LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks to supporters at a campaign rally in Calgary on Friday, April 25, 2025.

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to call a byelection on Monday in the Alberta riding of Battle River—Crowfoot, where Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre will be looking to regain a seat, the National Post has learned.

Voters will be called to elect their new MP on either August 11 or 18, according to a source familiar with the prime minister’s thinking who was speaking on background because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

“The prime minister will be honouring his commitment of calling it quickly with ‘no games’ so that the byelection is complete well ahead of the House of Commons coming back in mid-September, rather than drawing it out in any way until December or January,” said the source.

The source added that the election dates in August will ensure that the byelection happens “as soon as possible” without interfering with Alberta Heritage Day, which is the first Monday of the month.

Poilievre has been without a seat in the House of Commons since he was defeated in the Ottawa-area riding of Carleton during the federal election on April 28. The member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot, Damien Kurek, stepped down earlier this month to pave the way for his leader in a byelection.

Kurek was re-elected in April with more than 82 per cent of the vote, making the Alberta riding one of the safest Conservative seats in the country.

In his first press conference after the election, Carney said he would ensure that the byelection happens “as soon as possible… no games, nothing, straight.” He said he conveyed his decision to Poilievre directly during a conversation.

The Liberal Party did not respond immediately when asked if the party would be presenting a candidate in the riding.

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 politics newsletter, First Reading, here.


Undated photo of Norman Spector, right, meeting with Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat.

Former Canadian diplomat Norman Spector doesn’t have a reputation for wishful thinking. So when he proposes we talk about how the issues around terrorism, atrocities and hostages are being framed in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks in Israel, I know I’m in for a stiff shot of realpolitik.

“By chance, I had the good fortune of being Canada’s first representative to the Palestinian Authority shortly after I landed in Israel as ambassador in 1992,”  Norman says, setting the context for our virtual conversation.

“I have some fond as well as some scary memories of walking around Gaza back then,” he continues, “but these days, I mostly wonder how Israeli-Palestinian relations would have unfolded in the wake of the Oslo accords had Yitzhak Rabin not been assassinated.”

Appointed by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney as Canada’s ambassador in 1992, the year before the Oslo accords were signed, Norman had the good fortune of living in the Middle East during a period of peace.

Reflecting back, Norman says he’s not sure the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, envisioned in the Oslo accords, ever had a chance after the Rabin assassination. Rabin, the prime minister of Israel, was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli extremist opposed to his peace efforts.

“I think Rabin came to the conclusion that there was no alternative — and he had the credibility that allowed him to take a chance with Arafat whom Israelis did not trust,” Norman says. “After October 7,” he muses, “there is even less trust of Palestinians and there’s no Rabin in sight.”

There is a faint hint of wistfulness in Norman’s tone; his assessment of the current situation is deeply unsettling.

From October 7 on, we’ve seen growing division and polarization and hatred in our own country. Progressives have made Gaza their cause (no one more than Alberta’s own NDP MP, Heather McPherson) and conservatives hold loyal to Israel. Media outlets pick a lane and stick with it.

Talking about Israel and the Palestinians has become so prickly, many refuse to wade into the conversation for fear of being attacked. The rhetoric is all part of the conflict, Norman accurately points out, “Folks chanting or spray painting ‘genocide’ are generally not in favour of two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian, between the river and the sea.”

Having spent considerable time in the Middle East region myself over the past 40 years, I know how this blame game twists and turns. Public opinion in Canada is heavily influenced by the atrocities of war conveyed on our television screens and in our media.

“In the first place of course one must blame Hamas — a fundamentalist organization that rejects a two-state solution — for launching an attack that has brought about so many deaths and so much misery to people living between the river and the sea,” Norman asserts. “And in the ensuing months,” he continues, “for not having put down their arms and perhaps gone into exile as Arafat did in the 1980s.

“But,” he adds, “the Government of Israel, too, is to blame — beholden as it is to Jewish fundamentalists who are the ideological twins of their Muslim counterparts.

“I still believe that the essence of the conflict (and the solution),” he reiterates, “is the existence of two states — one Jewish, one Palestinian — between the river and the sea as envisaged in the UN partition, which a Canadian was instrumental in developing and which Canada voted for in 1947.”

(I’m embarrassed to admit I’d forgotten the role played by Lester B. Pearson, then a senior Canadian diplomat, in designing a two-state solution.)

In the early 1990s, Norman’s appointment as ambassador to Israel raised eyebrows in the Arab world. As Norman explains in his 2003 book, Chronicle of a War Foretold: How Mideast Peace Became America’s Fight, Canada’s Foreign Affairs ministry had never sent a Jew to serve in Tel Aviv; Mulroney wanted to break that barrier. Norman — who had been Mulroney’s chief of staff — won over the critics with his objective grasp of regional politics and ability to speak with the locals in both Hebrew and Arabic.

Decades later, Norman — whose long career has included a stint as publisher of the Jerusalem Post — remains convinced there can be no real peace until both peoples elect governments that have campaigned on two states: one Jewish, one Palestinian.

