LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Emergency crews surround a Delta Air Lines plane crash at Toronto Pearson International Airport on Monday, Feb. 17, 2025.

An off-duty flight attendant who helped passengers escape and suffered her own injuries during a fiery upside-down crash of a Delta Air Lines flight at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport has filed a US$75-million lawsuit against the airline.

The 15-page suit, filed last week in Michigan by Vanessa Miles, claims: “This accident was caused, at least in part, by Defendants knowingly assigning an inexperienced and inadequately trained pilot to operate the flight, demonstrating a reckless disregard for passenger safety in pursuit of operational efficiency.”

It adds that the airline “cut corners on safety by rushing pilots through training programs.”

It goes on to list of number of alleged failures, including “Failure to ensure proper functioning of critical emergency evacuation equipment; Failure to properly train flight crew on emergency evacuation procedures; Absence of any emergency announcements or guidance during evacuation; Failure to properly maintain the aircraft’s landing gear and related systems; Failure to provide prompt medical assistance following the crash; and Failure to have adequate emergency response procedures in place.”

In response to a query from National Post, Delta noted that the captain was hired in 2007 and “has served both as an active duty Captain and in pilot training and flight safety capacities. Assertions that he failed training events are false. Assertions that he failed to flow into a pilot position at Delta Air Lines due to training failures are also false.”

It added that the first officer was hired last year “and completed training in April 2024. Her flight experience exceeded the minimum requirements set by U.S. Federal regulations. Assertions that she failed training events are false. Both crew members are qualified and FAA certified for their positions.”

It added: “We will decline further comment given this is pending litigation and also because of the ongoing TSB (Transportation Safety Board) of Canada investigation, to which Endeavor Air and Delta remain engaged participants.”

The lawsuit notes that Miles, aged 67, was a passenger on Endeavor Air Flight 4819, operating under the Delta Connection brand, which departed from Minneapolis on Feb. 17 and was scheduled to land at Toronto Pearson International Airport. Although she was employed by Endeavor as a flight attendant, she was “deadheading” at the time, “meaning she was traveling as a passenger to position herself for future work assignments.”

The crash happened when the Bombardier CRJ-900 aircraft bounced and rolled on landing at the Toronto airport, ending up on its roof. A wing was ripped off and a fire broke out. All 80 passengers and crew survived, although more than 20 people were taken to hospital.

The lawsuit says Miles was rendered unconscious while hanging upside down from her seatbelt after the plane came to a stop. When she awoke she “found herself soaked in jet fuel and surrounded by smoke, putting her at grave risk for chemical burns, asphyxiation, and death.”

The suit says she suffered “severe and permanent injuries, including … fractured left shoulder/scapula, traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness, post-concussion syndrome with headaches, dizziness, and other cognitive difficulties, bilateral knee injuries, back injuries, exposure to jet fuel and toxic fumes, and psychological trauma including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.”

In April, Miles was one of four recipients of the C.B. Lansing Memorial Award, given by the

Association of Flight Attendants

“to an AFA member who displays heroism beyond the call of duty in aviation.” The award was established

in memory of

Clarabelle Lansing, a flight attendant who was killed in 1988 when the flight on which she was working suffered an explosive decompression over Hawaii.

The organization notes that the award is “the highest honor a member may bestow upon a fellow member.” It was given to Hollie Gallagher and Rebecca Palazzola, the flight attendants working on the downed aircraft, and to Miles and Alita Parker, “deadheading Endeavor flying partners who assisted.”

 The resting locations of the fuselage, right wing, and tail section, and aircraft marks left in the snow when a Delta Air Lines plane crashed at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport on Feb. 17, 2025.

A preliminary report by the

Transportation Safety Board of Canada

released in March does not disclose a specific cause for the crash, but it does mention that two additional airline employees who were on the flight as passengers helped evacuate the rear of the cabin.

Madeline Sinkovich, one of Miles’ lawyers, told the Post: “Our complaint alleges that basic safeguards, training, and evacuation procedures failed — and that corporate decisions put cost and schedule ahead of safety. The case proceeds under the Montreal Convention, which holds carriers liable for passenger injuries arising from onboard accidents. Ms. Miles continues to recover from significant injuries; we respect the Transportation Safety Board of Canada’s important work and will pursue full accountability in court.”

The final report by the Transportation Safety Board is expected next year. According

to the CBC

, there are at least 16 additional lawsuits that have been filed by passengers related to the incident.

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.


Mitchell Gray, 29, of Bracebridge, is wanted for murder

Police were continuing a wide-scale search Monday for

a man wanted in a murder investigation

after three bodies were found at a fire-gutted home in the Muskoka region, one of Canada’s most popular summer destinations, three days earlier, a grisly discovery that led to a near four-hour shelter-in-place order for local residents.

Shortly after 8 p.m. Friday, Ontario Provincial Police responded to a report of shots fired at a home on Beatrice Town Line Road in Bracebridge, about 185 km north of Toronto.

When police arrived, one man was found dead outside and the residence in flames. On Saturday, police announced that

two more bodies

had been found inside the home, which was destroyed by fire.

A shelter-in-place advisory was posted on social media around 9:30 p.m. Friday. Police warned they were searching for a suspect in a fatal shooting and house fire. “Officers are responding to a potentially armed person in distress,” according to the alert posted to social media. “Please stay indoors in a secure location and/or avoid the area.”

The advisory was lifted at 1:45 a.m. Saturday, though people were advised to stay alert and report anything suspicious to police. “The individual previously considered armed and potentially dangerous has not been located, but is not believed to pose an immediate threat to public safety,” the OPP said.

Mitchell Gray, 29, of Bracebridge, is wanted for murder.

Many of the details of the shelter-in-place are part of the ongoing investigation, OPP Sgt. Joe Brisebois, of the OPP Central Region, said in an email to National Post.

However, Brisebois said the suspect and the victim found when police first arrived at the scene were known to each other. “The identity of the additional two deceased is pending the results of the post mortem, and that may take a number of weeks,” Brisebois said.

Investigators do not believe that there is any threat to public safety – but ask if anyone has additional information or knows the whereabout of Mitchell Gray, to contact police or Crime Stoppers.

