LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Then Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and his daughter, Ella-Grace, plant a tree during the 2019 federal election campaign, in Saint-Anaclet, Que., on October 4, 2019.

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government will be ending a program to plant two billion trees as part of its whole-of-government spending review to find billions of dollars worth of savings.

A senior government official confirmed that the budget to be presented on Tuesday will bring an end to the program, which

was launched under former prime minister Justin Trudeau

.

The official confirmed the government’s existing contracts would be honoured. In August, Natural Resources Canada said the contracts already signed would see nearly 1 billion trees planted.

Ending the two-billion tree program will be one of the measures set to be detailed when the government presents the results of its comprehensive spending review, which

Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne initiated earlier this year.

It asked government departments to find 15 per cent worth of savings over the next three years.

Reining in government spending was something Carney had promised during the April federal election campaign. He seeks to inject billions more into defence spending and provide relief to sectors hardest hit by U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, as well as spur more private sector investment.

The cancellation of the tree-planting program also comes as Carney is set to unveil a new “climate competitiveness strategy,” which he outlined in

a recent public speech at the University of Ottawa

, saying it would “focus on results over objectives.”

Planting two billion trees over 10 years was a more than $3-billion commitment Trudeau had made as one the nature-based approaches within the larger Liberal climate plan.

The Opposition Conservatives have for years criticized the Liberals’ progress on that commitment. The program was formally launched in 2021 and by late 2024 had reported planting approximately 160 million trees.

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 politics newsletter, First Reading, here.


Melanie Joly speaks at an event organized by the Fredericton Chamber of Commerce in Fredericton on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025.

OTTAWA

Industry Minister Melanie Joly says the federal government is initiating a dispute resolution process under its contract with Stellantis over the company’s decision to relocate production of a new Jeep model to the U.S.

She said on Monday that by the end of the day the government would begin the process in one of its contracts with Stellantis in the hopes of pressing the company to outline a plan for its facility in Brampton.

Joly announced the move while testifying before the parliamentary committee on industry, which called her to discuss the federal government’s plan to maintain the 3,000 jobs at the assembly plant in Brampton, Ont., where it had planned to manufacture the Jeep Compass model.

Joly told reporters after her testimony that the government was taking the step because it believes “that there’s been a violation” in its contract.

The governing Liberals, along with the Ontario government, have in recent years inked multi-billion-dollar subsidy contracts with Stellantis, which the minister on Monday defended as being tied to the actual production of vehicles.

Joly also defended the job protection terms of the contracts, which have yet to be disclosed to another parliamentary committee to be viewed in private by MPs.

Conservative industry critic Raquel Dancho said Joly was “evasive” during Monday’s questioning about whether the government had secured job commitments when it came to the plant in Brampton, saying families in the region who are at risk of losing jobs “won’t be reassured.”

A spokesperson for Stellantis said in a statement that it was continuing to work with the government and others on the plan for that facility “to find viable solutions that build a sustainable, long-term future for automotive manufacturing in Canada.”

“The Brampton Assembly Plant has not been closed, and no jobs have been lost; it is on an operational pause,” the company said in a statement.

“We have robust supports in place to help mitigate the effects of this decision and are offering transfer opportunities at other Stellantis facilities whenever possible.”

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 politics newsletter, First Reading, here.


Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow is facing controversy for saying there is a

Several Canadian Jewish organizations are rebuking Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow for proclaiming Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza is a genocide during a fundraiser on Saturday night.

Speaking at the National Council of Canadian Muslims fundraising gala at Pearson Convention Centre, Chow, in a brief clip circulating on social media, says “the genocide in Gaza impact us all.”

“A common bond to shared humanity is tested and I will speak out when children anywhere are feeling the pain and violence and hunger,” she continues to some applause.

In another edited clip from the event shared by the Canada-Israel Friendship Association

, Chow draws a parallel between affected Palestinian families and her mother’s history, having been a child in China at the time of Japan’s invasion during World War II.

“At just 13 years old, alone after my grandmother died of dysentery, she was responsible for keeping her two brothers alive.”

National Post has contacted the mayor’s office for comment.

Tafsik Organization, a Canadian Jewish civil rights group, was among the first to denounce Chow’s comments, calling them “disgraceful, reckless and dangerously irresponsible” in

a social media post.

“Those three words were a slap in the face to Jews in Toronto, across Canada, and around the world — an unforgivable betrayal and a disgraceful distortion of reality,” executive director Amir Epstein said in an accompanying statement discounting the genocide claim.

“We call for Mayor Olivia Chow to be formally excommunicated and permanently rejected by the Jewish community and all Jewish organizations,” he said, noting that she is no longer welcome at Tafsik events and calling on other Jewish organizations to follow suit.

Tafsik tagged B’nai Brith Canada, the United Jewish Appeal⁣ Federation of Toronto, Friends of the Jewish National Fund of Canada, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center in its post, all of whom were contacted by National Post for comment. The latter declined to comment at this time.

Richard Robertson, B’nai Brith’s director of research and advocacy, called for Chow to retract her words and apologize and said the group is “exploring every option available to us to ensure that she is held accountable.”

