LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Prime Minister Mark Carney's major projects list lacks the “kind of nation-building infrastructure (that) ties together Canada economically, and provides cross-Canada benefit for everybody,” says Joe Calnan, vice-president of energy for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Prime Minister Mark Carney — celebrated flag bearer for decarbonization — has boldly declared Canada can compete as an energy superpower in a net-zero world. Ahead of Carney’s government’s first budget Tuesday, however, there’s a question being asked by many serious people: “Is this even a net-zero world anymore?”

The Norwegian company Det Norske Veritas (The Norwegian Truth) is now forecasting global net-zero CO2 emissions won’t be reached until the early 2090s.

So I ask energy expert Joe Calnan that very question. Joe is VP of energy for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, based in Calgary. I’m struck by his youth — he’s not quite 29 — and watch him flinch at my question, but he quickly recovers.

“I think that’s not something that will happen in this century,” his tone wistful. “I’m just less certain, definitely not as convinced as I was back in, say 2021,” he shares. “And even in 2021,” he adds, “I had my doubts.

“International cooperation is really breaking down,” he acknowledges, and it’s hard to foresee a future where the United Nations is able to edict net-zero targets. “Countries are going to be acting very much in their self-interest,” he predicts.

A major challenge, he explains, is the cost of technology to decarbonize; it’s extremely expensive to bring emissions down in cement, steel and fertilizer. “It’ll be difficult to get countries to basically make themselves permanently less wealthy,” he notes, “by making all these things more expensive.”

The “national interest” projects included on Carney’s agenda “definitely indicate there’s some sort of plan to continue having oil and gas production well beyond the 2050 date,” Joe suggests. “You don’t invest in Pathways carbon capture and storage system if you’re not planning on oil and gas production beyond the next 25 years.

“But I think we should be thinking more strategically for Canada and longer term,” Joe asserts. “We should be thinking well beyond 2050,” he declares, then posits, “What’s our infrastructure strategy for 2080?”

Joe’s youthfulness, I realize, is the most consequential aspect of this conversation. Certainly, he understands the energy landscape, but more importantly, Joe can speak to our nation’s bold aspiration to be an energy superpower from the perspective of a younger generation.

“There was a lot of momentum, earlier this year,” he says, “we were going to completely reshape Canadian society and the Canadian economy; we’re going to tear down all these trade barriers between provinces.” Then, he laments, “Canadians started bickering about their regular issues again,” and reverted to status quo complacency.

“You can look at the major projects list,” he continues, “and I think we really need to make a distinction between those projects of national interest versus nation-building projects.”

When you look at Canadian history, he explains, there are some examples of genuine “nation-building” projects: the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway (to bring British Columbia into Confederation), the TransCanada highway (to connect the country by road), the TransCanada pipeline (to bring natural gas from Alberta to Ontario).

“That kind of nation-building infrastructure ties together Canada economically, and provides cross-Canada benefit for everybody,” he observes. By contrast, Joe suggests, when you look at the current list of nation-building projects for Canada, very few cross provincial boundaries. “With these projects,” he observes, “different premiers were allowed to champion certain projects they really want to be built, but … it doesn’t have this real vision for what Canada wants to have as infrastructure for the next hundred years.”

In a pre-budget speech to a University of Ottawa crowd, Carney shared the feds’ ambitious aim to double non-U.S. exports over the course of the next decade.

While Joe applauds the upside of exporting more oil and LNG to Asia and Europe — and the TransMountain pipeline expansion has already done wonders for Canadian oil prices, he notes — the integration of existing pipeline systems connecting Canada and the U.S. means “we will always be a major energy security partner with the United States.”

Without clear policy support from Ottawa, Joe’s not bullish on the prospects of an additional oil export pipeline being built to the West Coast. There are ways to unlock marginally more export capacity on the TransMountain line, and the export capacity at the Westridge Terminal can be boosted with more dredging. But these incremental improvements aren’t in the realm of nation-building.

Joe and I could nerd out talking about pipelines for hours. But I’m interested in what really matters: Does this young man feel optimistic about his future?

“I have a number of friends who are currently living in the States,” Joe responds. These are kids who were top of their class in Canadian universities, not ideologically American, but they move down to the States because of the opportunity and stay there because it “would be death for their career and current quality of life” to return to Canada.

“We’re always criticizing the U.S.,” Joe says, “but we need to take the beam out of our eye before we take the speck out of our brother’s eye. We should really be looking at home; what are the problems here? And how do we make more opportunity for young people … opportunity to stay here rather than move down to the U.S.?”

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.


Lawyer Jonathan Rosenthal at Toronto's Osgoode Hall:

In a groundbreaking move towards greater transparency, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) has committed in principle to publicly disclosing details when lawyers and paralegals commit crimes or professional breaches.

The move follows a

two-year investigation

by the Investigative Journalism Bureau (IJB) into the law society’s decades-long practice of withholding such information, even in cases involving high-risk conduct by legal professionals.

In a Sept. 25 vote, the LSO’s Professional Regulation Committee

passed motions

that will, for the first time, require that criminal guilty pleas and convictions be posted on the public registry for prospective clients to see.