 Undated photo of Norman Spector, right, exiting the Knesset with Israeli president Chaim Herzog.

Calls for a ceasefire, while understandable, may make us feel more comfortable — but it’s only a pause, he reminds me. “It takes the horrible images off TV screens,” Norman says, “until the next time.”

“My principal concern is the climate in Canada,” he writes, “and I wish our media and government had done a better job of explaining the true nature of the conflict, and that a ceasefire is not peace but a pause until the next war.

“Had the Netanyahu government declared that Hamas is opposed to a Jewish state and denies the Jewish people’s right to self-determination on October 7,” Norman asserts, “that would have been the truth and framed the war differently. It didn’t because it too opposes two states.

“Because the Netanyahu government itself refuses a two-state solution,” he elaborates, “it failed to make this the issue and instead its hasbara (explanation) focused on the atrocities and the hostages.”

“Now no doubt the atrocities were atrocious and the fate of the hostages of real concern — but in the end this could not compete with the death and destruction we’ve seen in Gaza as conveyed on our TV screens and in our media,” he adds.

The debate in Canada got off on the wrong foot, Norman suggests, focusing on whether Hamas was a terrorist organization, rather than talking about the real issue. “Both sides,” he suggests, “will have to decide that two states is the only solution.

“Netanyahu simply does not believe that Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israelis between the river and the sea,” is Norman’s opinion.

And, he adds, “a ceasefire or a truce (hudna in Arabic) rather than peace is Hamas’s position because it does not imply recognition of a Jewish state between the river and the sea within any borders living beside a Palestinian state.”

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.


Hendrik and Frederika Veldboom, who hid a Jewish couple in their rural farmhouse near the border with Germany and rescued their newborn son during the Holocaust.

It is an elite club, numbering 28,486 people from 51 countries, unimaginably courageous non-Jews who risked their lives to rescue Jews during the Holocaust.

They are the Righteous Among the Nations, honoured by Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust museum and memorial, on behalf of the State of Israel.

The club was expanded last Thursday in Toronto when the honour was bestowed posthumously on two couples who sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Holland.

“What did they have to lose? I would say everything,” said Elizabeth Quinlan, whose honoured grandparents, Eimericus and Anna Maria Tijssen, took a young Jewish girl, Annie Muller, into their already large family in southeastern Holland.

Also honoured at the moving ceremony at Israel’s consulate in Toronto were Hendrik and Frederika Veldboom, who hid a Jewish couple in their rural farmhouse near the border with Germany and rescued their newborn son.

The ceremony, attended by Ontario MPPs and other dignitaries, was crowded by dozens of descendants of both couples who came from points across Ontario, Edmonton, Texas, and the Cayman Islands.

The dangers the Dutch couples faced were clear: Hiding Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe was punished by shipment to a concentration camp or being shot on the spot. Add to that tension food scarcity, regular Allied shellings, and neighbours and even relatives who were Nazi collaborators.

It was in 1943 when the Dutch underground brought Elia “Annie” Muller, then 2-1/2 years old, to the Thijssens after the child had been moved through several hiding places. Despite the fact that five of the couple’s seven children were still living at home, they welcomed the Jewish girl, who would call her saviours 

Opa

 (Grandpa) and 

Moeke

 (Grandma).

The Thijssens’ married daughter, Lena, helped with the cover story: She said she was friends with Annie’s mother, who was in a sanatorium. The child was kept safe until six months after Holland’s liberation in May 1945, when she was reunited with her parents.

In a video hookup from her home in Holland, Muller, now 84, recalled with deep thanks her memories of a big family, how 

Moeke

 sliced the bread, the hams hanging from the ceiling, the old telephone, playing outside with the other children “and being naughty.” No talk of fear or the sudden need to hide. An artist, her work has centred on themes of memory and resistance – “a tribute to the people who saved me.”

Presented were “certificates of honour” and medals inscribed with a quote from the Talmud: “Whosoever saves a single life, saves an entire universe.”

The Thijssens immigrated to Canada in 1950 and settled in Proton Station, Ont. with four of their children. They initially worked on a farm, then moved to Strathroy, Ont., where Eimericus became a groundskeeper at a local golf course, while his wife worked at a canning factory. They kept their counsel.

In accepting the honour on behalf of her late grandparents, Quinlan, a retired judge who lives in Barrie, Ont., noted Canada’s dismal record of admitting Jewish refugees during the war era, the lowest among western countries.

“The inactions of our country underscore the empathy and humanity of our grandparents, who could also have done nothing,” Quinlan told those assembled. “A supposed civilized country could ignore the suffering around it, but 

Moeke

 and 

Opa

 could not.”

Her grandparents never talked about their valour. The sentiment, according to one of their daughters — Quinlan’s mother — was “it was just something we did. Anyone would have done it.”

That isn’t so, Quinlan said. “It was dangerous. It was an act of heroism that until now, was unrecognized.”