“At a time when the Toronto Mayor should be working to de-escalate tensions and repair the fractures that have been plaguing the city since the October 7 terror acts, she used her influence to further incite and divide,” Robertson wrote in a statement to National Post.

“The Mayor, through her decision to callously spread disinformation, has emboldened those who wish to use geopolitical issues to justify the spread of hate domestically. At a time when she should be doing everything in her power to combat antisemitism, she has chosen to instigate those who engage against the Jewish community.”

The Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation (CAEF) criticized Chow for having “the audacity to compare” Israel’s war on a terrorist organization to Japan’s invasion and also denounced the allegation of genocide.

Such a claim “is not only false and defamatory” to Israel and its people, they said in

a statement

, but also “a calculated insult to the almost two hundred thousand Jews in the Greater Toronto Area who support Israel, and it exposes the Jewish community to material risk of violence.

“Given the multiple violent attacks against Toronto’s Jewish businesses and community institutions since the October 7, 2023 massacre, Mayor Chow’s words will do more of the same. This is reprehensible and inexcusable.”

In addition to asking for Chow to be banned from all Jewish events, CAEF called for her immediate resignation.

The Abraham Global Peace Initiative (AGPI), meanwhile, also called for Chow to walk back the genocide claim and offer a public apology.

“These reckless and irresponsible remarks only serve to inflame tensions, distort the truth, and fuel antisemitism,” founder and CEO Avi Benlolo said in

a statement

. “At a time when Jewish communities are facing unprecedented levels of hate, it is unacceptable for the Mayor of Canada’s largest city to repeat a false and incendiary claim that has no basis in fact or law.”

Dimitris Soudas, a former director of communications for former prime minister Stephen Harper, suggested the mayor had more pressing matters in Toronto than “pandering” to a crowd.

“But somehow, Olivia Chow finds time to make international political statements, recognizing a ‘genocide’ in Gaza without once condemning Hamas,”

he wrote on X

, adding “Fix Toronto first, Mayor Chow.”

“I can barely find the words to register my anger and disappointment at yet another ‘progressive’ who has bought into the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas narrative,” Sinai Health palliative care doctor

Dr. Hershl Berman posted to X.

“@MayorOliviaChow ought to know better, and she has demonstrated that she is not fit to serve as Mayor.”

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.


Whether you're receptive to eating cloned meat or not, you may be none the wiser from looking at the package.

Cloned meat could be coming to a grocery store near you. Whether you’re receptive to the technology or not, you may be none the wiser from looking at the package. Health Canada has made moves to lift restrictions on meat from cloned cattle and pigs, no longer considering it a “

novel food

,” meaning it could be commercialized without notification or labelling.

Novel foods are “products that are new or changed compared to existing foods,” such as the first Health Canada-approved genetically modified animal (and

now defunct

),

AquAdvantage salmon

, which hit the shelves in the late 2010s — with no special labelling required.

Health Canada assesses the safety of all novel foods before they can be brought to market. Based on the scientific opinions published by international bodies, including the

European Food Safety Authority

and

Japan Food Safety Commission

, the department concluded “that foods derived from healthy cattle and swine clones and their offspring are as safe as foods from traditionally bred animals.”

According to Health Canada’s

policy update

, the department’s Food Directorate decided that there should be no difference between the regulation of cloned and conventional meat products. Foods derived from clones of other animals, such as goat and sheep, however, are still considered novel foods.

As

The Winnipeg Sun

reports, Health Canada’s

2024 consultation

on foods derived from cloned cattle and swine involved feedback from scientists, food policy organizations and agricultural representatives. “Fewer than 1,200 individuals and organizations were directly notified, and the results were not widely publicized.”

According to Sylvain Charlebois, director of the

Agri-Food Analytics Lab

at Dalhousie University, “The problem isn’t the science — it’s the silence.”

Charlebois wrote in the

Agri-Food Analytics Lab newsletter

, “Canadians are not being told that the rules governing a deeply controversial technology are about to change. No press release, no public statement, just a quiet update on a government website most citizens will never read.”

Since the days of

Dolly the sheep

, the first mammal to be cloned using an adult cell, in 1996, the technology has been highly contentious. There are ethical issues, including

animal welfare

, and, similar to

cultured meat

, there’s an ick factor to food from cloned animals.

The United States Food and Drug Administration determined that meat from cloned cows, goats and pigs is safe to eat in January 2008. Three years later, a study published in

Appetite

found that consumers considered farm animal cloning “unnatural” and were concerned that it would pave the way to human cloning.

Charlebois underscores that a lack of transparency could hurt the industry’s image. Without clear labelling, some people could stop buying meat altogether or shop only at places where they can be assured of its origins. “Transparency, I think, is key, and it’s often underappreciated,” Charlebois said on

The Food Professor podcast

.

While controversial among consumers, cloning is attractive to some farmers and ranchers because it enables them to breed beneficial traits into their herds more quickly. The industry may experience increased productivity and quality, as well as reduced production costs, but technological advances don’t always translate to lower prices at checkout.

“If you start labelling, you completely change the rules, because if, all of a sudden, you have, you know, cloned meat at $10 and regular meat at $10, most people will take the regular meat. But if your cloned meat, because it costs less, is $7 or $6, my bet is that a lot of people would consider it,” Charlebois added, concluding, “Let the people decide.”