“I strongly and unquestionably believe members of the public have the undeniable right to know this information,” vice-chair of the regulations committee Jonathan Rosenthal said in a written statement.

“I know many lawyers … were not supportive of this initiative but the LSO is not a lawyers’ advocacy group but a public interest regulator … Many consider not providing this sort of information which is in possession of the Law Society as hiding this information. That is not in the public interest.”

Also approved by the committee is a rule change that would compel the LSO to disclose disciplinary actions against lawyers and paralegals by other professional regulatory bodies and provide a link to those registries so prospective clients are aware.

The LSO’s existing bylaws must be amended before the changes can be put into practice. Both measures would apply to future cases only.

A recent

IJB investigation

detailed hidden histories of several legal professionals who were the subject of criminal charges or convictions and of several who have faced disciplinary proceedings from other regulatory bodies. Currently, criminal convictions against lawyers in Ontario do not appear on their LSO profiles.

“As one can see from a number of recent press articles where we have had recently lawyers convicted of extorting sex from clients, of sexual assault, of fraud … at the moment, we are not telling the public about those convictions when they go to hire those lawyers,” said Toronto lawyer Megan Shortreed, who supported the rule change.

She called the pending rule changes a “no-brainer.”

“They are, in my view, actually the bare minimum and are long overdue. The Law Society continuing to withhold from the public that information that it possesses is not discharging this organization’s duty to the public nor is it maintaining public confidence.”

In several cases,

reporters identified

lawyers and paralegals who have been disciplined by other regulatory bodies for offences that appear nowhere on their LSO public profiles.

Among them is Stephanie Colangelo, who was a licensed high school teacher in Ontario.

 A floor emblem at the interior entranceway for The Law Society of Ontario (Upper Canada).

In November 2020, she pleaded guilty to sexually luring three students at the school where she taught by sending messages “of a sexual nature” including “sexualized photos and videos of herself” and telling them she would engage in sexual activity with them, including intercourse.

Four days before her guilty plea, Colangelo submitted a paralegal licensing application to the law society, using her maiden name and stating only that she was the subject of a criminal investigation.

The Ontario College of Teachers revoked her licence in 2021 and posted on its website Colangelo’s sentencing documents, along with its own findings. But Colangelo’s public profile on the LSO website still contains no reference to that revocation, her criminal charges or her conviction.

And that won’t change, because the new policy is not retroactive.

Colangelo did not respond to a request for comment.

The debate over disclosure of criminal convictions of lawyers and paralegals was contentious among committee members.

Many of the 143 submissions made to the law society’s regulation committee argued that a lawyer’s reputation would be harmed by the disclosure of convictions or findings of guilt and that disclosure would breach a legal professional’s right to privacy.

One submission contemplated that the public accessing criminal convictions could make legal professionals the targets of false allegations and result in the public being able to do “extensive research” on lawyers involved with their case.

Several benchers — that is, members of the LSO’s governing board — publicly pushed back against the proposal.

While bencher Pam Hrick told the committee that she supported some findings of guilt being reflected on the LSO public register, she questioned the scope of the proposed transparency.

“I think what is being suggested here overshoots what is necessary to protect the public interest,” she argued.

Bencher Lisa Bildy echoed the concerns, stating that while she favoured some criminal code convictions being made public, adding provincial offence convictions went too far.

“I think I’m going to vote against this because it is overbroad.”

During the debate, Rosenthal said that criminal convictions and disciplinary actions should be more accessible.

“We are hiding that information from very vulnerable people. They are at the greatest risk when they consult with a lawyer,” Rosenthal told the meeting. “The very vulnerable clients … will not have the resources to be able to find out that information before they go into a room late at night with a lawyer who may have been convicted of an offence.”

***

The ongoing IJB investigation has identified more examples of criminal findings and internal LSO actions that do not appear on public profiles available to prospective clients.

For example, Toronto paralegal Azary-Zarik Matanov has faced four different criminal charges — including a guilty plea for assault in one case — for alleged offences since 2016.

In 2016, Matanov was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement of a woman. He pleaded guilty to common assault and received a conditional discharge and 12 months’ probation in November 2017.

He faced a sexual assault and breach of probation charges from another woman two years later that were stayed in September 2019. In March 2019, Matanov was charged with sexual assault and breach of probation by a third woman. Those charges were withdrawn in January 2020.

In 2018, the LSO considered suspending Matanov’s licence due to the sexual assault charge against him, but decided to withdraw its application, noting that his alleged behaviour “is not the type of misconduct that normally results in licence revocation.”

 

 Osgoode Hall and the Law Society of Ontario.

In July 2022, Matanov was charged a fourth time with sexual assault, based on a complaint from a woman who alleged he pressured her to perform non-consensual oral sex on him following a date. He was acquitted at trial in November 2024.

Matanov’s public-facing LSO profile does make brief mention that he failed to report criminal charges to the LSO under “Regulatory History.” But there are no  further details on his main profile and no reference to sexual assault charges.

Matanov declined a request for an interview, but in two written statements, his  lawyer, Gil Zvulony, said: “My client is not a threat to the public. He is a professional with an unrestricted licence who has been the target of malicious allegations … We acknowledge the 2016 matter was resolved with a guilty plea … That 2016 matter concluded with a conditional discharge, which is not a conviction under the Criminal Code and demonstrates the minor nature of the incident and certainly not sexual assault.”