Hedrick and Frederika Veldboom, meantime, were newly married and members of the Dutch underground who turned their rural farmhouse into a hiding place for Jews and young Dutch men fleeing forced labour. Among the Jews were Lena Kropveld and her husband, Yitzchak Jedwab, a cantor. Wed secretly in 1942, they spent months in a hidden space behind a wardrobe, relying on coded warning systems.

 Elizabeth Quinlan, left, and Jantina Veldboom Devries, right, with Israel’s consul general Idit Shamir. Quinlan accepted the Righteous Among the Nations honour on behalf of her grandparents, while Veldboom Devries accepted the honour on behalf of her parents, in Toronto on June 26, 2025.

The dangers rose to new heights when Lena gave birth to a baby boy. She held her newborn for an hour before Hendrik Veldboom placed him in a cardboard box and bicycled in darkness to put the baby on the doorstep of the leader of the underground resistance, who took the child in despite having eight children. The baby, registered as abandoned, was reunited with his parents after liberation.

In 1952, the Veldbooms immigrated to Brockville, Ont., where they became farmers. What would they have said about being honoured as righteous rescuers?

“I think they would be terribly surprised,” said their daughter, Jantina Veldboom Devries, who lives in Hamilton, Ont. and accepted the distinction “I think it would be almost unthinkable for them because they didn’t see themselves as heroic. They did the right thing at the right time. Doing the right and honourable thing doesn’t need recognition, they would say.”

Idit Shamir, Israel’s consul general in Toronto and western Canada, echoed that sense of humility expressed by the two couples — indeed by many other Righteous Among the Nations.

“Were they heroes?” Shamir asked. “They would laugh. They were farmers. Parents. Neighbours who kept chickens and worried about harvest.

“Were they saints? They would object. They made mistakes. They felt fear. They were gloriously, beautifully human. We call them what they were: Righteous. Not perfect. Not fearless. Not superhuman. Simply people who saw clearly when the world went blind.”

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.


Though they largely affirmed enthusiastic pride in being Canadian, only 49 per cent of respondents said Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in.

As Canada turns 158 on Tuesday, a birthday celebrated during tumultuous political and international agitation, Canadians remain proud of their country and their place in it — with considerable intensity for a nation often too modest to boast — but riding on that red-and-white wave are hard questions of what kind of country Canadians want.

A new national opinion survey marks Canada Day by delving into how Canadians feel about their country and what boosts their patriotism and what dampens it; about what irks them so much they might leave, their sense of Canadian values, and even tries to put a finger on what Canada’s national identity looks like.

There is little doubt Canadians are proud to be Canadian — a huge majority declared it — even though there are concerns about affordability, what it means to be Canadian, and a loss of a shared sense of collective identity, according to the survey conducted by Leger Marketing Inc., for Postmedia.

“As we approach Canada Day this year, Canadians are feeling pretty good about being Canadian, and I think they’re going to be pretty boisterous about demonstrating it,” said Andrew Enns, a Leger vice president who oversaw the poll.

But, cautioned Enns, that doesn’t mean there aren’t challenges.

“It doesn’t necessarily mean things are fantastic here. I think it’s possible to be very proud to be Canadian — particularly when there’s another country that suggests you should just pack in this whole Canada thing — but still say there’s a lot of problems in the country,” Enns said.

When the poll respondents were asked how proud they were to be Canadian, 83 per cent described themselves as proud, with 45 per cent of those escalating that feeling to being very proud. Of those who dissented, 11 per cent said they weren’t very proud and four per cent said they were not at all proud to be Canadian.

“A year ago, it wasn’t like we were all wearing paper bags over our head and being ashamed — three-quarters said they felt pretty proud about being Canadians back then, but we’ve now popped that number up. There’s also an intensity that I think we’ll probably see on display in different celebrations,” said Enns.

Canada’s proudest region is Atlantic Canada, where 90 per cent said they were proud and 57 per cent even upsized to very proud.

Those least likely to declare Canadian pride were in Alberta, but even there a strong majority — 78 per cent — said they were proud to be Canadian. That result wasn’t much different that in British Columbia, where it was 79 per cent.

In Quebec, 81 per cent said they were proud to be Canadian. In Ontario it was 84 per cent, and in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (pooled together by the pollsters) it was 87 per cent.

More women than men expressed Canadian pride (86 per cent versus 80 per cent).

The younger a respondent was, the less likely they were to say they were a proud Canadian: Among those aged 18 to 34, the youngest cohort, 76 per cent expressed pride; in the middle, those aged 35 to 54, there were 81 per cent declaring pride, while 89 per cent in the oldest group (55 and over) said they were proud to be Canadian.

Political persuasion also seems to play a role.

Fewer people who voted Conservative in the last federal election expressed pride in being Canadian than those who voted for the Bloc Québécois, which is a Quebec separatist party.

Among Conservative voters, 74 per cent declared pride in being Canadian; as did 75 per cent of Bloc voters, and 69 per cent of Greens. Those who voted Liberal were by far the biggest boasters of Canadian pride, at 95 per cent, followed by New Democratic Party voters at 82 per cent.