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 cookbook and recipe newsletter, Cook This, here.


Justice Minister Sean Fraser speaks to reporters on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025.

OTTAWA — The federal government rejected a recommendation by an independent commission to increase judges’ salaries by $28,000, saying it can’t justify the raise in this economy.

In a statement posted online Monday

, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the government “respectfully disagrees” with all one-time salary increases advised by the quadrennial judicial compensation and benefits commission this summer.

In July, the commission recommended

the government increase the “inadequate” salaries by $28,000 for most federally-appointed judges to $36,000 for the chief justice of the Supreme Court. It argued the raise was necessary to keep the bench attractive to “outstanding candidates”.

It also recommended increasing the compensation of associate judges to 95 per cent of a full-time judge, up from the currently 80 per cent. It would be the first lump-sum raise outside of indexing since 2006.

In its response, the federal government argued that it would be uncouth to offer judges a raise as Canadians face increasing economic uncertainty and the government is preparing to cut public spending and the size of the bureaucracy.

“The Government is of the view that… judicial salaries are adequate and, in any event, cannot be the source of new fiscal expenditure at a time of comprehensive expenditure review, including possible public sector job losses,” reads a response to the commission posted Monday morning.

The government also argued that some of the commission’s findings were contradictory or relied on anecdotal evidence instead of data to prove that it was increasingly difficult to attract outstanding candidates.

The decision will almost certainly raise eyebrows among the judiciary, who argued to the commission that courts are increasingly struggling to attract “top” talent namely due to a growing divide between private lawyer salaries and judges’ compensation.

Most of the 1,200 federally-appointed judges currently make $414,900 and Supreme Court justices earn nearly $500,000. Chief justices earn about $40,000 more than their peers.

They also have access to benefits and a pension described by the government as “one of the best retirement plans in Canada”.

Judges’ salaries are also increased yearly based on the Industrial Aggregate Index (IAI) to a maximum of 14 per cent over three years. Maintaining that increase is the only raise the government accepted in its response.

“Annual statutory indexing using IAI provides for increases to judicial salaries that in most years exceed increases to the cost of living,” the government said. “In other words, in most years, IAI indexing provides for what can fairly be characterized as a raise.”

The government otherwise pooh-poohed other findings from the commission, including that the lump-sum increase was necessary to keep the bench attractive to outstanding candidates.

In its July report, the commission agreed with arguments by judicial associations that salaries were too low to continue attracting top talent. But it disagreed with judges’ request for a one-time $60,000 raise.

The key concern highlighted by both judges’ associations and the commission’s report is that too few “highly qualified” private-sector lawyers are applying to become judges, risking a dearth of expertise on the bench and challenges filling vacancies in the long term.

The commission cited affidavits from two chief justices saying they were repeatedly being told by candidates that they were not interested in applying for the bench because the compensation was too low vis-à-vis the workload.

“An increasing number of qualified private practitioners no longer view a judicial appointment, considering its attendant responsibilities and benefits, as attractive in light of the resulting significant reduction in income,” Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz wrote in an affidavit to the commission.

On Monday, the government said that evidence was anecdotal and far from objective and unbiased. Instead, it argued that data showed there was no issue with the number of candidates and that private sector lawyers are still the majority of applicants.

“The Commission relied on subjective accounts from directly affected individuals, with no details such as the sources of information or statistical analyses,” reads the report.

The government also told the commission that its recommendation for a $28,000 raise contradicts its own finding that judges salaries should remain in line with the public service’s “DM-3” salary band. The raise, Ottawa said, would bring compensation closer to the “DM-4” band, “which the Commission expressly rejected as an appropriate comparator.”

The Canadian Judicial Council and the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

More to come.

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 politics newsletter, First Reading, here.


Prime Minister Mark Carney delivers a speech on his plans for Canada's economy in advance of the November federal budget, at the University of Ottawa in Ottawa on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025.

OTTAWA — For many students across Canada, affordability is top of mind when it comes to the federal budget set to be tabled on Tuesday.

That includes Graham Baskin, a student at Carleton University. After Prime Minister Mark Carney

told university students that Canadians should be ready

for “challenges” and “sacrifices” in a speech last month outlining his priorities for the upcoming budget, Baskin said he is worried for his future.

“We all want a reliable future at this stage in our lives,” said Baskin. “To hear the prime minister say that times are going to be tough is concerning.”

Baskin, 21, suffers from a neurological affliction, similar to cerebral palsy, that affects the connection between his brain and legs.

The history student said he remains determined to finish his degree, but in spite of navigating accessibility challenges on campus — one of the “biggest recent challenges” he has overcome in recent years — coping with rising costs after graduation looms as his next big hurdle.

“I don’t know what’ll happen once I’ve graduated,” said Baskin. “I’m worried in the sense that if I still can’t find work, and prices are still a mess, then life just gets harder.”

Baskin’s worries follow a recent study that found 75 per cent of surveyed students hope to see the federal budget prioritize cost-of-living.