According to MuskokaTODAY.com, Gray belongs to a family that has farmed in the tight-knit hamlet northwest of Bracebridge for generations.

“Everybody here is in shock,” one woman who took shelter in her basement told

MuskokaTODAY’s Mark Clairmont

. “They’re a lovely family. It’s pretty awful for them to deal with. Very sad.”

Police searched sheds and barns and canvassed the area, according to the report. Police helicopters were seen over farms Friday night.

Some people commented on social media that the shelter-in-place alert appeared to downplay potential risks. “Three people dead. Suspect on the run,” read one post on the Facebook. “No threat to the public?”

“I think there’s a whole lot more that has happened that (police) haven’t told us,” one neighbour who heard shots fired Friday night told MuskokaTODAY over the weekend. “That they can confidently say to us that he is not a threat to the public.

“We really, honestly, have no idea whether he’s dead or alive. I don’t know if he’s been captured and they haven’t released it yet. We literally have no idea.”

Police described Gray as a white male, five feet and eight inches, with light brown hair and facial hair.

When contacted Monday, Bracebridge Mayor Rick Maloney said he was not available for an interview. “We appreciate the efforts of all our emergency services who responded to this tragic incident, especially our OPP,” Maloney said in an email to National Post.

“Our hearts and thoughts are with the family of the victims,” Maloney wrote.

Police are asking anyone with information to contact them at 1-888-310-1122 or to call 911 in an emergency.

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.


Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro speaks about his intention to declare a Venezuelan province in an oil-rich region it disputes with Guyana, on Dec. 5, 2023.

Guyana, a country of roughly one million people perched on the northeastern corner of South America, is one of the world’s fastest growing economies thanks to a super-charged nation-building project: the accelerated development of gigantic offshore oil fields.

In just six years, one of the continent’s poorest nations has emerged as the world’s newest petrostate. The discovery, though, has enraged Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro and revived his government’s claims to Guyanese territory in a century-old boundary dispute.

These issues of nation-building and sovereignty are familiar to Canadians, so I wanted to talk with a wise Guyanese colleague about their moment, as we contemplate ours.

Selwin Asafa George, a 52-year-old entrepreneur, is remarkably thoughtful about what it’s going to take for Guyana to embrace this movement towards prosperity, without losing its soul in the process. While the catalyst for accelerating nation-building in our respective countries differs, there is something for Canadians in Guyana’s journey.

“This is our moment in the sun,” Selwin readily acknowledges when we virtually connect.

Guyanese by birth, Selwin worked as an investment banker in New York City, studied at New York University and then Harvard’s Kennedy School of Public Policy, before returning to Guyana in 2005 to take care of the family business. A mid-size enterprise employing over 150 locals, W&T George and Company holds several franchises in the food services and hospitality sector, and owns a portfolio of commercial real estate in Guyana’s capital, Georgetown, as well as prime land outside the capital.

“There have been locals suggesting we leave the oil in the ground,” Selwin shares, with a smirk. “And there have been very influential locals who have at least said to slow the rate at which we are extracting the oil, to give use a better chance, a better deal, to give us time.”

Familiar sentiments to an Albertan like me. In Canada, I explain, First Nations remain divided on the merits of some of the nation-building projects pitched by provincial premiers, including, for example, the mining of critical minerals in northern Ontario’s Ring of Fire.

And despite the obvious need to become less reliant on a single market for Canada’s oil — America — the green lobby is unrelenting in its push against the construction of export pipelines to tidewater.  In the last decade, I tell Selwin, advocacy campaigns have sucked the energy out of many projects.

It’s different in Guyana, Selwin reports: “Where you have strong economic interests, that will prevail.” Between Exxon and Chevron, American companies “now control the majority of Guyana’s oil output … so it’s heavily in the interest of the U.S. to protect their economic interests.”

(Exxon, operator and owner of 45 per cent of Guyana’s Stabroek block, forecasts its output there to nearly double to 1.3 million bpd by the end of 2027. And Chevron now owns 30 per cent of the block.)

There’s no denying Canada is economically tied to America’s hip, yet this conversation with Selwin is a reminder of the choices Canada retains.

Foreign companies do invest in Canada’s extractive sectors, but domestic ownership remains strong and influential. And while Canadians are struggling to define First Nations treaty rights within Confederation, we don’t have another nation actually challenging our sovereignty. Venezuela is actively disputing Guyana’s control over the Essequibo region, territory that makes up two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass and includes oil and other resources.

Selwin has thought deeply about the issues that bubble in nation-building endeavours and he’s savvy enough to know what’s negotiable. Right now, he’s especially focused on one question: Who benefits from Guyana’s resource windfall?

After the first significant oil discovery in offshore Guyana was made by ExxonMobil, Selwin argued his country should adopt something similar to the Alaska sovereign wealth fund model.

“I believe it is critical that the public remains vigilant,” Selwin wrote then in a Guyanese newspaper, “and so I urge that we go the path of Alaska by adopting a model of dividends for all.  The introduction of the Alaska model of paying dividends to every Alaskan from their oil and gas resources would work wonders to strengthen the good governance model and ensure an engaged populace.”

Who benefits? It’s a critical question that can stimulate public awareness and buy-in — and one Canadians could spend more time talking about.

 Guyana is having its “moment in the sun” by developing offshore oilfields, entrepreneur Selwin Asafa George says.

How many Canadians know oilsands projects contribute roughly 3 per cent of our country’s total GDP? How many Canadians understand the mechanics of equalization payments, how wealth is transferred from have to have-not provinces to ensure non-renewable resource bounty is shared?

Ultimately, a sovereign wealth fund was created in Guyana but, Selwin reports, the funds have largely been squandered. He did the math at the end of 2024, to see what the outcome could have been if the government of Guyana had heeded his advice. (He’s a former investment banker, so his calculations are credible.) The fund would likely have grown to roughly $1.5 billion, he estimates, the equivalent of US$50,000 to $60,000 for every Guyanese citizen, and would continue to grow quickly, he adds.

Selwin is encouraging leaders in Guyana to focus not just on the building of physical infrastructure, but on the building of a culture of productivity in the country as well.

What’s that, I ask. “That’s culture where it’s not just about the pay,” he says, it’s culture that “respects the dignity of being productive.”

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.