When asked if their pride in Canada had changed over the past few months, 34 per cent of respondents said they were prouder and 21 per cent said they were less proud, with 45 per cent saying they felt the same.

Sinking Canadian pride was strongest in Alberta — where 31 per cent said they felt less proud, and was the weakest in Quebec, where only 14 per cent said their pride in Canada had sagged over the last few months ago.

The Leger pollsters looked at what was behind those changes in patriotic feelings. After all, a lot has happened in the last few months. Canadians have been pushed to rethink their affinity for their country after U.S. President Donald Trump started insulting and threatening Canada’s sovereignty. There was also a closely fought federal election.

Pollsters asked those respondents who said they were prouder being Canadian now than a few months ago if there was a connection between that boost and Trump’s commentary. The answer was overwhelmingly yes: 83 per cent said they felt more pride in Canada because of Trump.

Those respondents who were less proud being Canadian now than a few months ago were asked if their enthusiasm was dampened by the results of April’s federal election. The answer was also a strong yes: 74 per cent attributed it to the election, that returned the Liberal Party to government with a new leader promising to tackle Trump’s threats.

Despite enthusiastic pride in being Canadian, respondents were curiously cautious about boasting of Canada’s place in the world.

Not even half of all the respondents said Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in. Only 49 per cent did. Another 20 per cent said Canada has a lot of work to do to be considered one of the best, while 19 per cent said Canada wasn’t much better than some others. Four per cent dismissed Canada as not a great place to live.

Enns wondered if those results are a sign of Canada’s supposed politeness.

“Is that the Canadian deferential thing? You know, saying ‘Canada is really good, but I don’t want to say we’re the best, that’s something Americans do,’” Enns said.

It might be because of the source of Canada’s rising pride.

“You have to look back at what’s driving this surge of patriotism right now. It is that existential threat (from Trump) as opposed to something that we’ve done ourselves internally,” he said.

“If there was something that we did internally as a collective, and we were able to show the world how great we are and it elevated pride, then I think you might see a difference on this question. Maybe that moves the needle, as opposed to we’re waving the flag and pumping our chests because we want to make sure Donald Trump appreciates that we’re not going to be the 51st state.”

It could also be a realism among Canadians, a sense that patriotic pride doesn’t mean they must ignore problems they see in the country.

“If I were the federal government and I looked at this poll and said, ‘holy cow, 83 per cent of Canadians are proud to be Canadian, we must be doing a great job,’ then that would probably be a misinterpretation. There are still some significant challenges.

In the poll, respondents were asked if they’ve ever considered leaving Canada and moving to another country; 27 per cent said they had considered leaving. Their motivations suggest what fuels Canadians’ discontent with Canada, and much of it is economic.

 People walk past a Canadian maple leaf inside in a heart on Toronto’s Queen Street West amid the tariff war with the United States.

Of those who said they’ve considered leaving Canada, 60 per cent said Canada being too expensive was a reason, which was the top answer. Taxes being too high was second, named by 55 per cent. (Respondents could give more than one reason.)

A feeling that Canada is heading in the wrong direction on a lot of things was next, at 45 per cent; 35 per cent named a desire to live somewhere nicer; 31 per cent that they’d like to try somewhere different; 26 per cent said there were too many restrictions on freedom, the same number who named crime and disorder; followed by career opportunities, at 25 per cent, and family reasons at nine per cent.

The pollsters also said that most Canadians felt their country has been losing a shared, collective identity of what it means to be Canadian over the past four or five years. A low majority of respondents, 52 per cent, said that; 30 per cent disagreed, and 19 per cent said they didn’t know or declined to answer. The poll also shows large support — 64 per cent — for pushing newcomers to adopt Canadian values, while only 22 per cent supported immigrants maintaining religious and cultural traditions. The view that newcomers should adopt Canadian values was held most strongly by Quebecers at 73 per cent and those over the age of 55, at 78 per cent. New Democrat voters, at 40 per cent, were most likely to support the retention of immigrants’ traditions, followed by Liberal voters at 28 per cent. Just 14 per cent of Conservative voters and eight per cent of Bloc Québécois voters supported that notion.

“I’m not surprised given the fact that we’ve had a couple of tough years with some of these conflicts overseas that we see boiling over in terms of some ethnic tensions within Canada,” said Enns.

The feeling of losing a shared Canadian identity was by far the strongest in Alberta, where 71 per cent of respondents said it, and lowest in Quebec, where 45 per cent said it. Other than in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where 58 per cent said it, the remaining regions polled all weighed in at 50 per cent.

The poll also assessed what qualities Canadians most associated with Canada and as a core Canadian value.

Respondents were asked to choose the one value they most associated with Canada among 12 options.

Being a democracy with free and fair elections came out on top, with 16 per cent naming that as Canada’s top value, followed by multiculturalism, which was named by 14 per cent. Respect and inclusiveness (13 per cent) and a social safety net (12 per cent) rounded out the top four.