Canada’s cost-of-living crisis and tough job markets are taking a toll on university students, with nearly half saying they need financial support from either parents or other sources to meet their expenses, according to a recent CIBC poll.

Baskin worked at a local golf store in his hometown of Uxbridge, Ont. until last summer, when management abruptly told him to “find work elsewhere.” After applying to several places, including a local library where he sought to leverage his history degree, he simply “didn’t hear back.”

Justin Wiltshire, a labour economist and professor at the University of Victoria, said Canada’s “disappointing” job market only compounds cost-of-living concerns for students.

“I don’t think the cost-of-living concerns are new for young people,” said Wiltshire. “But it’s now a question of, given the current state of the labour market, the threshold is higher for students to even meet basic cost-of-living expenses.”

Yet, Wiltshire said the “future can be bright” for students ahead of the Liberals’ first budget under Carney.

He said there are plenty of opportunities for policies to glean from, offering former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s cuts to interest on student loans as an example.

“It was not particularly expensive, and young people could concentrate their funds elsewhere rather than paying interest on the human capital they’ve accumulated,” said Wiltshire. He also added that Carney’s new federal agency aimed at building affordable housing is “promising.”

“While it’s difficult to forecast the budget, what’s been telegraphed so far could turn the tide for young adults coming out of university.”

With days to go before Carney’s budget, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre struck a different tone in a recent speech to youth in downtown Toronto.

“[Carney] said that things are going to get worse and the change will take a very long time,” said Poilievre, who also added Liberals “are going to try and get Canadians to accept this permanent reduction in our quality of life.”

Wiltshire admitted that fixing cost-of-living challenges and a tightening labour market “isn’t going to happen in the very near future.”

“There’s nothing that’s going to happen right now, overnight, but we want to give people reason to believe the future is bright.”

Nir Hagigi, 21, said, as a student, the budget is “really a pivotal moment to give youth hope in a crisis like one we’ve never seen before.”

He added that he, and many other students, are pressed to make ends meet, often relying on university scholarships and food banks to get by.

“Most are realistically living on like $100 a week. That’s nothing. That’s literally poverty living,” said Hagigi. “I think specifically, for students, our crisis is because there are just not enough jobs and too many people who want a job.”

Referring to the labour market, Wiltshire said, “I do think it’s been more difficult now than in previous years, and there is no easy solution from the government.”

However, Wiltshire said he wouldn’t call it a “crisis.”

By making sure “your skills are timely and relevant, pursuing some kind of extended higher education program, or overall finding ways to demonstrate you’re developing soft skills,” Wiltshire said, students can find stable income.

Hagigi said his experience tells a different story.

This past summer, Hagigi was let go as a public policy analyst. Similar to Baskin, Hagigi applied to several positions, highlighting the skills he developed studying global and international studies at Carleton University.

“I got some interviews, but not a single job offer. And my case isn’t even out of the ordinary, I’ve seen this with students all over,” said Hagigi. “We’re just not able to find a job.”

It comes after the youth unemployment rate edged up to almost 15 per cent in September, the highest level since 2010, excluding the pandemic years, according to Statistics Canada.

Kevin McNichol, CEO of Prospect Human Services, a not-for-profit that helps place Albertans in jobs, said he’ll be watching next week’s budget for signs of new investment in job training programs.

McNichol said that after last year’s budget cut a $625 million federal job funding program, he hopes Ottawa supports initiatives that promote local career development and help schools provide rapid skill-building for youth entering the workforce.

But McNichols cautioned youth against relying on, or even expecting, budget measures to overcome cost-of-living and labour market issues.

Instead, he clarified that young Canadians must partly lean on “the values that define Canada: our resiliency and bravery to do what needs to be done when the going gets hard.”

“If I’m a young person, I’m holding onto those cultural values, I’m going out into the world, and I’m finding ways to make a name for myself.”

While Baskin said he’s unsure what specific measures he wants to see in the federal budget, anything that improves his standard of living would help.

“Affordable groceries, affordable housing, not being worried about work, and just being able to live a better life on a reasonable income,” said Baskin. “That’s what I’d like to see.”

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 daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Canada's Supreme Court struck down mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography offences, prompting conservative  leaders to demand tougher penalties and the use of the notwithstanding clause.

The conservative backlash is growing to Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada ruling throwing out mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography crimes.

“This ruling raises serious questions about whether the punishments will truly reflect the severity of these offences and the pain they inflict,” Nova Scotia Justice Minister Scott Armstrong said in a statement on Saturday.

“Child pornography offences are not abstract or victimless. As a former school principal, I have seen first-hand the devastating harm that sexual exploitation of children can cause,’ he said. “Mandatory minimum sentences send a clear message that exploiting children is among the most serious crimes, and will be treated that way.”

Canada’s top court narrowly ruled Friday to strike down the one-year mandatory minimum sentence requirement for the possession and access of child pornography, after examining the punishment’s impact on a hypothetical 18-year-old involved in sexting.

The decision prompted swift backlash from elected conservatives across the country.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and

Ontario Premier Doug Ford

called on the Liberals to keep the one-year mandatory sentence in place by using the notwithstanding clause, which would mean reintroducing the measure in legislation.