Dubbing it

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Time’s up. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump raised the tariff rate on Canadian goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) from 25 to 35 per cent, saying they “have to pay a fair rate.” The White House claims it’s because of Canada’s failure to curb the “ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, however, show that fentanyl seizures from Canada make up less than 0.1 per cent of total U.S. seizures of the drug; most smuggling comes across the Mexican border.

But the future of Trump’s policy also rests on shaky ground, and the tariffs could come crashing down even if Canada can’t reach a deal at some point. Imposed through a controversially declared “national emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the tariffs come with essentially three paths for relief to Canadian exporters and their American customers: the courts and the economy.

And there’s always the wildcard: that the president changes his mind.

Without relying on that, National Post looks at two very possible ways out of all this:

The courts:

There is a big question hanging over whether Trump’s tariffs are even legal under the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress powers over trade. Trump has bypassed that by claiming he’s using presidential IEEPA emergency powers.

On Thursday, the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals convened an en banc hearing for oral arguments in challenges to Trump’s use of IEEPA. The 11 judges questioned whether the law meant for sanctioning adversaries or freezing assets during emergencies grants Trump the power to impose tariffs, with one judge noting, “IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs.’” The White House, meanwhile, says the law grants the president “broad and flexible” emergency powers, including the ability to regulate imports.

“Based on the tenor and questions of the arguments, it appears that the challengers have the better odds of prevailing,” Thomas Berry, the CATO Institute’s director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies said in a statement. “Several judges peppered the government’s attorney with skeptical questions about why a broad term in IEEPA like ‘regulate importation’ should be read to allow the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.”

Trump’s lawyers claim his executive order provides the justifications for the tariffs — in Canada’s case, fentanyl. But Berry said “those justifications would not matter if IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs in the first place. That is the cleanest and simplest way to resolve this case, and it appears that the Federal Circuit may be leaning toward that result.”

A decision is expected this month, and if it’s a resounding pushback from the judges’ panel, said Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, the Supreme Court may not even take up the case. If so, he says, “these Liberation Day tariffs and everything that’s been imposed under emergency legislation, IEEPA, that all evaporates.”

At that point, the White House would not be able to declare across-the-board tariffs against countries. Instead, it would have to rely on laws allowing tariffs to be imposed on specific products that are found to threaten U.S. national security, like those currently imposed on Canadian steel and lumber.

The economy:

The other path to tariff relief is through economic pressure. If Americans start to see higher prices and economic uncertainty, and push back at the ballot box — or threaten to do so — it could force Trump to reverse course.

The most recent figures show that U.S. inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index, hit around 2.7 per cent in July. That’s a slight rise, fuelled by rising prices for food, transportation, and used cars. But it’s still close to the Federal Reserve target of 2 per cent.

U.S. unemployment rose slightly to 4.2 per cent in July, while far fewer jobs were created than expected, and consumer confidence rose two points but is still several points lower than it was in January.

Overall, most economists agree that risks of a U.S. recession over the next 12 months are relatively low, but skepticism over growth remains high. “Our outlook is for slower growth in the U.S., but no recession,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist of The PNC Financial Services Group. He notes that the “tariffs are going to be a drag” because they are a tax increase on imports.

Economists have said price inflation from tariffs is not yet being felt in the U.S., but believe it’s inevitable. “Trump’s tariff madness adds a great deal to the risks of a recession,” said Steven Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University who served on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors.

“With tariffs, Americans are going to be paying a big new beautiful sales tax on goods and services imported into the U.S., and taxes slow things down. Taxes don’t stimulate.”

It is surprising that higher U.S. prices haven’t happened yet, said Jonathan Gruber, chairman of the economics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But he explained that it’s likely a reflection of the duration of contracts and the fact that import sellers haven’t yet put up prices — “because they were hoping it wouldn’t be real, like they’d wake up from this nightmare.”

“I think we start to see the effect on prices by the end of the year,” said Gruber.

The trouble for Canada, however, is that the Canadian economy is starting from a much weaker position, with higher unemployment, lower consumer confidence, and a slowing GDP, on top of the trade tensions. So, trying to wait things out for the U.S. to feel the pinch will be even more painful for Canadians. And any American downturn will also reverberate north.

“As Uncle Sam goes, so goes Canada,” said Hanke.

Gruber agrees with that, but with a caveat. “It’s all bad in the short run and good in the long run,” he says. He believes the U.S. is “weak and getting weaker” and that Canada should start taking advantage of how the U.S. is making opportunities for other countries to invest in themselves.

“We’re not investing in our future. We’re killing our education. We’re killing our research. We’re not allowing in immigrants,” he said, explaining the weakening of the U.S. economy. “We’re basically setting the stage for long-run economic slower growth.”

Meanwhile, China is doubling down on investment, research and other longer-term policies.

“Canada and other countries need to do the same,” Gruber said.

And as for when a backlash could lead to a reversal in the U.S., Gruber points to two factors.

“It’s got to be high inflation, and Trump’s opponents need to make sure that the voters understand that’s Trump’s fault.”

National Post

tmoran@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 cyclist rides along a bike lane on Bloor St. in Toronto.

The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that the provincial government’s law mandating the removal of bike lanes on key Toronto streets violates Canadians’ constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

This decision marks a significant victory for bike-lane advocates and raises questions about similar policies across the country that seek the removal of bike lanes.

On Wednesday, Justice Paul Schabus of the Ontario Superior Court found that the Ontario government’s decision to remove bike lanes was made without proper considerations, and breached S. 7 of the Charter.

The decision raises new questions about how far governments can go when public safety is on the line and raises questions about the way courts can handle disputed infrastructure development.

Here’s more on what the court said, and what it might mean for cities across Canada.

The judge’s verdict

After going over evidence provided by Ontario’s government and by the cyclists and advocates who had sued the Ontario government, Schabas decided that the applicants were successful in showing the plan to remove three bike lanes was unconstitutional.

Schabas found the evidence shows that removing the already existing bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street. and University Avenue to restore it to a motor vehicle lane will create greater risk to cyclists and others in the roads.

With the evidence provided, Schabas concluded that the removal of the target bike lanes would lead to more collisions and injuries involving cyclists. For him, the benefit of saving drivers some travel time is disproportionate to the negative impact to the cyclists’ safety.