Next came freedom of speech (nine per cent), bilingualism (seven per cent), equality of opportunity (five), respect for all religions and clear opposition to acts of antisemitism (three), equality regardless of sexual orientation (three), free-market economy (two), equality of sexes (two), and separation of church and state (two).

Four per cent chose none of the above.

However, the ranking of those same 12 values changed when respondents were asked not to select just one, but rather to say how strongly they associated each of the values as a core value of being Canadian.

On this metric, multiculturalism plummeted from second from the top to second from the bottom.

Respondents chose between a strong association, somewhat of an association, no association, and prefer not to answer for each of the 12 values. The pollsters then calculated an average response and ranked them.

Being a democracy with free and fair elections was still the quality most associated with a core Canadian value, closely followed by a three-way tie of freedom of speech, social safety net, and equality of the sexes.

Respect and inclusiveness and equality of opportunity were tied in the next tier, followed by equality regardless of sexual orientation. The next two values were also tied: A free-market economy and separation of church and state.

Into the bottom three, the next two values were tied — respect for all religions and clear opposition to acts of antisemitism, and multiculturalism — and the last was bilingualism.

The values ranking, in essence, ranked the intensity of association, because a strong majority of respondents associated all of the 12 values as a core Canadian identity, with even the lowest ranked value, bilingualism, being associated as a Canadian value by 78 per cent, but with only 39 per cent giving it a strong association rating.

Enns said the large change in the rank multiculturalism seems to reflect a disconnect.

“Individuals, by virtue of the way Canada is often described as being multicultural, selected that term as one they associate with the country, but as we saw in the other question, it is not necessarily personally what they feel as their strongest association,” he said.

The poll survey 1,580 adult Canadians from June 20 to June 22 who were randomly recruited using an online panel. Results were weighted to ensure a representative sample of the Canadian population.

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | Twitter:

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.


A family fighting deportation to Italy argued

A dual citizen of Italy and Ethiopia who brought her two Italian children to Canada more than a decade back, using aliases and falsely claiming they were Eritrean citizens subject to religious persecution, has won another chance for her family to stay here.

The Refugee Protection Division, which weighs refugee claims in Canada, initially accepted the 2014 claims of Tsegereda Tsegaye Wigebral and her two kids, Nobel and Melody Esayas Fisihatsion, now 19 and 17 respectively. But it nullified their refugee status and rejected their claim in December 2022 after learning their story was fake.

That same month, the family was declared inadmissible to Canada. They were ordered deported in August 2023, but applied for a pre-removal risk assessment, their last-ditch bid to stay here.

Last April, a senior immigration officer “reviewed the applicants’ file and held that they were not at risk of persecution, or subject to a danger of torture, and nor did they face a risk to their lives or a cruel or unusual punishment if they were removed to Italy,” according to a recent Federal Court decision out of Ottawa.

“While the applicants had alleged that they faced serious discrimination, social exclusion and abuse there, due to their race, and had alleged that they could not rely on the police or authorities for protection, the officer determined that there was not sufficient evidence before them to substantiate those claims,” wrote Justice Darren Thorne.

The officer “accepted that the applicants may have been subjected to ‘less favourable treatment’ due to their race, but found they had failed to establish that this rose to the level of persecution,” said Thorne’s decision, dated June 25. “In one of the central findings, the officer noted, in relation to mistreatment in Italy, that the principal applicant had provided ‘little to no further elaboration or evidence as to how she came to the conclusion that the Italian authorities would not help her.’”

The trouble is, immigration officials had asked the older child, who had turned 18, to file his own application, but the immigration officer handling their case didn’t look at what Nobel submitted before making a decision. Thorne said the immigration officer’s decision was “clearly” made without viewing the totality of the family’s applications.

“The right to be heard is among the most basic aspects of procedural fairness. When a decision has clearly been made without considering all of the materials submitted by an applicant, this right has been compromised,” said Thorne, who sent the family’s case back to a different immigration officer to re-evaluate.

A lawyer representing Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, who was fighting for the family’s removal, couldn’t explain why that happened, although they noted the officer may not have seen Nobel’s application.

The same lawyer argued Nobel’s submissions “were immaterial, as they contained broadly the same information as had been provided by the principal applicant,” and that the information he provided “also did not establish that the treatment suffered by the applicants rose to the level of persecution, so it would not have changed the officer’s decision, even if it had been considered.”

The judge did not find that argument persuasive.

“This supposition is pure speculation, and no evidence was put forth in support of it,” Thorne said. “It makes little difference whether the officer had missed, disregarded or somehow failed to have personally received the second (pre-removal risk assessment) application. The point is that the decision clearly did not involve consideration of this information from the applicants.”

Thorne concluded that the officer either didn’t know that there was a second application or “completely ignored” it. Either way, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada had specifically requested the information, so the officer should have addressed why Nobel’s application had been disregarded, if indeed it was dismissed purposefully.

The judge noted that Nobel’s application contained more details about what his family would face in Italy that were relevant, including the racism and discrimination “that is allowed or encouraged by political leaders in Italy.”

“Such evidence would seem directly pertinent to findings in the decision that the applicants had not provided elaboration or evidence in support of their beliefs that state authorities could not be relied upon for protection,” Thorne wrote.