Under the LSO’s amended disclosure practices, however, a guilty plea resulting in a conditional discharge would still appear on a licencee’s public-facing profile.

“A discharge does not eliminate the facts underlying the finding,” reads the recommendations to the LSO. “Legal professionals are expected to be of the highest integrity and therefore any finding of guilt is relevant in a regulatory context.”

***

There remains one further debate over greater transparency before the LSO. The committee did not make a final decision on a recommendation that would require the regulator to post criminal charges that have not yet been proven on the public profile of a lawyer or paralegal.

Lawyers are required to report criminal charges to the LSO, but currently that information remains hidden from the public unless the watchdog decides to trigger its own disciplinary process as a result.

Toronto lawyer

Andrew Menchynski

faced criminal charges of assault, forcible confinement and possession of a weapon in September 2022. The charges were withdrawn and Menchynski entered into a peace bond and secret undertakings with the LSO related to those charges that appear nowhere on his record, the IJB investigation found.

He did not respond to requests for comment.

But his lawyer, Peter Downard, previously told the IJB: “Mr. Menchynski has steadfastly denied the allegations made by the complainant … (and) entered into a peace bond without admitting to the facts that gave rise to the charges.”

Between 2021 and 2025, Sudbury lawyer

Adam Castonguay

was acquitted on criminal charges of sexual assault, settled a $13-million civil suit filed by one of the complainants, was subject to two peace bonds, had practice restrictions placed on his licence and is the subject of an ongoing LSO investigation into allegations of misconduct.

 Sudbury lawyer Adam Castonguay.

There is no record of these matters on Castonguay’s main public profile on the LSO website; all that is stated is that he is currently the subject of regulatory proceedings. There are currently no practice restrictions on Castonguay’s licence.

Castonguay did not respond to interview requests.

The recent committee debate over disclosing criminal charges featured strong reservations about posting allegations that have not been proven.

“Most respondents to the consultation expressed serious concerns about the publication of this information in the directory and emphasized the need to balance the importance of transparency with fundamental rights like the presumption of innocence, and the potential impact of systemic racism,” said LSO spokesperson

Jennifer Wing.

“These are complex questions that require additional research and deliberation.”

Regulators that oversee the conduct of doctors, dentists, nurses and all licensed health professionals in Ontario make public any criminal charges on the public registry for prospective patients to see.

Rosenthal says he will be supporting public disclosure of criminal charges against lawyers and paralegals when the issue comes to a final vote before the committee. There is no timeframe yet for that vote.

“Criminal charges are a matter of public record. Though a lawyer can easily find this information … I doubt many members of the public know this or know how to. I really hope that the LSO register will come in line with … the 27 regulated health professions.”

The Investigative Journalism Bureau (IJB) at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health is a collaborative investigative newsroom supported by Postmedia that partners with academics, researchers and journalists while training the next generation of investigative reporters.

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.


Ontario Premier Doug Ford at a news conference in August.

Just one-third of Ontarians say their province is heading in the right direction,

according to a new Leger poll.

The polling finds that, despite Premier Doug Ford having an approval rating of 45 per cent, a majority — 55 per cent — of Ontarians believe the province is on the wrong track. Only 33 per cent say the province is on the right track.

“There’s been a shift in moods in Ontario. Ontarians are growing more pessimistic,” said Jennifer McLeod Macey, Leger’s senior vice-president of public affairs.

Those in eastern Ontario are most likely, at 44 per cent, to say the province is headed in the right direction, while 29 per cent of those in southern Ontario, 32 per cent of those in the Greater Toronto Area and 30 per cent of those in the Hamilton/Niagara regions and northern Ontario say that the province is on the right track.

There’s also a gender divide: men (36 per cent) are more likely than women (29 per cent) to say the province is headed in the right direction. When it comes to the age breakdown, those in the 35 to 54 age bracket, at just 22 per cent, are the least likely to say the province is doing things right.

Only 42 per cent of Progressive Conservative voters say their province is headed in the right direction — the same percentage as those who support the Ontario Liberals. In comparison, 70 per cent of NDP supporters say the province is headed in the wrong direction.

When it comes to the issues that Ontarians see facing their province, 17 per cent identify housing prices and affordability as the most important. Those in their home-buying years are most likely to see housing and affordability as the most important issue. Twenty per cent of those between the ages of 18 and 34 identify it as the most important issue, as do 19 per cent of those between the ages of 35 and 54. After that, concern drops off sharply: just 12 per cent of Ontarians in the 55 or older age range see housing prices as a major issue.

“Housing affordability continues to dominate as Ontarians’ top concern. This is especially true of younger and middle aged adults,” said McLeod Macey.

Older Ontarians, however, are most likely, at 21 per cent, to view the state of the health-care system as the biggest issue. Overall in Ontario, 14 per cent identify health care as the biggest trouble plaguing the province. (Sixty-one per cent of Ontarians say the Ford government has not been doing well on health-care policy.)