“It is reasonable to conclude that people who cycle will be injured and killed when lanes for motor vehicles are installed and protected bike lanes are removed,” said Schabas.

How did we get here?

In October 2024, the Ontario government introduced Bill 212: Reducing Gridlock, Saving you Time. At first the bill only mandated that municipalities in Ontario would need approval from the provincial minister of transportation before they decided to construct bicycle lanes that would remove a lane of motor vehicle traffic.

A month after being introduced, the bill was amended. The new amendment sought the removal of bike lanes on Bloor Street, University Avenue and Yonge Street. in Toronto to restore lanes for vehicle traffic. The amendments also sought to make the government immune to claims for damages that could arise from collisions, injuries or deaths that occur as a result of removing the target bike lanes.

With that, individual cyclists and an organization that advocates for cyclists in Toronto filed a lawsuit in January 2025, claiming that this amendment is a violation of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it would infringe the right to life and security of the person by putting cyclists at greater risk of injury and death. They also argued that restoring the lanes for motor vehicles will not alleviate traffic congestion, which was the provincial government’s stated purpose with its legislative changes.

The government said that if the applicant’s position was found correct, it would make all traffic decisions subject to Charter scrutiny. The Ontario government also argued that if bike lanes were removed, it would help solve traffic issues in Toronto.

In April 2025, Schabas granted an injunction, which prevented the government from removing the bike lanes until a decision had been reached.

In June 2025, the amendments announced in November 2024 were changed by the government. Now, instead of requiring that the bike lanes be removed, the amendment stated that it would “restore a lane for motor vehicle traffic … by reconfiguring the bicycle lanes.” With that, the provincial government said the lawsuit was no longer relevant, as the amendment was differently worded.

(The court only found out a month after the changes were enacted.)

However, according to Schabas, the new changes made no meaningful change to the law or the dispute between the parties.

After reviewing the evidence from both parties, Schabas said that evidence shows that restoring lanes for cars will not result in less congestion, as it will induce more people to use cars and any reduction in congestion would only be over a short distance and, eventually, will lead to more congestion. The evidence provided by cyclists also showed that bike lanes can actually help alleviate traffic congestion, as it offers another safe option of transportation in the city.

“The evidence presented by the (Ontario government) consists of weak anecdotal evidence and expert opinion which is unsupported,” said Schabas in his decision.

According to Schabas, the government has the right to make decisions about roads and traffic infrastructure, but if it puts people at risk, its actions can be restricted by the Charter.

Does the ruling create a “right” to bike lanes?

That has been one of the main criticisms of the ruling. However, Bruce Ryder, a professor emeritus of law at Osgoode Hall Law School, says that’s not quite accurate.

“We don’t have a right to bike lanes … but we do have a right to not have governments taking actions, including the removal of bike lanes, that put lives and safety at risk,” said Ryder.

Ryder said that if there was evidence showing that removing bike lanes actually helped improve traffic flow, there would be no issue with having them removed. But because that is not the case, the government cannot prove that the decision achieves its goals.

“If they (the government) did have evidence that removing the bike lanes would improve traffic flow, and if they did take steps to ensure that there were alternative routes that would protect people’s safety, there would be no problem. There would be no constitutional issue,” said Ryder.

Schabas also said that the cyclists are not asking for the whole bill to be changed or for more bike lanes to be built, but just that these specific bike lanes are kept in the way they are.

When did Toronto build these bike lanes?

Since 2016, the city of Toronto has been expanding bike lanes in the city. In a 2024 report, the city outlined the investment for bike lanes and bike share, and said that by having that, Toronto would be a more successful city by giving people more choices to get around.

Since the bike lanes project started, there has been a decrease in traffic accidents involving cyclists, and an increase in the number of people using bikes to get around, according to the evidence presented in court.

The bike lane on Bloor Street. was completed in late 2016. The bike lanes on both University Avenue and Yonge Street. were first installed through ActiveTO, a project created by the city during the COVID-19 pandemic. About $27 million was spent to install these target bike lanes in three of the main roads of Toronto.

What were the reactions to the plan to remove the bike lanes in Toronto?

In statements, comments and open letters, Ontario Traffic Control, Ontario Professional Planners Institute, 120 physicians and researchers from the University of Toronto, Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and Toronto Parking Authority were all concerned about the bike lanes removal, claiming it would actually make traffic worse and give less transportation options to citizens.

The City of Toronto released reports showing why bike lanes are important and how there was nowhere to put them in the city without redesigning the road system. Mayor Olivia Chow also asked the provincial government to respect the local government’s decision making around cycling infrastructure.

At the request of the provincial government, CIMA, an engineering company, provided a report on the matter. In the report, they said that while restoring a lane of motor vehicle traffic may seem to reduce traffic over a short distance, over a longer distance the benefits of it could not even be noticed due to other factors that influence traffic, like on-street parking, transit stops, bridges, and delays at intersections.

Schabas noted that just like internal advice before Bill 212 was passed, the CIMA report was only produced by the government when required in this court application and not before the bill was passed.

At the same time, the provincial government provided evidence explaining how the restoration of a lane for motor vehicles would help fix traffic in Toronto. However, Schabas said in his decision that the statements of Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria, the minister of transportation, and Premier Doug Ford are not supported by any data or internal analysis or advice.

The government also claimed that only 1.2 per cent of trips are made by bicycle, which is inconsistent with the data the government had at the time. Just in June 2024, there were more than 760,000 trips made with bike share in the city.

The counsel for the provincial government argued that the experts consulted by the cyclists in this case are cycling advocates and that would make them biased. However, all the claims made by the experts in the case were made based on research, Schabas concluded.

What it might mean for other provinces/cities with similar plans

Following in Ontario’s footsteps, the Alberta government is looking into making some changes in bike lanes in both Calgary and Edmonton.

Despite the recent developments in Ontario, Devin Dreeshen, Alberta’s transportation minister, said that it’s not ruling out the removal of bike lanes. The minister had a meeting with Calgary’s mayor, Jyoti Gondek, to discuss the future of bike lanes in the city. Differently from Ontario, the two seemed to keep the conversation open to finding a solution for it.