The judge didn’t buy the argument that, even if the officer had looked at Nobel’s submissions, it “would not have led to the conclusion that the malign treatment allegedly suffered by the applicants rose to the level of persecution.”

“It is certainly possible that this belief is correct, and that this might well have been the determination of the officer, but it is not the role of this court to speculate on what the findings of the officer would have been, had they considered the information in the second (pre-removal risk assessment) application. It is unknowable what impact this would have had on the decision,” Thorne said.

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.


There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn’t a criminal probe, but to “collect, preserve and assess information” for potential future prosecutions.

Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces.

Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes.

He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense.

Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post.

What do you think motivates foreign governments who seek these investigations?

I can’t tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it’s somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they’ve been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies.

Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population.

In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn’t believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won’t then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don’t believe is happening.

But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation.

What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court?

Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it’s impossible to say it’s “evidence.” I think it’s just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined.

Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade.

They’ll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it’s a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios.

And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing.

Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It’s entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there’s no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier.

There’s a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws?

Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these

 
ad hoc

 courts to somehow take charge.

In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case?

That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous.

Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of?

So the difficulty is, that they don’t know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn’t know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You’re talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people.

This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It’s overwhelming right now, especially where we’re busy fighting a war.

On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with?

There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically.

The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That’s already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant.

With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path.

Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations?

I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement.

I would suggest a joint task force of the Justice Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, each one contributing in their own unique way to providing the best support possible.

And sometimes the support needed is relatively simple, just to say that that X person was not in active duty in any type of a position, that could be considered relevant, when the alleged war crimes happen.

This interview has been edited for brevity.

(National Post contacted the IDF spokesperson’s unit and the spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and received no response.)

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.


The Toronto District School Board has found itself at a number of recent controversies, including over a push to rename schools bearing the names of historical figures and allegations of rampant antisemitism.

The Ontario government announced it will be appointing supervisors to oversee four school board districts in the province after an investigation raised concerns about the financial stability of the institutions.

The affected boards are some of the

largest

in the province, including Toronto (TDSB), Toronto Catholic (TCDSB), Ottawa-Carleton (OCDSB) and Dufferin-Peel (DPCDSB).

“Each of these boards has failed in its responsibilities to parents and students by losing sight of its core mission — ensuring student success,” Minister of Education Paul Calandra said in a

news release

Friday.

The ministry’s press release said an investigation into the four school boards revealed “instances of mismanagement and poor decision-making that put its long-term financial health at risk.” The government said the TDSB has rejected nearly half of the cost-saving measures management has recommended over the past two years and the board relies heavily on proceeds from asset sales to balance its books.

Toronto Catholic “is at risk of default in the coming years” after tripling its deficit, compared with the prior school year, the announcement reads. Meanwhile, Ottawa-Carleton “depleted its reserves, incurred an accumulated deficit,” the government wrote, noting that the board plans to offset the deficit “from asset sales to balance its books.” Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, meanwhile, is “at the brink of bankruptcy,” Calandra said.

The audit of OCDSB and TDSB, according to the provincial government, was overseen by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), while Deloitte conducted the investigation of TCDSB.

Chandra Pasma, the education critic for the Ontario New Democratic Party (NDP), condemned the move calling it “nothing short of a power grab.”

Pasma blamed the Ford government which “has chronically underfunded our education system,” that will undermine the schooling of students.

“Instead of fixing real issues — like the billions cut from education — the Ford government is playing political games with our kids’ futures. We need investments, not partisan appointments,” Pasma, the MPP representing Ottawa-West–Nepean,

wrote

on Bluesky.

Calandra framed the announcement as a step toward financial propriety and a better long-term investment in local schools.

“We’re strengthening oversight and accountability so that parents can have the confidence that every dollar is spent responsibly to directly benefit students. I have made it clear that if a school board veers off its mandate, I will take action to restore focus, rebuild trust and put students first.”

In particular, the TDSB has found itself at a number of recent controversies, including over a push to rename schools bearing the names of historical — though sometimes-controversial — figures and allegations of rampant antisemitism in the wake of the October 7 terror attacks in Israel.

Calandra made the announcement on what is the last day of school at many boards across Ontario. Calandra signalled Friday that the takeover of more boards could be yet to come.

“I think a broader rethink of the governance structure of boards is required,” he said. “This is an important first step, but it is certainly part of my thinking over the next little bit as well.”

Calandra also announced Friday that he has paused several pending curriculum changes in order to bring more consistency and to give teachers more time to prepare.

A new kindergarten curriculum with a focus on literacy, math and STEM was set to start this fall, as were changes to the history curriculum for Grades 7, 8 and 10. Teachers had previously complained about the timing of new curriculum announcements and rollouts, and the union representing high school teachers said Friday this pause is welcome.

— With additional reporting by The Canadian Press

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.