“This decision is outrageous,” Smith said Friday on the X social media platform. “The possession of child pornography is a heinous crime, and even a one-year minimum sentence is already far too lenient.”

On X, Saskatchewan

Premier Scott Moe wrote

that the ruling was why he believed “elected legislators, not unelected judges,” ought to make laws.

Former Alberta premier and federal minister Jason Kenney called on the Carney government to invoke the notwithstanding clause — or if it doesn’t, for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to introduce legislation to do so.

“This aberrant decision by the Supreme Court cannot stand. It is a basic test of our fundamental values as a country. Put partisanship and slavish deference to judicial power aside. Do the right thing,”

he said on X.

Poilievre issued a statement late Friday vowing to reintroduce the mandatory sentence, should his party form the next government.

“My future government will reintroduce mandatory minimum sentences for possession of child sexual abuse material and ensure dirtbags like the ones before the court are in prison where they belong,” Poilievre said, adding on X that the Supreme Court ruling was “dead wrong.”

The case, which was heard by a nine-judge panel, involved a challenge to the sentencing rules brought forward by two men in Quebec who pleaded guilty to having hundreds of images of children as young as three being severely abused.

At the heart of the debate was a scenario which was not based on the facts of the actual case but on another possible scenario, which led to a 5-4 ruling from the top court.

The majority ultimately found the one-year mandatory minimum sentences for the crimes to be unconstitutional on the basis that the crimes themselves cover a variety of circumstances, which could cross the Charter-protected right that guards against cruel and unusual punishment.

Nova Scotia’s Armstrong said he would ask federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser “to take action to ensure our justice system continues to protect the most vulnerable, particularly children and youth.”

A spokeswoman for Fraser said on Friday the federal government was reviewing the decision.

“Crimes that exploit or abuse children are among the most serious and reprehensible in our society. Plain and simple: child abusers should face the toughest penalties Canadian law allows,” Lola Dandybaeva wrote in a statement on Friday.

The notwithstanding clause is a section of the Charter that acts as an override function that can cover other sections, including those that protect legal rights. A fierce debate has broken out in recent years about the limits of its use.

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.


Newly-sworn in Mayor Jeromy Farkas speaks before taking part in a fireside chat with Calgary Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Deborah Yedlin on Thursday, October 30, 2025.

Calgarians like their mayors young and trail-blazing. 

Jeromy Farkas, 39, was officially sworn in as Calgary’s 38th mayor this week, alongside 14 city councillors, 10 of whom are rookies. Former mayor Dave Bronconnier assumed the mantle at age 39; Naheed Nenshi was 38. 

In 2010, Nenshi was widely hailed as the first Muslim mayor of a big North American city.  In 2021, Jyoti Gondek was elected as the city’s first female mayor. Farkas identifies as bisexual, making him Calgary’s first openly LGBTQ mayor. 

His worship is still beaming when we talk; he’s been mayor for less than 24 hours and has spent very little time in his new digs at the refurbished historic city hall. Wednesday night’s swearing-in ceremony was emotional, his team reports. They necessarily held off celebrating until the conclusion of an official recount of the Oct. 20 votes by Elections Calgary. 

Farkas won with a 616-vote margin of victory over his closest competitor, former city councillor Sonya Sharp. Gondek finished a distant third, becoming the first incumbent to fail to win re-election since 1980, when Ross Alger lost to Ralph Klein. 

 Calgary Mayor Jeromy Farkas is sworn in by Associate Chief Justice D. Blair Nixon at city hall on Wednesday, October 29, 2025.

“I am perpetually late for stuff,” Farkas chuckles, dashing into his office from a meeting with his executive leadership team. When the internet crashes, on his end, he assures me, “occasionally the WiFi goes on the fritz, but we have the ability to plug you in.” He then proceeds, unflummoxed — just like every other Millennial I know — to do just that. 

The new council is in the midst of onboarding and orientation, including getting familiar with the city’s 2026 budget to be approved by the end of November. Not surprisingly, Farkas has been poked and prodded on the upcoming budget, and assures everyone all options are on the table and pencils will be sharpened to bring down the tax increases proposed by the previous council. 

Beyond the budget, there are other challenges ahead for Farkas, in what looks to be a new council split between conservative-thinking folks and progressives. Farkas ran as an independent — without partisan affiliation — in Calgary’s first municipal election under new provincial rules allowing party alignment. When I take a look at the new city council, it’s quite feasible the mayor will find himself becoming the deciding vote on some of the more divisive issues, including blanket rezoning, the federal policy that ties housing funding to much higher density.

“You have a new council, with those on the right wanting removal of blanket rezoning and those on the left opposed to change,” I observe, then ask Farkas, pointedly: “How are you going to build consensus, on what’s clearly a hill to die on for so many in council?” 

The new mayor is ready for my question, and his response is thoughtful and compelling; I seriously hope his predictions come true.

“You know, I would challenge the premise,” he answers, amicably. “I don’t think that any one of my colleagues is willing to accept the status quo. We heard a lot through the course of the campaign about issues around housing, around affordability, around public safety.

“I think there’s a broad consensus amongst Calgarians,” he says, “that the blanket rezoning approach hasn’t worked in terms of delivering housing at an affordable price point and at the right location, supported by services and infrastructure, or even at the speed and scale that’s required.