“If performance for Ford is not great in that space, it kind of explains why the overall mood is more pessimistic,” said McLeod Macey.

As for other concerns, hot-topic issues such as the opioid crisis barely register: Just two per cent of Ontarians say it’s the biggest issue facing the province, and only three per cent express high levels of concern about climate change or the environment.

Trade and the economy come in third-place: 12 per cent say the economy is the most important issue facing Ontario while 11 per cent say Ontario’s trade relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump is the most important issue facing the province. Eighteen per cent of those aged 55 and older see trade with the U.S. as the largest issue facing Ontario, compared to just five per cent of those between 18 and 34.

Ford and his government enjoy broad approval for their handling of some of the issues, although support has softened in recent months. Forty-seven per cent of those polled support Ford’s handling of relations with the federal government and 45 per cent approve of how the Progressive Conservatives have handled the tariff file and trade relations with the United States.

However, more people disapprove than approve of the government’s handling of roads and transportation (46 per cent versus 38 per cent) and Indigenous reconciliation (35 per cent versus 33 per cent) and a number of other issues. The most stark contrast comes on the housing front, where 68 per cent disapprove of the government’s handling of the file, compared to just 17 per cent who support it.

“Really, it’s affordability and housing that is most important to Ontarians right now — the top concern. And so if we look at the performance on those on those areas, there’s a lot of room for improvement,” said McLeod Macey.

Broadly speaking, Ontarians are in agreement on a variety of different policy ideas. For example, 79 per cent of poll respondents believe that existing infrastructure should be maintained before new projects are built and 71 per cent believe that there should be rent freezes in areas where rental prices are growing rapidly. The poll also found that 75 per cent believe that price increases in grocery stores should be disclosed to a provincial regulator and 78 per cent say there should be consumer protection rules that label products with information about shrinkflation. A majority — 51 per cent — agree that homeless people do not have the right to camp in public spaces.

The polling also found that despite so many people believing Ontario is heading in the wrong direction, Ford would still enjoy the support of 44 per cent of voters if an election were to happen tomorrow. The Ontario Liberals would place second with 32 per cent of the vote and the NDP would get 13 per cent of the vote.

The polling was done between Oct. 10 and 13 and Oct. 17 and 20, among an online survey of 1,052 Ontarians. Results were weighted according to age, gender, region, and education to ensure a representative sample of the Ontario population. While no margin of error can be associated with a non-probability sample, for comparative purposes, a probability sample of 1,052 respondents would have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.0 per cent, 19 times out of 20.​

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.


CSIS headquarters outside Ottawa. The agencies that oversee Canada's intelligence agencies have warned the federal government against cutting their budgets.

OTTAWA — Canada’s intelligence watchdog agencies have asked the Liberals to spare them from public service cuts in

Tuesday’s budget

, warning that the organizations they are supposed to keep an eye on are only set to become more powerful.

In an exceptional joint letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, Canada’s two largest intelligence watchdogs warned in July they would not be able to oversee as effectively the intrusive operations and powers of surveillance of security agencies, including CSIS and the RCMP, if their funding is cut in Tuesday’s budget.

That’s because both review bodies, as well as the office of the intelligence commissioner, were included in the government’s spending review requiring them to propose ways to

cut their spending by 15 per cent from their budgets

within three years.

“We maintain a pivotal equilibrium vis-à-vis the extensive authorities vested in the national security apparatus,” reads the letter signed by both the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) secretariat and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA).

“Absent maintaining our current funding levels, our ability to keep pace and sustain a proportional level of scrutiny will be seriously hindered,” they added.

National Post obtained a redacted version of the letter via access-to-information legislation.

NSIRA and NSICOP are the two bodies tasked with reviewing intelligence work done by nearly any federal organization such as CSIS, the Communications Service Establishment, the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence.

Most federal national security organizations have been spared from major cuts the Carney government is considering for the public service.

In fact, the Liberals have promised to significantly increase many of their budgets as part of their plan to boost spending on defence and national security.

Government bill C-2 also proposes

granting police and security agencies new powers to obtain information from service providers without a warrant. It would also create a lawful access regime to make it simpler for authorities to obtain private communications with a warrant.

Craig Forcese, the vice-chair of NSIRA, said that would make cuts to the watchdog agencies more problematic.

“The reality is, with less, we will do less, and this is at a time when we’re seeing a surge in our complaints (and) the prospect of new and novel powers” for intelligence and defence agencies, Forcese said.

He said his organization has not received a response to the letter from the prime minister.

NSIRA’s budget is currently less than $18 million annually, while that of NSICOP’s secretariat is below $4 million. CSIS’s budget is over $700 million while budgets are in the billions or tens of billions of dollars for RCMP, military and defence.

In their letter, NSIRA and NSICOP warned against a return to the “imbalance” seen in the 2000s when intelligence services operated without matching oversight.

“We witnessed security service activities ignite public controversy and provoke the creation of expensive ad hoc judicial commissions of inquiry,” they wrote.

The federal government held numerous public or internal inquiries into national security issues between 2000 and 2009, such as the Mahrer Arar and Air India commissions and at least three major internal inquiries related to intelligence and police work.