Jamie Flynn, a Canadian permanent resident who is a Vancouver firefighter, says he was not allowed into the U.S. due to what he believes was a

A B.C. firefighter says he was denied entry into the United States, where he was going to take part in a competition for First Responders from different countries around the world.

Jamie Flynn posted on social media on Thursday to detail what happened to him when he was en route to Birmingham, Alabama. He said he was supposed to represent Vancouver firefighters in the Jiu Jitsu category at the

World Police & Fire Games

. He described the games as an “international event uniting frontline responders through sport,” in a post on Instagram.

“Being denied entry to the United States is deeply upsetting,” he told National Post in an emailed statement on Friday.

“I lost my flights, my time away, and my opportunity to compete at the World Police & Fire Games in Alabama — an event I had trained extensively for.”

Flynn said he is a British citizen living in Canada as a permanent resident.

He is a firefighter in Vancouver and volunteers with Squamish Search and Rescue. He has served in the British Parachute Regiment (SFSG) and has also served alongside U.S. forces under Joint Special Operations Command.

“I operated under U.S. command, wore the American uniform, and fought under the American flag. I’ve always felt a strong bond with the United States,” he told National Post. “I have no criminal record and no known issues that would justify this denial.”

In his post on Instagram, he said he trained for the competition in the U.S. for months. “And still, I’m grounded — sidelined not by injury or lack of effort, but by bureaucracy and silence,” he wrote.

Flynn intended to fly to Alabama from Vancouver International Airport on Wednesday. He never made his flight because his Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) had expired and would not be renewed,

Global News reported

. He said he received an update on the ESTA app that said, “Travel not authorized.”

ESTA is an automated system used to determine the eligibility of visitors to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It is valid for two years, or until a passport expires, and allows for multiple entries.

If a traveller receives a “travel not authorized” response to their application, CBP says online that they can look into applying for a visa if they still wish to enter the country. The denial only prohibits travel under the Visa Waiver Program and does not determine eligibility for a visa, per the agency.

Canadian citizens travelling with a Canadian passport

do not need to apply for an ESTA

.

Flynn said that he did not receive an explanation from anyone at the U.S. border, the U.S. consulate or the ESTA program.

“This feels like a clerical error,” he said, and, he added, it’s cost him thousands of dollars. “I’m gutted. I’m angry. And I want answers.”

He ended the post with the line: “We were good enough to fight their wars — but not good enough to cross their borders.”

Flynn told National Post that he is looking forward to being able to visit the U.S. again in the near future. He has since submitted a visa application.

Unfortunately, he said, the earliest available appointment is Feb. 11, 2027.

University of Toronto law professor and Rebecca Cook Chair in Human Rights Law Audrey Macklin

said her advice for travellers going to the U.S. is to avoid it altogether “unless absolutely necessary.”

“Even at the best of times, states often treat non-citizens arbitrarily, and do not feel obliged to explain their actions,” she told National Post over email.

“This is sometimes justified on the ground that non-citizens do not have a right to enter, and therefore have no standing to complain about how a decision to admit or exclude is made. Since the rule of law is in free fall in the United States at the moment, the arbitrariness is more extreme, more coercive, and more frequent. That is why travellers should avoid the United States if they can.”

National Post has reached out to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for comment.

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.


Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump pose during a group photo at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., on Monday, June 16, 2025.

OTTAWA — U.S. President Donald Trump announced Friday he is putting an end to trade discussions with Canada and slapping new tariffs within the next seven days in reaction to the federal government’s digital services tax (DST) coming into force next week.

Trump made the announcement on his social media network, Truth Social.

“We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with… has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country,” he wrote.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s office issued a short statement in reaction to Trump’s latest outburst.

“The Canadian government will continue to engage in these complex negotiations with the United States in the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses,” read the statement.

Carney

had already lowered expectations this week

about reaching an agreement with Trump for an economic and security pact within 30 years, as agreed to during the G7 summit in Alberta, by saying “the right deal is possible, but nothing’s assured.”

The first payment for Canada’s digital tax is due Monday, according to the Finance department, and covers revenue retroactively to 2022. The tax is three per cent of the digital services revenue a firm makes from Canadian users above $20 million in a year.

The DST will affect major U.S. companies such as Meta, Google, Airbnb and Amazon.

It is unclear what exactly prompted Trump to react to the new tax coming into force, given that it has long been in the works. Canada has been vocal about its intention to implement a DST for years and the legislation enacting the tax became law at this time last year.

Although they deplore the outcome, business groups said this was a long time coming.

Goldy Hyder, President and CEO of the Business Council of Canada, said in a statement he has warned the government for many years that the implementation of this tax could risk undermining Canada’s economic relationship with its closest trading partner.

“That unfortunate development has now come to pass,” he said. “In an effort to get trade negotiations back on track, Canada should put forward an immediate proposal to eliminate the DST in exchange for an elimination of tariffs from the United States.”

“We continue to support our government’s efforts to negotiate the best deal possible for Canadians,” Hyder added.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre also shared his disappointment that trade talks between Canada and the U.S. have halted and expressed hope “they resume quickly.”