“You’ll see $600,000 bungalows being torn down, replaced with four $750,000 luxury condos,” he continues, “and that hasn’t delivered housing that’s affordable. So obviously, I can’t speak for every single one of my colleagues, but there’s a broad consensus that the blanket rezoning hasn’t worked; even amongst some of the more progressive housing advocates, they recognize that there’s issues with the idea of say an eight-plex going in the middle of a block.” 

“What about all that federal funding, tied to blanket rezoning?” I ask. 

“I haven’t had the opportunity to speak directly with the prime minister, at least until Monday,” Farkas responds, “but in my early conversations with some of our federal counterparts, I understand that the housing accelerator funds are tied to performance, tied to units built, and if we can still build the units but in a more targeted way — closer to LRT stations, education, employment — then we’ve fulfilled our obligations. So again, the money is not tied to building expensive eight-plexes in the middle of a block. The money is tied to building housing, and if we can show that we’re still building the housing with a more targeted approach, we should be good to go.” 

It’s the voice of reason many Calgarians — indeed, many Canadians — have been longing for. 

The guy has been in the job less than a day, but I have another burning question, and the WiFi at historic city hall is still working so I wade into the sensitive question of how to manage Calgary’s exponential growth trajectory.

Premier Danielle Smith is on the record, projecting a goal of 10 million people in Alberta by 2050, and it stands to reason roughly half of that growth would be in the Calgary area. The new mayor agrees. “Our council, and me as mayor, we are going to be here to welcome the two millionth Calgarian,” he shares, “which is an amazing number, but rightfully so, it causes some anxiety in the public in terms of the strain on housing, on infrastructure, on services, and this is an opportunity or challenge that could break us or make us.”

“On the debate stage,” Farkas explains, “I was agnostic in terms of whether the number was the right number or the wrong number. As mayor, I do not have control over the number of people moving to the city. But once they are here, I have a clear responsibility and duty to ensure that every single Calgarian has access to a safe and affordable life here.”

It’s a daunting task, we both agree. And recent strike action by the province’s teachers has laid bare the consequences of not being prepared for that scale and speed of growth. 

According to recently obtained stats from the government of Alberta, the net international migration of school-aged children into Alberta rose from 3,347 kids in 2020-21 to 30,120 in 2023-24; net inter-provincial migration numbers are magnitudes lower. And at the Calgary Board of Education, the largest school board in the province, nearly one in three students is in an English as an Additional Language program. Roughly 44,000 K-12 students, in Calgary, are learning English. The implications, in classrooms, are staggering.

I’m left with the impression this young mayor knows what he’s up against, and he’s ready for what’s coming at him. “It’s a great place to be,” Farkas quips, “because, like our city and me personally, I’m now old enough to know and still young enough to do.”

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.


Matthew Begbie, former Chief Justice of the Crown Colony of B.C.

If he was American there would be a movie because Matthew Begbie had hero written all over him. He stood six-five, and when on a horse with his handlebar moustache and van dyke, he looked even bigger. Cutting a commanding figure, he tamed the Old West.

A circuit judge who brought bandits and outlaws to justice, he travelled the highways, biways and rivers of British Columbia before it joined Confederation. He went on horse, on foot, or by canoe, carriage or steamship, and carried out the law in a log cabin, under an oak tree, or in the open wilderness.

Begbie befriended the Native people and spoke Chinook, their trade language in the Pacific Northwest. In 1860 he declared that the Indians held aboriginal title to their land and this must be recognized by law. He forced legislation to ensure Native women shared in the estates of their white partners, married or not.

But Matthew Begbie wasn’t American. He was English. The British appointed him chief justice of the Crown Colony of B.C., then a colony of the British Empire. In no small way he helped pave the way for B.C. to join Confederation and they named things after him. Sir Matthew Begbie Elementary School in Vancouver. Mount Begbie. Begbie Summit. Two lakes and a creek. And in New Westminster a street and public square. But the big thing was that statue in front of the city’s courthouse and there was another one in Vancouver outside the Law Society of B.C. It was fitting because he pretty much wrote the law in these parts and for 125 years everything was fine.

In 1958 the National Film Board of Canada produced a docudrama – The Legendary Judge – that started this way: “He was the form and substance of British justice sent out from England to challenge the wild west.” When he arrived exactly one century earlier, in 1858, he was the first and only judge in B.C.

The January 1947 edition of The British Columbia Historical Quarterly ran a piece about Begbie by historian Sydney G. Pettit who described his subject: “Fearless and incorruptible, he made his name a terror to evil-doers who, rather than face his stern and impartial justice in the Queen’s court, abstained from violence or fled the country, never to return.”

Directly below the title of that publication were the words: “Any country worthy of a future should be interested in its past.”

Indeed.

Begbie was a lawyer in London before arriving in B.C. Remaining a judge for 36 years, he’d be responsible for much of B.C.’s early legislation – the Aliens Act of 1859, Gold Fields Act of 1859, Pre-emption Act of 1860 – statues involving immigration, commerce and settlement. But one case in particular sealed his fate and it was done in a way that only a self-flagellating country like Canada could conceive.