The review bodies also wrote in the letter that the cuts would be an assault on their independence and directly impact services to the public.

“The practical reality is that in our micro-organizations the prescribed budget cuts are more likely to be disproportionately linked to reduced delivery on our mandates, such as fewer reviews being conducted,” they wrote.

“For the adjudication of public complaints, less resources will mean jeopardizing access to justice,” they added. “The result will likely be long queues and delays.”

In their six to eight years of existence, both watchdogs have published consequential reviews of Canada’s security and intelligence apparatus.

For example, NSICOP published a bombshell report on foreign interference in Canada last year. And earlier this month

NSIRA reported that CSIS had failed to disclose

the use of new “intrusive” technology to the proper authorities.

NSICOP secretariat executive director Lisa-Marie Inman said a 15 per cent cut to her department would save the government roughly $525,000 but could impact how it operates. NSIRA said that a similar cut in its budget would save roughly $2.7 million, which it said is a marginal amount of federal spending.

“The economic benefit to the Government is far outweighed by the negative impact on NSIRA’s ability to fulfill its mandate and the heightened risks to national security, intelligence and defence activities,” NSIRA wrote in the letter.

The agencies also noted in their letter that similar organizations within the public service have been told they will be exempt from cuts, including the Office of the Auditor General and the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In a separate statement, a spokesperson for Intelligence Commissioner (IC) Simon Noël confirmed that his office was also included in the comprehensive expenditure review, but hoped to be spared.

“I can confirm that the IC has expressed concerns relating to the impact of implementing the full savings target,” said Office of the Intelligence Commissioner executive director Justin Dubois.

The intelligence commissioner holds the rare responsibility of overseeing spy agencies’ powers. His role is to approve or reject the use of some of intelligence organizations’ most intrusive or law-breaking powers.

A spokesperson for Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne acknowledged receipt of questions from National Post but did not provide a response by deadline.

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 newsletters here.


Prime Minister Mark Carney makes his way to caucus on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Oct. 22, 2025.

During a pre-budget speech last month,

Prime Minister Mark Carney told the audience of mostly university students

that his government would restore their future.

“It’s our country; it’s your future,” he told the crowd. “We are going to give it back to you.”

While an increasingly volatile world makes it entirely unclear exactly what that future will look like, the

Carney government’s first budget

— to be unveiled Tuesday  — will go some distance in revealing at least part of the plan.

As Canada faces what Carney has described as a more hostile and divided world, it’s time, the prime minister said, for “bold action,” “a new course,” and a “dramatically” different economic path.

A fuller picture of Carney’s map to navigate that path is still unknown. But Canadians can look for important clues in Tuesday’s budget, described by some as “generational” in its significance and expected to address the following problems:

Luring investment

What’s the problem?

Big investors put their money in places where they think they can make big profits, as quickly as possible.

Canada has been lagging in corporate investment for decades, for a number of reasons: declining competitiveness and productivity, slow project approval processes, high input costs, and, in recent months, questions about access to the U.S. market.

Those are major problems that are difficult to solve and perhaps even more difficult to frame in a voter-friendly way. But there’s little doubt that Carney is all in on trying to solve what is perhaps his foremost policy puzzle.

“The core of our budget strategy will be to catalyze unprecedented investments in Canada over the next five years,” the prime minister said in his pre-budget speech.

That catalyzing, however, is easier said than done. It will mean that Canada will need to offer investors the conditions for a healthy return on investment, whether it’s for a new mine, a manufacturing facility, or an existing business. That was always a challenge in a relatively high-cost country, but the climb has become decidedly more uphill after U.S. President Donald Trump started adding hefty tariffs to the equation.

The underlying challenges are not new.

As has often been said in political circles, competitiveness and productivity are killer words if you’re trying to sell the public on an idea or policy. They put people to sleep, or worse, leave the incorrect impression that employees are going to be asked to do more for less.

The problem is that those two goals are widely considered by economists to be among the most important gauges in trying to develop a stronger economy and a richer country. If a country such as Canada is more competitive, exporters will sell more, create more jobs, pay more taxes and have more room to raise wages. Prices for their goods and services will also be cheaper for Canadians to buy. Productivity means suppliers have found a way to make more for less, which makes them more competitive and profitable.

The Canadian economy clearly needs help. Statistics Canada reported Friday total annualized growth of 0.4 per cent in the third quarter.

The Budget:

As National Post reported last week,

the budget will include a broad new strategy to boost Canadian businesses’ performance

, including measures to allow companies to write off their new machinery and capital costs more aggressively. Those changes to the capital cost allowance (CCA) rules will affect the purchases of buildings, machinery, vehicles and other equipment, and are largely a response to Canada’s trade frictions with the United States and China, and similar changes that were made earlier this year in U.S. legislation.

There are other ways to make businesses immediately more competitive without adding bureaucracy or other costs. Ottawa could suspend scheduled changes to the Accelerated Investment Incentive (AII), another business accounting metric, or simply cut corporate income or payroll taxes.

The government has already taken steps toward trying to improve Canada’s economic performance. One step was the opening of a

new “major projects office” to speed up the approval processes

for mines, pipelines and other proposed investments deemed to be in the national interest. The government has already announced approvals for

a first tranche of five projects

, although each to some extent was already underway, and it wouldn’t be a surprise to see another batch of approvals in the budget. Another was a broad review of red tape.

