureau has a statutory mandate to protect Canadian consumers and businesses from allegedly unfair business practices. In its

case against DoorDash

, it is asking the Competition Tribunal to provide restitution to consumers, though that’s somewhat unusual, he says. “It may or may not be equipped to negotiate and deliver remedies to consumers.”

However, he points out that class actions always focus on recovery for consumers, “even when the amounts are individually minimal. It is common in our cases that when they resolve, an administration mechanism is established to facilitate an accessible distribution of modest amount to individual consumers.”

A recent example would be a

payout website

established for the bread-fixing class-action settlement.

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.

Click here for more Canada

OTTAWA — The mayor of northern British Columbia’s

busiest port city

says he’s following Premier David Eby’s lead in taking

a wait-and-see approach

to rebooting the cancelled Northern Gateway Pipeline project.

Prince Rupert Mayor Herb Pond told the National Post on Friday that he’s reserving judgment until he sees a new proposal on the table.

“I’m a little bit (more) with Premier Eby… Until there’s a project and a proponent, we’re not going to spend much time on it,” said Pond.

“It’s so hard to have a discussion about an imaginary project.”

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has pushed heavily for a

revival of the shelved pipeline

, which would have shipped up to

525,000 barrels of Alberta oil

per day through nearby Kitimat, B.C., and ultimately to markets in the Asia-Pacific region via tanker.

Smith has said that

the revamped North Coast pipeline should end at the Port of Prince Rupert, citing its close proximity to potential buyers in markets like Japan and South Korea.

She’s also said that shipping Alberta oil through northern B.C. is one of the best things Canada can do to reduce its economic dependency on top trading partner the United States.

But Eby says that Smith is getting ahead of herself with no entity, public or private, coming forward yet to lead the project.

“There’s no proponent, there’s no money, there’s no project right now,”

Eby said this week

during a trade visit Seoul, South Korea.

Pond says he agrees with Smith that Prince Rupert is the most logical destination for a new pipeline carrying Alberta oil to the Pacific Ocean.

“If (technical dimensions) were the only thing you were scoring it on… Rupert would score the highest,” said Pond.

“Prince Rupert is a very deep natural harbour, doesn’t need to be dredged (and) we’re not moving through a congested traffic area (like) Vancouver.”

But he added that a new oil pipeline wouldn’t make or break Prince Rupert economically, and may not be worth the risk of an oil spill in the sensitive marine ecosystem.

Pond said that, like Eby, he supports the federal moratorium

on oil tanker traffic

along B.C.’s northern coast.

“There are values around

the Great Bear Rainforest

and the environment on the North Coast being as pristine as it is,” said Pond.

Residents of Kitimat

voted against Northern Gateway

by a margin of 58.4 per cent to 41.6 per cent in a non-binding 2014 plebiscite.

Pond says he’d support any new oil pipeline project being put to the people of Prince Rupert in a similar manner.

“When you get to that place, a plebiscite may be one of the things that we want to consider in terms of gauging the community’s voice,” said Pond.

Pond

said earlier this week

that B.C. “owes” Alberta a fair hearing on the question of a new West Coast heavy oil pipeline.

“I think we owe it… to our neighbours, our fellow Canadians, to at least examine it very, very seriously.”

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.

Source: National Post (Politics)

Click here for more Canada

Click here for more Alberta

Click here for more Alberta

Click here for more Alberta

Click here for more Alberta

Can you share the Haisla Nation’s vision for economic self-determination and how that has evolved over the years?

What does “success” mean to you and your community — economically, socially, and culturally?

What were the key factors that allowed the Haisla Nation to become a leader in LNG development?

What were some of the biggest concerns going into these ventures, and how did you address them?

How have revenues from LNG and other projects been reinvested back into the community?

What were some of the toughest moments or obstacles in pursuing this economic path, and how did the Haisla Nation navigate them?

How did you maintain unity and direction amid that pushback?

What lessons do you think other First Nations — and Canadians in general — can learn from the Haisla Nation’s experience?

In your view, what role should Indigenous-led economic development play in Canada’s overall future?

Click here for more Canada

Click here for more Canada

The Shah Years

Iranian Revolution and tensions with America

International Negotiations, Sanctions, Threats to Destroy Israel

Trump Years and Latest Escalation

Click here for more Canada

Why is DoorDash under scrutiny?

What remedy is the Competition Bureau asking for against DoorDash?

Why a class-action against drip pricing?

Is there an advantage in a lawsuit over a regulator crackdown?

Click here for more Canada

Click here for more Alberta

loonie politics

premium content