Gold discovered in the Fraser Valley led to the arrival of thousands of miners and that changed everything. Salmon fishing was vital to the Indigenous who fought inter-tribal wars over it. One of the worst massacres ever to occur in what is now Canada happened in 1745 in the Dakhel village of Chinlac. The dispute was between the Dakhel and neighbouring Tsilhquot’in, or as they were known, Chilcotin.

An account of the atrocities, written by a priest, describes in vivid detail how the Dakhel chief returned to his village only to see the bodies of his two wives and children hanging on poles. The children’s bodies had been ripped open and spitted through out-turned ribs like salmon drying in the sun.

The message? Don’t mess with salmon.

When the miners came they washed gravel through their mining sluices, diverting waterways, impacting salmon spawning grounds. Whether that caused the Chilcotin War or not, it led to the deadliest attack against whites in western Canada.

Ever.

In 1864 a crew started building a road through Tsilhqot’ territory. Over several days, a score of killings took place, nine in one fell swoop on April 30 when the men were “shot or bludgeoned to death in their tents” as they slept.  The war party then moved on and committed more murders. When it was over, 21 workers and settlers were dead, their bodies mutilated.

There are accounts of what happened. The colonial government set up a search party and found the alleged perpetrators, including their leader, a chief named Klatsassin.

 People pose for a photo with the statue of Judge Matthew Begbie outside BC Supreme Court in New Westminster in 2019. The statue has since been removed.

Begbie was the trial judge and court records exist. A jury trial resulted in guilty verdicts for five of eight men charged with murder. Later, a sixth man was found guilty. Back then such a verdict carried the death penalty and the six were hanged.

From then until 1993 there was no ‘controversy’ about Begbie. But that year a report of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Justice Inquiry examined the relationship between Indigenous People and the justice system, and called for a posthumous pardon of the six chiefs. More than two decades later, in 2014, B.C. Premier Christy Clark issued an apology. She said the chiefs were “fully exonerated of any crime or wrongdoing.”

Then the snowball effect. A plaque posted near the Fraser River in Quesnel, B.C., said the chiefs were wrongfully hanged. In 2015 we had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, in 2018 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s public apology, and in 2020 the murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. With that came the rising woke slant on history with everything Indigenous deemed good and everything white, colonial and settler bad.

I looked online for details of that plaque in Quesnel and found it under the headline Legacy of the crimes of British colonialists; the website belonged to the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada!

The floodgates now opened for Begbie being the fall guy. But not everyone saw it that way. Peter Shawn Taylor wrote in The 1867 Project: Why Canada Should Be Cherished – Not Cancelled (Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, 2023): “The final requirement for this new narrative affirming the natives as victims is the transformation of Begbie into a villain. His punishment is to have his reputation rubbished and his name scrubbed from the province’s road maps and lobbies.”

Never mind that it was trial by jury which meant the jury decided things and, as presiding judge, Begbie’s duty was to uphold the verdict and pronounce sentence.

Or that two members of the Tsilhqot helped find those who committed the massacre.

Or that one testimony came from a Clahoose Native who said the execution of the six was justified and his own people were “nearly annihilated” by Tsilhqot’in.

Begbie still paid the price.

In 2001 the University of Victoria removed his name from the school’s law building.

 The statue of Matthew Begbie that once stood inside the lobby of the Law Society of British Columbia building in Vancouver.

In 2017, the statue of him on horseback in the lobby of the Law Society of B.C. building in Vancouver was purged, as was a plaque that read: “His 36 years of fearless and impartial service made a lasting contribution to the administration of justice in the Pacific region of Canada.”

No longer.

The Tsilhqot’in leaders who inspired this then demanded that his name be removed from all public places.

As usual, the media played its sorry role in this misrepresentation of history. When Begbie’s ‘controversial’ statue was removed from the B.C. Law Society, CTV News reported: “The society previously featured the statue of Judge Matthew Begbie, who wrongfully convicted six Tsilhquotin War Chiefs of murder in 1864, sentencing them to death by hanging.”

The city of New Westminster renamed Begbie Square and Begbie Street in honour of two chiefs who had been wrongfully hanged, and Sir Matthew Begbie Elementary School in Vancouver was given an Indigenous moniker.

Sam Sullivan is a former mayor of Vancouver. After the Law Society of B.C. in Vancouver and the city of New Westminster removed their Begbie statues, he was so incensed he made a video about the gold rush, Indigenous inter-tribal conflicts, and Begbie.

“While south of the border the U.S. Army waged a dozen wars against Indigenous people, Judge Begbie risked his life in hostile environments for a more just society,” said Sullivan. “With a legal system that owes so much to him in a province whose very existence depended on the force of his personality, one must wonder if the justice he worked so hard for was done.”

Sullivan says the Law Society made its decision to remove the Begbie statue “in secret.”

Legal historian Hamar Foster is a law professor emeritus at the University of Victoria. He contributed an essay for the book Voicing Identity: Cultural Appropriation and Indigenous Issues (University of Toronto Press, 2022), his subject the Law Society decision to remove the statue. Foster’s essay made several points:

The Law Society report said Begbie “found (the Tsilhquot’in warriors) guilty” of murder and “ordered their execution,” but this was not so since the jury found them guilty and death was the mandatory sentence for murder.