Interprovincial trade barriers are another thorny obstacle for growth.

Getting rid of those costly barriers would boost the Canadian economy on a number of fronts, including reducing inflation and boosting competitiveness.

A budget announcement on this front is unlikely, however, given the lack of recent progress.

Ottawa took a first step earlier this year in eliminating the federal part of these barriers, but the ball is mostly in the provinces’ court and progress has slowed as provinces generally seem unable to give up on their typically protectionist instincts.

Competitiveness would also get a push of course from simply opening up key markets to greater competition. Sectors such as airlines, telecommunications services, poultry and dairy, banking and even a wide range of professional services are subject to various forms of protectionism.

Economists say reducing or eliminating those barriers would make the Canadian economy more prosperous and more attractive for investors. Industry Minister Melanie Joly has said the government is “bullish” on competition. The budget may well include a plan to do something about showing that intent to be more than just words.

Trade diversification

What’s the problem?

Trump has hit Canada with punishing tariffs on sectors not covered by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement, such as steel, aluminum, autos and softwood lumber.

That has prompted Canadian politicians and businesses to look for non-American customers. Carney used his University of Ottawa speech to set a new goal for Canada to double non-U.S. exports over the next decade.

Economists and trade analysts, however, warn that diversifying trade to other markets is a lot easier said than done. Companies and governments on both sides of the Canada-United States border have spent more than a century integrating their supply chains to their mutual advantages.  Tariffs may make things more costly and less prosperous for both sides, economists say, but the vast majority of Canadian exports will continue to flow south.

There are many reasons why existing trade patterns and supply chains are what they are and a compelling reason is required for a buyer to change suppliers, especially if it involves a new supplier on the other side of the world.

The Budget:

Canada has already invested billions in trade diversification in recent years, particularly in infrastructure and services to support exporters and in helping Canadian businesses make their strategies easier to execute. Carney has also spent much of his first six months travelling abroad, at least in part, trying to drum up more markets for Canadian exports.

It’s debatable how effective those efforts over the years have been. CIBC said earlier this year that the percentage of Canadian exports headed to the U.S. is 76 per cent, the same as a decade ago.

With the trade wars hitting the economy hard, it wouldn’t surprise many if the trade diversification files got more attention on budget day.

Skills

What’s the problem?

The economy needs more engineers, scientists, and trades people, while communities need more medical personnel and some other professionals. Depending on how many housing and major projects are approved over the coming years, the need for tradespeople — particularly when there are sometimes difficulties with some professions even working across provincial borders — could get dire.

The Budget:

Among the safest budget bets is that Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne will announce spending for more apprenticeships and skills-training programs as part of a broader talent strategy aimed at adding to Canada’s roster of scientists and innovators. The government has also signalled that the budget will allocate money for increased foreign credential recognition.

Affordability

What’s the problem?

Inflation, fuelled at least in part by massive government spending during the pandemic, has hit Canadians’ pocketbooks hard in recent years and it hasn’t stopped. Food inflation, already up nearly 20 per cent since 2021, climbed four per cent in September year over

year. C

anadians have seen a double-digit percentage increase in rental rates and housing prices in recent years.

The Budget

In September, the government announced its $13-billion Build Canada Homes program designed to increase the supply of housing. On the demand side, Ottawa has already cut the GST on the purchase of new houses under $1 million by first-time homebuyers.

Grocery prices are a tougher target, and the government has already cut personal income taxes earlier this year, reducing the lowest bracket from 15 per cent to 14 per cent.

Both issues are contributing heavily to many Canadians simply not having enough to make it through the month. With a wide array of policy levers to affect Canadians’ wallets, it’s likely the budget will include multiple measures to address what is for many Canadians — not to mention the Opposition Conservatives — their number one issue.

Defence and security

What’s the problem? 

Canada has largely relied on its allies and geographic proximity to the U.S. for its defence strategy for decades. But Trump’s tariffs and frequent vows to focus on “America first” may have triggered a change in attitude.

Carney has vowed to hit the NATO target this year of spending two per cent of GDP on defence. He even went a big step further, saying that Canada will allocate at least five per cent of GDP on defence within a decade, although that will include spending on dual-purpose infrastructure that meets both military and civilian purposes.

The Budget:

Carney already announced a $9-billion investment in the military in June, including the largest pay increase in more than 25 years for Canadian Armed Forces personnel. That was just a few months after the Defence Department announced that it would spend an estimated $3 billion on over-the-horizon radar purchase from Australia. (That estimate has since reportedly jumped to $6 billion.) Ottawa also announced earlier this year that it was moving the Canadian Coast Guard and its $2.8-billion budget under the Department of Defence.

Depending on how these expenditures are accounted for, Ottawa is already within striking distance of its NATO target of two per cent.

If the budget includes an announcement about the purchase of some military equipment, that would put Canada over the top and allow the Carney government to claim a win of sorts. Either way, the budget will account for big chunks of increased defence spending.