Poilievre did not call for the government to repeal the DST, instead advocating for it to repeal the Impact Assessment Act, the industrial carbon tax, the electric vehicle mandate and a number of other laws that could prevent businesses from flourishing in Canada.

https://x.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1938679625049350337

Earlier this month, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said his government was moving ahead with the tax even though it remained an irritant with the United States.

“That’s the law in Canada. We had fairly long, extensive discussions at the G7 about the different regimes that you find in different parts of the world. That’s not unique to Canada, by the way,” he said.

Trump accused Canada of “copying” the European Union (EU), which has many countries that also have a digital services tax in place.

The EU is also in talks with the U.S. to avoid so-called “reciprocal tariffs” of up to 50 per cent. Trump issued a deadline of July 9 to strike a deal but said in a press conference on Friday he could decide to extend the deadlines or make them shorter if he wanted to.

Trump said he has already made deals with a handful of countries on the world stage, including China and the United Kingdom, and was in the process of making some others.

“But some will be disappointed because they’re going to have to pay tariffs,” he said.

More details to follow…

— With files from Bloomberg.

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 politics newsletter, First Reading, here.


The lengthy legal battle between K.S., who was born male, dates back to 2022.

A non-binary Ontario resident’s years-long battle for a publicly funded, out-of-country surgery to have a vagina surgically created while maintaining a penis is over.

The Ontario government says it won’t ask the Supreme Court of Canada to review a lower court’s ruling in April declaring that the novel phallus-preserving surgery qualifies as an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) — the latest win for the patient, identified only as K.S.

The province had until June 23 to seek leave to appeal the April court ruling to the country’s highest court. In an email to National Post this week, a spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General said the government won’t pursue the case.

It’s not clear how requests for similar niche gender surgeries will be decided or adjudicated in the future.

The lengthy legal battle between K.S., who was born male, dates back to 2022. K.S. does not identify as either exclusively female or male, but is female dominant and uses feminine or neutral pronounces (she/her/they/them).

According to court records, K.S. “has experienced significant gender dysphoria since her teenage years, as well as physical, mental and economic hardships to transition her gender expression to align with her gender identity.”

In 2022, her Ottawa doctor requested pre-approval from OHIP for a vaginoplasty — the surgical creation of a vaginal cavity — but without a penectomy, which is when the penis is removed.

In a letter to OHIP, K.S.’ doctor said that her patient “identifies as trans feminine but not completely on the ‘feminine’ end of the spectrum and for this reason it’s important for her to have a vagina while maintaining a penis.”

A vaginoplasty without a penectomy isn’t available in Canada and, therefore, the funding was to have the procedure done at the Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin, Texas, which “has an excellent reputation (for gender-affirming surgery) and especially with these more complicated procedures,” the doctor wrote to OHIP.

OHIP denied the coverage, arguing a vaginoplasty without removal of the penis isn’t listed as a separate, specific procedure under its schedule of benefits, and therefore didn’t qualify for coverage.

K.S. appealed OHIP’s denial of coverage to a tribunal. K.S. testified to concerns about the risk of urinary incontinence if she went through with a penectomy, “the risk of losing the ability to experience an orgasm and the concern that removing her penis would invalidate her non-binary identity,” according to court documents.

The review board overturned OHIP’s refusal, arguing that vaginoplasty and penectomy are listed as separate, sex reassignment procedures covered by OHIP, and that a vaginoplasty need not inherently include removal of the penis.

OHIP appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court, but lost again when a three-member panel of judges unanimously backed the tribunal’s position.

That court also said that denying the procedure would infringe on K.S.’ Charter-protected rights. The court concluded that insisting that a transgender or non-binary person born a biological male “remove their penis to receive state funding for a vaginoplasty would be inconsistent with the values of equality and security of the person.”

OHIP appealed again, losing a third time to the Ontario Court of Appeal which, in another unanimous decision released in April, dismissed OHIP’s appeal and confirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The three-member panel of judges for the appeal court said a penectomy was “neither recommended by K.S.’ health professionals nor desired by K.S.” and that it was up to the drafters of OHIP’s list of insured services to describe each sex reassignment procedure “in broad or narrow terms.

“Here, the description chosen, ‘vaginoplasty,’ is broad enough to encompass different techniques,” the appeal court said. “There is no suggestion that the existence of different techniques of performing a vaginoplasty detract from the more basic notion that the procedure recommended for K.S. is still vaginoplasty.”

Egale Canada, which appeared as an intervener for K.S., has described the surgical care K.S. sought as one that “challenges expectations and stereotypes of gender and surgical transition.”

“An interpretation of the eligibility criteria for gender-affirming surgeries that relies on binary stereotypes is discriminatory and denies equal dignity and autonomy to nonbinary people,” 

the LGBTQ rights group has said.

K.S.’s lawyer, reached Friday, referred National Post to previous comments, made after a prior victory in the courts. “K.S. is pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision, which is now the third unanimous ruling confirming that her gender affirming surgery is covered under Ontario’s Health Insurance Act and its regulations,” John McIntyre said.

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.