The colonial governor, not Begbie, had discretion to commute the death sentences.

Said Foster: “I spoke to a number of people, and almost everyone, lawyers included, whose only source of information about the events of 1864 was the media, believed that the decision to convict and sentence the men to hang was Begbie’s, and his alone. Which is not true. Some also did not know what the hanged men were alleged to have done.”

 “Fearless and incorruptible” Judge Matthew Begbie.

The Law Society report said Begbie “epitomizes the cruelty of colonization” and his relationship with Indigenous people was “negative.” Not true, says Foster. What does he conclude about Begbie?

“His record is much better than that of his contemporaries in Australia, the U.S., and the rest of Canada. And when his career is subjected to close examination, he stands out as both insightful and sympathetic when compared to most British Columbians of his day.”

Foster says the Chilcotin had legitimate grievances – not being consulted about the road, the threat of smallpox, sexual assaults against their women. As for the 21 white men killed and mutilated, he said the Chilcotin thought of this as warfare. But he has a beef with how the Law Society made its decision about the statue. He said the full membership wasn’t consulted and the benchers rendered the decision on an “incredibly one-sided report.”

Author David R. Williams wrote a biography on Begbie called The Man for a New Country (Gray’s Publishing Ltd., Sidney, BC, 1977). Said Williams: “No other judge in Canada combines an historical reputation of national proportions – Canada might, without Begbie and a few others, have had its western boundary at the Rocky Mountains.”

So, if not for Begbie, British Columbia as we know it today might not exist. Yes, if he was American there would be a movie. But in Canada we do things differently.

This excerpt is taken from Sleepwoking by Jerry Amernic, now available on Amazon

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.


Exterior shot of the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility.

A female prisoner awaiting trial for a Cape Breton murder delivered more than 33 punches, kicks and knees to the head of another inmate known as “Crime Stoppers,” because women doing time at Halifax’s Burnside Jail believed she was a police informant.

The fight began with a handshake.

Pamela Hubley, who is left handed, had reached out to shake Carolyn Ann Dermody’s hand with her right in the jail’s “airing yard.” This was enough for the judge to consider the first few punches, thrown by Dermody in expectation of blows from Hubley’s dominant left, were in self-defence.

The fight was caught on surveillance cameras. After those first few shots, Dermody swung 22 times at Hubley, all within seconds of throwing the first punch. The fight, wrote Dartmouth provincial court judge Timothy Daley, quickly moved from self-defence to blows delivered with the purpose of “aggression, dominance and vengeance.”

“This included multiple strikes to the face with uppercuts using her right hand while holding Hubley’s sweatshirt with her left,” wrote Daley. She also hit Hubley repeatedly on the back of her head, “using a closed fist in what is often referred to as a ‘hammer fist’ punch.”

Hubley fell to her knees, covering her head with her hands. Grabbing ahold of Hubley’s sweatshirt and hair, Dermody punched Hubley 11 more times in the face and the back of the head. She also kicked and attempted to knee Hubley in the face.

Dermody was convicted Oct. 24 of assault causing bodily harm for the April 2024 attack.

The reasons for the assault: that Hubley was allegedly a snitch.

“I accept Dermody’s evidence that she believed, as did others, that Hubley was an undercover police officer, or at least a ‘rat’ who gathered information about the offences and inmates and used that to her advantage,” wrote Daley.

Hubley, according to the judge, described the pain after the fight as “10 out of 10,” and that she was shaking with pain from the attack.

The judge found that Hubley never fought back. “I also find that throughout the altercation, Hubley is face down while standing and face down when she falls to her knees.”

Paramedics took Hubley to hospital. An emergency room doctor examined her, indicating Hubley had “significant bruising and swelling to soft tissues in the face and blurry vision,” as well as pain and swelling in her left shoulder.

Hubley testified that she and Dermody had been imprisoned together for about two weeks before the altercation. Dermody testified that the pair had “hit and miss” interactions, with Hubley’s behaviour being anywhere from nice to intimidating. She also said that Hubley was trying to get information about her charges and testified that Hubley’s name within the jail was “Crime Stoppers” because she had been asking about others’ offences.

“(Dermody) was very clear that she and others believe that Hubley was an undercover cop, or at least a rat, and that this was unacceptable to anyone in the facility. It was her evidence that she believed that Hubley was looking to collect information about her and her offences. I find that this was at least part of the motive which became paramount soon after the altercation began. I find that Dermody was soon looking to exact vengeance, not to defend herself,” Daley wrote.

Hubley, 40, is 5’2” and weighs 160 pounds.

Dermody, who is 27 and three inches taller, weighed around 130 pounds at the time of the assault.

Dermody, of North Sydney, N.S., is one of three people charged with the murder of 48-year-old Natacha Leroy, a mother of six, at a home on Old Route 5 in Big Bras d’Or, on Nov. 22, 2023.

Dermody is slated to be sentenced Jan. 26, 2026, for the jail assault.

On the murder charge, her trial is scheduled to start March 30, 2026, in Sydney Supreme Court.

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.