The government may also want to make a move or two to show Trump that it’s still interested in border security. Money laundering, online scams and other Internet crimes are also a growing problem that may well get some budget attention.

Government spending

What’s the problem?

Federal spending under the Liberal government has been a runaway train, growing over the past decade by more than seven per cent a year.

“We spent faster than our economy was growing,” Carney acknowledged recently. “So, our government is changing that.”

Growth in the civil service has been part of the equation, growing by more than 100,000 since 2015, with the largest growth in executive staff.

E-government analysts, meanwhile, say governments should be able to do more with fewer people if they’re investing in and using digital technology properly.

The Budget:

Carney has been clear his plan is to cut spending where possible, including on the number of civil servants, and reallocate that money to higher-priority areas.

Don Drummond, a former high-ranking executive with the Department of Finance and former chief economist at TD Bank, said he’ll be looking in the budget for the extent of the reallocation of government spending, and of course the size of the deficit.

Earlier this year, Champagne told ministers they should cut program spending by 7.5 per cent, or about $15 billion collectively, over the next year, growing that figure to 10 per cent in 2027-28 and a 15 per cent reduction a year later.

Carney had said earlier that the government would rely on attrition to reduce the public service payroll. But,

as National Post reported last week

, the budget will include a broader plan that includes early retirement packages, moving employees within the government, and layoffs.

The budget will likely also show how much the Carney government has been able to find in cuts so far and may also offer a plan to dig deeper to try to find further savings.

A big move, especially symbolically, would be if Carney announced that he was actually shutting down a government department or agency, or at least folding, say, two departments into one more streamlined unit. One government source told the Post that there has been no talk of anything like that planned.

Deficits

What’s the problem?

With its runaway spending and lagging economic growth, the federal government has been racking up mountains of red ink in recent years, and further outlays on defence, affordability and housing won’t come cheap, even if some are framed as long-term investments.

The Budget

That means Canadians can expect another year with a high deficit. The C.D. Howe Institute, a leading think tank, forecast earlier this year that the Carney government would post a deficit of more than $92 billion if it followed through on all of its campaign promises. That would mark the second-highest deficit in Canadian history, topped only by the Liberals’ $327.7 billion shortfall from the pandemic year of 2020–21.

The government has been trying to inoculate itself in advance from this part of the budget coverage. Carney has been saying it’s a time for “bold” action, while Champagne has emphasized that international organizations have pointed to Canada as one of the few countries with the fiscal room to spend more.

The budget is also expected to feature for the first time a separation between day-to-day operational spending and capital investments, which could be anything deemed to be designed to boost long-term growth. The government says this change will make it easier for Canadians to distinguish between the “spending” and the “investments.” Critics say it’s just a trick, so the government will be able to say that it’s met its goal of balancing the operational budget within three years, instead of dealing with the actual budget deficit.

National Post

stuck@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.


NDP Interim Leader Don Davies speaks to reporters in the foyer of the House of Commons on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025.

OTTAWA — Canadians might not be heading to a Christmas election after all, as the NDP is keeping all its options open — including abstention — on the budget vote.

But at least one New Democrat is breaking ranks and saying she will not be abstaining.

The Liberal minority government will need the support of at least one other party to pass the budget, which is being tabled on Tuesday in the House of Commons. To date, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois have hinted they would be voting against it.

Interim NDP Leader Don Davies said on Monday that his caucus would not be taking a clear position on the budget before any of its members could carefully read the document.

“We’re going to read the budget, we’ll study it carefully, we’ll consult stakeholders, and we’re going to analyze it through the lens of whether it’s good for working people,” he said.

“All options are on the table. Until we read the budget, we really can’t say,” he added.

However, NDP MP Jenny Kwan has made her position clear: “I will not abstain,” said the MP for Vancouver East.

Her colleague, Leah Gazan, echoed her interim leader’s message that “nothing’s off the table” but said that the New Democrats cannot vote in favour of an “austerity budget.”

Davies said he expects the seven-member NDP caucus to vote the same way. The party is set to hold a first meeting to discuss their position after the budget is tabled on Tuesday and a second one during their weekly caucus gathering on Wednesday morning.

The minority Liberals, holding 169 seats — three short of a majority — must find support or abstentions from at least three opposition MPs to keep their budget, and their government, alive in the upcoming confidence vote. The vote could happen as early as mid-November.

Prime Minister Mark Carney says he’s prepared to fight an election campaign if his Liberal government fails to pass their first fiscal plan.

He said his budget is what Canadians need at a critical time for the country.

“I am 100 per cent confident that this budget is the right budget for this country at this moment,” Carney told reporters at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea on Saturday. “This is not a game,” he added.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was asked at a news conference Sunday if his party wants an election before Christmas.

“We want an affordable budget that will give Canadians an affordable life before Christmas,” he replied, adding that: “We will not vote to raise grocery prices and increase housing costs, as the Liberals have done over the last decade.”

Poilievre was also asked if his party had ruled out the option of abstaining. He did not directly answer the question.

“The reality is that we’re going to show up and do our jobs to fight for an affordable budget,” said Poilievre. “I can’t tell you any more than that till I see the thing.”