“Whatever happened in Ontario is the perspective of the government and the courts there. Here, we are simply trying to keep people safe no matter how they choose to travel,” Gondek said, as Global News reported.

Nova Scotia is also facing a similar issue, with Premier Tim Houston planning to override Halifax’s city council decision about adding a new bike lane that would close a street to two-way traffic, leaving one vehicle lane and adding a two-way bike lane.

“As Premier, I have a responsibility to stand up for Nova Scotians who are concerned with ever-worsening traffic problems in Halifax. I won’t stand by as decisions are made that will make their lives worse,” Houston wrote on Facebook in mid-July.

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.


Since U.S. President Donald Trump first alleged earlier this year that fentanyl was “pouring” into the U.S. from its northern neighbour, Canada has taken a number of steps to combat the flow of illegal drugs.

Although there’s no evidence of any significant flows of fentanyl into the United States from Canada, an American authority on “criminal supply chains” warned Friday that that could change abruptly if U.S. efforts to better seal its border with Mexico are successful.

Jonathan Caulkins, who researches

supply chains that support illegal markets

for the Manhattan Institute think tank and Carnegie Mellon University. said the drug cartels that control the North American fentanyl trade may well shift large chunks of their operations to Canada if the northern border becomes the path of least resistance.

Caulkins, the co-author behind

a recent Manhattan Institute study of fentanyl supply chains

, said the cartels are sophisticated, mobile and will adjust quickly if their cross-border routes are choked.

“They’re not trying (now), but they sure could,” he said in an interview hours after U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to

increase tariffs on some Canadian exports

(those products that aren’t captured by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement) to the U.S. to 35 per cent from 25 per cent. Those tariffs, which kicked in earlier Friday, were necessary, according to Trump, because Canada has failed to co-operate with U.S. efforts to curb “the ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.”

Candace Laing, chief executive of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said Trump’s fact sheet on the tariffs should be called a “fact-less sheet” when it comes to using fentanyl as a justification for trade decisions about Canada. “More fact-less tariff turbulence does not advance North American economic security,” she said.

In the Manhattan Institute study, Caulkins and colleague Bishu Giri found that the vast majority of the fentanyl entering the U.S. from within North America is coming from Mexico, not Canada.

They used new data from 2023–24 to show that about 40 per cent of the large seizures of fentanyl in the U.S. occurred in counties along the Mexican border, while just 1.2 per cent of the fentanyl powder and 0.5 per cent of pills along the Canadian border.

To effectively combat the problem, the researchers wrote, law enforcement and legislators need to begin with accurate information. Caulkins said that fentanyl producers in Mexico and Canada are different in that the Canadian operations tend to produce opioids from imports that are nearly completely assembled with just the finishing ingredients added here, while the cartels in Mexico assemble all the ingredients to make opioids in that country to export to the U.S.

In both cases, he said, the imports are believed to come mostly from China, although India may also be a source.

Since Trump first raised the allegation earlier this year about fentanyl “pouring” into the U.S. from its northern neighbour, Canada has taken a number of steps to combat the flow of illegal drugs, and to be seen to be doing so, into the U.S.

The steps included: reinforcing the Canada-U.S. border with additional technology, helicopters and personnel; allocating $78.7 million to expand Health Canada’s regulatory capabilities; increasing co-ordination with American law enforcement counterparts; hiring a fentanyl “czar”; and launching consultations on improving crackdowns, as well as tabling Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act to give Ottawa more law-enforcement powers.

Kevin Brosseau, the fentanyl czar, was not made available for an interview this week, but in an interim report released in June he pointed out that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol data show that only 0.1 per cent of fentanyl seizures at U.S. borders are at the Canada-U.S. border, far less than the flow of illegal narcotics into Canada from the U.S.

One thing that the players in the fight against illicit drugs seem to agree on is that the problem requires a multi-faceted response that addresses the border, legislative changes, money laundering and other financial angles, and enforcement that targets both precursors and fentanyl itself.

The RCMP also declined an interview this week, but stated in an email that it intends to hit organized crime “harder and faster” and that one of its priorities is to work with industry to prevent the diversion of precursors that are used to make fentanyl.

Jamie Tronnes, executive director for the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, the U.S.-based office of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said Canada seems to be doing a good job of cracking down on the fentanyl trade, and ensuring that those efforts are seen by Trump and others in the White House. “I believe that Canada is doing everything it can to demonstrate it’s taking it seriously,” Tronnes said.

She said Canada could focus more, however, on money laundering and other international financial crimes.

Darren Gibb, head of communications at the Financial Transactions and Report Analysis Centre (FINTRAC), which works with police and financial institutions to target crimes such as money laundering and terrorist financing, said hiding profits from illegal activities such as fentanyl production isn’t easy. “It’s their Achilles’ heel,” he said of the drug cartels.

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.


Crowds and participants move along Rene Levesque Boulevard in the 2023 Montreal Pride Parade.

Two Jewish groups say they have been excluded from participating in Montreal’s upcoming Pride Parade next Sunday.

Ga’ava, a Jewish LGBTQ+ group in Quebec, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), a large community political organization, said they were informed on Wednesday by event organizer, Fierté Montréal, that they would be barred from attending.

A public statement from

Fierté Montréal published later

that day does not name either group but explained that the festival’s board of directors had “made the decision to deny participation in the Pride Parade to organizations spreading hateful discourse.”

“We refuse to allow the spaces of the Fierté Montréal to be instrumentalized in the context of a conflict that involves major violations of fundamental human rights,” the group elaborated in a lengthy Instagram post that also expressed “solidarity with the Palestinian people” and called for “an immediate and lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Ga’ava

president Carlos Godoy called the announcement “a very hateful decision,” which tells “Jews that they can’t walk together in the Montreal Pride Parade.”

“It sends a signal that when LGBTQ pride is concerned, Jews can’t sit with them,” Godoy told National Post.

Fierté Montréal did not respond to a request for comment, and instead pointed to its initial statement, saying the organization was “in the midst of the festivities and working hard to deliver an exceptional festival.”

Although Fierté Montréal’s statement underscores it “remains a space for all 2SLGBTQIA+ people,” the Pride organizers did not explain whether they had taken similar actions in the past with other ethnic, religious or national groups.