The Bloc Québécois, which has 22 MPs, has previously ruled out abstaining on the budget vote. The party has laid out 18 budget demands, which include increasing Old Age Security payments and boosting health transfers to the provinces.

On Monday, as per tradition, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne was busy shopping for the new shoes he would wear on budget day. However, unlike prior finance ministers, he opted to “build” the shoes at Boulet Boots, a local business in his riding in Quebec.

“It brings us back to the basics. This is a budget of investments, a budget that will favour growth, a budget that will mark a pivot, I think, in the country’s economic history,” said the minister in French, as he was busy cutting the leather for the fabrication of his shoes.

Champagne said there would be “no surprises” in his first budget.

“Canadians have asked us to do, build big, bold things. They expect us to do things differently. So, we’re going to make generational investments that will build our country.”

Champagne said there will be something for every political party — investments in housing, infrastructure, defence, as well as more money to increase productivity.

“This is a budget that talks to everyday Canadians, the workers that you’ve seen here, the members of our Armed Forces, the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the families in Canada.

“That’s the kind of budget we need to meet the moment,” he said.

Once again, the question of the budget and the possibility of an election dominated much of question period on Monday, as the governing Liberals and the opposition parties took turns accusing each other of wanting an unnecessary and costly election.

“It’s ridiculous that, 24 hours away from the budget, Liberals are still not negotiating and are merely threatening a Christmas election,” said Christine Normandin from the Bloc.

Davies said it is up to Carney to craft a budget in a minority Parliament that can earn the support of one other party.

“It’s not my job. I don’t hold the pen. I’m not the government,” he said.

Whatever happens, some Conservative MPs said they were ready to go back to the polls just seven months after the last election.

Kevin Waugh said he was counting his campaign signs over the weekend, just in case, whereas colleague Brad Vis said his were “always ready.”

National Post, with a file from Simon Tuck 

calevesque@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 newsletters here.


A B.C. woman has lost an appeal on her 12-year sentence for the attempted murder of an online rival in a provincial courtroom.

A B.C. woman who tried to kill her long-time social media enemy in a Vancouver courtroom four years ago will have to stay in prison, the province’s court of appeal has ruled.

After a lengthy trial, Surrey’s Qin Shen was found guilty in 2023 of the attempted murder of Jing Lu two years earlier and sentenced to 12 years in prison. On appeal seeking a sentence reduction of six years, her lawyer argued the judge failed to consider how Shen’s existing mental illness fed that hate, making her not criminally responsible.

Justice Gail Dickson dismissed the appeal in

a recently published decision.

Shen and the victim, Jing Lu, had met in 2005 through an online forum to connect Chinese immigrants in Canada. Over the ensuing years, the two “became entangled in an intense online feud in which they repeatedly posted insults and personal attacks on one another.”

So fierce was the hostility that Shen’s marriage fell apart, she gave up work and needed to see a psychiatrist for anxiety and depression.

In 2019, both were found liable in countering defamation suits, but Shen was ordered to pay $500 more in damages, plus an additional $2,000 for being found guilty of contempt of a court order not to post about her adversary.

Both parties appealed and Lu’s counsel put forward another contempt application, prompting Shen to ask for an in-person hearing on May 25, 2021.

During Shen’s trial, the court learned that she “took several preparatory steps” for her planned attack on Lu that day, including “including arming herself with a knife and hammer, drinking alcohol to bolster her courage, bringing a suitcase with her to court to either take to jail or flee after the attack, and dressing all in red to disguise the red blood stains.”

While waiting for the judge to appear and after making sure no one was close by, Shen attacked Lu from behind with the hammer and stabbed her at least ten 10 times with “a very sharp and narrow knife” before a sheriff’s officer was alerted and entered the courtroom to stop her.

According to

Vancouver Is Awesome

, ​Lu was taken to hospital with injuries to her head, a major vein, a lung and her heart.

In statements made to authorities after, a then-53-year-old Shen explained that Lu “had to die to stop her from continuing the feud between them.”

Shen’s lawyers wanted trial judge Kathryn Denhoff to rule her not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder and her use of alcohol to cope, but a psychiatric witness found that although her mental state and the alcohol were factors, they “were not direct causative elements of the offences.”

Instead, the psychiatrist maintained that it was her enmity of Lu — driven by the belief that she was the victim, even after the attack — that “was the dominant factor driving her behaviour.”

Denhoff agreed and sentenced her to 12 years, leaving her with eight remaining after time served.

On appeal, her lawyers argued the trial judge erred by not fairly assessing Shen’s “moral culpability by failing to consider the extent to which her mental illness” fueled her hate of Lu.

Defence counsel said Shen’s disdain “grew and evolved as it did because she was experiencing the world through the lens of her illness, which he describes as ‘the soil within which the animus grew.”

Citing a case in which a man beat his mother to death and severely beat his wife while under the effects of alcohol, Shen’s lawyer also argued her mental illness contributed to the alcohol consumption that precipitated the attack.

Dickson, however, ruled that while Denhoff could have reasoned that Shen’s anathema for Lu was “linked to her depressive illness to a sufficient degree to reduce moral blameworthiness” for the attack, the judge made no error in acting on the evidence before her in applying the original sentence.

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.


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.