“This measure is taken in the context of a complex geopolitical situation and stems from our commitment to preserving the emotional and physical safety to our communities,” the original press release says.

Julien Corona, the director of strategic communications and public relations for CIJA Quebec, called the decision “a dark day for the LGBTQ+ movement here in Quebec but also in all of Canada.”

Fierté Montréal has faced internal strife in recent years that has been amplified after Hamas invaded Israel on October 7, 2023. During the 2024 Pride Parade in Montreal, the parade was shut down for nearly an hour by a contingent of supporters

carrying

Palestinian and Lebanese flags, resulting in a tense standoff with police.

On Wednesday, just before the decision to bar Jewish groups from participating in the parade was announced, Samya Lemrini, a local activist and 

immigration lawyer

, published a message in French on Instagram acknowledging the decision was imminent but did not reflect any sympathy on the part of Fierté Montréal towards Palestinians.

“Please don’t be fooled friends — it’s a reaction to an internal crisis because they were going to lose all their employees and because artists and groups are withdrawing one by one,” the

lawyer

wrote. “They don’t care about us, they never did. They just have no other choice.”

Lemrini is part of a breakaway LGBTQ group – Wild Pride – that has planned an

alternate

festival during the same time and place in Montreal. Social media posts from the group

include

calls to “Liberate Judaism from Zionism,” and members also participated in an event on Thursday

entitled

“Intifada on the Dancefloor.”

According to Godoy, just one performer,

Safia Nolin

, had announced she would not participate in Pride festivities due to the presence of Zionist groups. Nolin took to Instagram on Thursday and wrote that she was recently “made aware of the presence of Ga’ava, an LGBTQ+ Zionist group” and an Israeli flag had been flown at last year’s parade. “How does that make you feel? This is unacceptable.”

Godoy called on Fierté Montréal’s major sponsors, including TD Bank and the Quebec government, to condemn the announcement and ensure the organizers maintain an inclusive and safe space.

TD Bank, which is

listed

as the official presenter of the parade, did not respond in time for publication.

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.


Victoria Mboko of Canada celebrates her victory against Marie Bouzkova of Czechia during their third round match on Day Five of the National Bank Open in Montrea.

Canada’s newest tennis sensation, 18-year-old Victoria Mboko, is continuing to attract attention as she moves into the fourth round of the Canadian Open in Montreal this weekend.
 

The last of nine Canadians remaining in the final tournament bracket, Mboko collected her sixth win against a top-50 player,
18-year-old Czech star, Marie Bouzkova, over three sets.
 

She will now face first seed, Coco Gauff, an American at

6 p.m. on Saturday

.

The two players have squared off before on the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) Tour, but only once.
 
It was during the Italian Open earlier this year and Gauff prevailed. That was on clay. Now, they’ll face off on a hard court.  

“I’m going to kind of go into the match how I usually go into every other match despite the surface,” Mboko told The Tennis Gazette after her victory in the third round. “I’m going to show up with how I play, and I just hope for the best.”
 

She expressed excitement over the rematch with Gauff and expects it to be a hard-fought battle.
 

How did Mboko do in the early rounds of the Canadian Open?

Mboko kicked off the Open by besting Australian, Kimberly Birrell, in the first round, serving up 15 aces in the process.
 

In round two, she faced Sofia Kenin, an American and a seeded player (a player who is highly
ranked and placed strategically in a tournament by the organizers to prevent top players from having to face each other in early rounds).
 

Again Mboko prevailed, winning 6-2 and 6-3.
 

Against Bouzkova in the third round, Mboko appeared to falter, losing the first set 6-1, but she got her groove back in front of the home crowd and secured a place in the round of 16 (the last round before the quarter-finals).
 

Mboko told SportsNet she shifted her mindset after the opening set and sharpened her focus on court mobility.
 

“In the second set, I wanted to make sure my movement was at least twice as (good as) it was in the first set, and my concentration as well,” said Mboko. “I feel like I wasn’t really as focused as I wanted to be.”
 

What does Coco Gauff expect from Mboko?

Gauff also expects the fourth round against Mboko to be tough.
 

“She’s a great player,” Gauff told Sportsnet. “We played on clay, so it will be a different match. Obviously, she’s gotten more experience just being on tour and playing high-level players. It’s going to be a tough match.”
 

What is Mboko’s family history?

Mboko was born an American in Charlotte, North Carolina in 2006. Her family had immigrated there from the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, her parents moved the family to Toronto later that year.
 

She now hails from nearby Burlington.
 

The youngest of four children, all of her siblings play tennis. One sister and brother played at the college level in the U.S.
 

The siblings trained under former Canadian Davis Cup captain Pierre Lamarche. Then Mboko travelled to Belgium where she sharpened her skills at Justine Henin Tennis Academy.
 

What sparked Mboko’s appetite for pro tennis?

Mboko’s father Cyprien had the tennis bug originally. Back in the Congo, he and a friend were fans of Andre Agassi, Jim Courier and Steffi Graf.
 

He told Tennis Canada that the sport was good exercise for his children. “I must have bought about 1,000 balls from Walmart and they all seemed to end up in the bushes.”
 

How did Mboko’s career develop?

Mboko first found success in junior-level play, making the Under-14 final as a 12-year-old in 2018.
 
Then she competed in junior Grand Slams, reaching the semi-finals at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 2022.
 

Mboko has also competed in doubles play, reaching the final at the Australian Open and Wimbledon with her Canadian colleague, Kayla Cross in 2022.
 

Though just 18, she has injured her knees, inspiring her to be more vigilant about caring for her body.
 

Is 2025 Mboko’s best year?

Earlier this year, Mboko achieved four straight lower-level titles in a 22-match winning streak, not dropping a single set.
 

She competed in her first senior-level Grand Slam at the French Open, making the third round. Mboko also won both her matches during her Billie Jean King Cup debut for Canada in April.
 

The Canadian Open continues through to the finals on Aug. 7.
 

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.


David Cohen, the former U.S. Ambassador to Canada, being interviewed in the U.S. Embassy building in Ottawa on Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2022.

Canada’s view of its southern neighbour has understandably dimmed after President Donald Trump launched a tariff war. With Trump declaring more tariffs against Canada effective Friday, National Post spoke this week with former ambassador David Cohen, former president Joe Biden’s envoy to Ottawa from 2021 to 2025, who was tasked with resetting U.S.-Canada relations following the first tumultuous Trump term, which included its own tariff actions against Canadian goods.

Much of Cohen’s work involved navigating a landscape where bilateral co-operation could no longer be taken for granted and where he had to rebuild an alliance strained by trade disputes and fiery rhetoric. He’s since returned to private life but still gives talks boosting the U.S.-Canada relationship. 


(This interview has been edited and condensed due to length.)

 David Cohen at a Canadian Club luncheon in Ottawa on Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2023.

Q: What were your proudest achievements as ambassador?

A: “I think the most important achievement was all of Mission Canada,” said Cohen. “I set as a priority to rebuild, strengthen, and nurture the U.S.-Canada relationship, and I think we were largely successful in accomplishing that objective.”

Cohen also noted helping to shift Canada’s defence spending debate away from an almost exclusive focus on GDP percentages by arguing that commitments must be tied to existing security threats.

The public view often was, “Why does Canada have to spend money on defence? We’re surrounded by oceans on three sides, and by the United States on the fourth side.”

But, Cohen said, “that wasn’t and isn’t true. There are legitimate security threats, and Canada has a special responsibility and should have a special focus on continental defence.” He noted that under prime ministers Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney, the defence discussion has lately become centred on continental defence and the Arctic, which resonates more with Canadians.

In fact, in December 2024, for the first time in over a decade, a majority of Canadians supported more defence spending, according to polling by the Angus Reid Institute
. This, said Cohen, “contributed to the additional defence spending that has occurred – and made it easier for (Trudeau and Carney) to make commitments about increasing the amount of investment that Canada would make toward defence, ultimately being able to sign off on the new five per cent threshold that was agreed to this year.”

Q: How well do you think Carney’s team has been doing amid the trade war and negotiations?
 

A: “Prime Minister Carney and Canada are doing about as good a job as they can do in very difficult negotiations that are not always rationality-based … President Trump has not been all that crystal clear at times about exactly what it is he wants to accomplish and the underlying reasons for his positioning,” he said. 

 Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump in Alberta for a G7 meeting, June 16, 2025.

Cohen pointed to the White House’s original 25 per cent tariff announcement and how it was premised largely on border and fentanyl issues, even though he said fentanyl imports from Canada were a very small part of the U.S. problem, especially compared to Mexico. He questioned the rationale for raising tariffs on Canadian goods from 25 to 35 per cent, given the tiny and shrinking amount of fentanyl coming from Canada.

But Cohen also pointed out that “Canada sometimes seems to overvalue its leverage, without fully recognizing the huge asymmetry in our almost trillion-dollar trade relationship. Three-quarters of Canada’s exports go to the U.S., but only 17 per cent of U.S. exports go to Canada. Sometimes that gives Canada an overinflated view of (Canada’s) leverage in negotiations.”

Q: Do you think a new U.S.-Canada trade and security deal is coming?

A: Cohen noted that Republican voices, such as Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, are publicly starting to highlight the critical importance of the U.S.-Canada trade relationship and expressing confidence that an agreement will eventually come.

Cohen agreed, saying he believes a deal is coming – he’s just not sure when.

On Canada’s path to securing the best deal, Cohen stressed that delivering concrete defence results matters far more than mere promises. “Carney has said all the right things. What he now needs to do is to deliver – that is, money actually has to be budgeted and then it has to be spent.”

He also noted that the
Golden Dome initiative
, a spending priority for the U.S., could help Canada reach pledged defence targets.

 The Golden Dome, an envisioned by U.S. President Donald Trump, would put U.S. weapons in space for the first time.

“Actually putting concrete actions behind the commitments is something that Prime Minister Carney can do.”

Cohen also noted that Canada’s supply management issues, particularly with dairy, remain politically sensitive. 

“There are a whole series and host of issues that are outstanding between the United States and Canada,” he added, “and I think bringing any of them to the table with potential solutions that would be attractive to President Trump is a good strategy and a good tactic.” 

Q: Do you expect the current trade talks to bleed into the required review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement this coming year? Do you think Trump is looking to rip that up?

A: “I think it’s inevitable these negotiations will bleed into the statutorily required review of USMCA,” Cohen said. And while the deal is a legacy of Trump’s former U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, “I think there’s a part of Donald Trump that views it as a Donald Trump legacy too, since he was personally at the table and personally involved in closing the ultimate deal in 2018.”

While Cohen doesn’t think Trump is interested in ripping up the agreement, he acknowledged that there “may need to be adjustments to it or revisiting of issues that Canada resisted during the original negotiation.” 

“I think it’s almost inevitable that there will be certain elements of USMCA that will end up needing to be renegotiated as part of the review process.” 

But he expects it to survive because “it has been such a good deal for both sides.”

Q: Has there been long-term damage to the U.S.-Canada relationship from the last few months of trade tension, or is a reset feasible?

A: Cohen noted the trust quotient between the U.S. and Canada plummeted from about 58 per cent during the Obama era to around 10 per cent in Trump’s first term, before climbing back to the mid-50 per cent range under Biden. Today it’s at 16 per cent.

“That history says it’ll take work, it’ll take effort from the United States perspective – we’ll be dealing with a skeptical Canadian audience,” he said. “But the U.S. market is too attractive (to not repair the relationship). The Canadian market is historically too much of an integral partner within that market.”

“With a different government and a different approach, I think businesses on both sides of the border will probably be more ready to come back to the table and to engage in rebuilding the relationship. I think it’s going to take more to convince the Canadian public that the United States really does care about Canada, although I think that is achievable.”

Q: Can friction between the U.S. and Canada be a good thing? Can tariffs?

A: “I think civil friction is healthy because it respects the sovereignty of our allies and often ends up improving the United States’ decision-making,” Cohen said.

“But I don’t think just because the United States is the largest economy on earth, has 10 times the population, a much higher GDP, and just because we dominate the trade relationship, means that everything we say Canada should agree to just because we say it.” 

On tariffs, Cohen said he is mostly a free-trade supporter and believes governments should get out of the way of businesses, the true drivers of economies. 

“I think tariffs are really dangerous tools to use because I think they can interfere with the natural work of businesses in growing economies — that is what businesses do better than governments.” 

But Cohen also noted that targeted use of tariffs can be appropriate. He cited the example of softwood lumber tariffs, used by both Trump and Biden. “It is just about indisputable that Canada, through its governmental policies by the federal government and by multiple provincial governments, unfairly favours Canadian lumber producers, creates preferential treatment for Canadian lumber producers, and discriminates against U.S. lumber producers.”

“As a result, U.S. lumber producers are disadvantaged vis-à-vis Canadian lumber producers, and the mechanism for levelling that playing field is the countervailing softwood lumber tariffs.”

Cohen also said tariffs can be helpful as leverage to negotiate things like boosted defence spending for NATO. “I think that’s a good thing,” he said. 

But he also criticized Trump’s across-the-board high tariffs, like the 25 per cent tariff on potash, an essential farming input that’s scarce in the U.S., as making no sense.

Q: How is your successor, Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, doing in his job? 

A: “I think he’s in a very difficult position because (he’s not a free agent but a personal representative of President Trump, but …) he’s from a border state and has a longstanding understanding of the U.S.-Canada relationship and its importance from his Michigan roots,” Cohen said, noting how the former representative for Michigan’s 2nd congressional district has gone out of his way to repeatedly talk about the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

 U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra.

“I think he’s doing the best job he can to continue to send a message about the value that he personally and that the country puts on the U.S.-Canada relationship.”

Q: Any final advice for Canadians about their relationship with the U.S.?

A: “There’s almost an inferiority complex in Canada — lines like ‘we’re the stepchild’ or ‘not big enough to matter’ — I always hated that,” he said, noting how Canada undervalues its importance as a friend, partner, and ally. 

“There are things Canada can do that the United States cannot, because internationally, (the U.S.) is the 800-pound gorilla. Canada, though, gets to be in conversations in the global south where it can express views about promoting democracy and democratic values that, if promoted by the U.S., would fall on deaf ears. Canada can open the door and help achieve America’s No. 1 foreign policy goal,

which is the promotion of democracy and democratic values around the world.

Canada should never also never undervalue the role it has played in its actions, Cohen said. “When the United States went into Afghanistan, Canada was the first country to join us. Americans should never forget what Canada did in the (Canadian) Caper, getting our last diplomats out of Iran safely (after the 1979 revolution), at great danger to the individual Canadian diplomats and to Canada on the international stage.

“On the one hand, be proud and recognize how incredibly important you are to this relationship … On the other hand, recognize that in tough negotiations, you may not have the best hand because of the asymmetry of the financial nature of the relationship.”

“That tension is one of the most interesting aspects of dealing with Canada.”

National Post

tmoran@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 speaks to reporters in Ottawa in March.

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed his disappointment on Friday about

U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to increase so-called “fentanyl tariffs” to 35 per cent

and said his government is committed to supporting the most affected sectors.

In a “fact sheet” from the White House

, the Trump administration defended its latest action by blaming Canada for reportedly failing to “cooperate in curbing the ongoing flood of fentanyl” and for having retaliated against the U.S. since their original round of tariffs.

However, goods that qualify for “preferential tariff treatment” under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement (CUSMA) continue to remain exempt from tariffs, it said.

“While the Canadian government is disappointed by this action, we remain committed to CUSMA, which is the world’s second-largest free trade agreement by trading volume,”

wrote Carney in a statement on X

published shortly after midnight on Friday.

The prime minister added that the application of CUSMA means that the average tariff rate on Canadian goods going to the U.S. remains one of the lowest for all its trading partners.

However, other sectors of Canada’s economy will remain heavily impacted by tariffs, he said. Steel and aluminum were already subject to 50 per cent tariffs, with copper now impacted by that same rate, but lumber and automobiles are also of great concern.

“For such sectors, the Canadian government will act to protect Canadian jobs, invest in our industrial competitiveness, buy Canadian, and diversity our export markets,” he said.

Carney said despite the U.S. justifying its action on the flow of fentanyl, Canada accounts for only one per cent of U.S. fentanyl imports and “has been working intensively to further reduce these volumes” with “historic” investments for security at the border.

Carney did not announce a new deadline to conclude a new economic and security agreement with the U.S. and rather insisted on making Canada more self-reliant.

“While we will continue to negotiate with the United States on our trading relationship, the Canadian government is laser focused on what we can control: building Canada strong,” he said, pointing to internal trade between provinces and the building of major projects.

“Together, these initiatives have the potential to catalyse over half a trillion dollars of new investments in Canada,” he added.

Carney concluded his statement by saying Canadians will become their own best customers and create “more well-paying careers at home” while the government continues to “strengthen and diversify” its trading partnerships around the world.

“We can give ourselves more than any foreign government can ever take away by building with Canadian workers and by using Canadian resources to benefit all Canadians.”

According to the Canadian Press, Trump said on Thursday he had not “spoken to Canada” but referenced that “he’s called”— suggesting Carney may have reached out hours before the tariff increase.

That is exactly what U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick suggested Carney do hours before in an interview with FOX News to stop the increase to 35 per cent.

“If he makes that call and if he starts turning on the charm, and if he takes off his retaliation… it stops the silliness. Maybe the president will let it down a bit,” he said.

It remains to be seen if Canada will retaliate further. Back in March, the federal government imposed $30 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods such as orange juice, wine, spirits and appliances. It also imposed 25 per cent tariffs on U.S. steel and aluminum, and on automobiles.

Lutnick pointed out that Canada was one of two countries in the world — with China — to have retaliated against the U.S.

In a post on X, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said the federal government should “hit back” with a 50 per cent tariff on U.S. steel and aluminum.

“Now is not the time to roll over. We need to stand our ground,” he said.

But Brian Clow, who served as former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s deputy chief of staff and his executive director of Canada-U.S. relations, said other countries’ refusal to stand up to Trump’s actions “emboldened” him and has put Canada in a difficult position.

“Although generally, I’ve been a fan of retaliation, and I think the world should have stood up to this President, I’m not sure it makes sense for Canada to be strongly retaliating all on its own when the rest of the world is caving,” he said in a recent interview.

“We might just find ourselves on the receiving end of even more punishment from this president.”

National Post

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.