LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

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

OTTAWA — When Ontario’s two top judges took the stage during the opening of the province’s courts in September, they did something that hadn’t happened in years: they both pleaded for Ottawa to pay for more judges.

“There are not enough judges to meet the demands of the number of cases in the system,” said

Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz

, who heads the country’s busiest federally appointed court. “The stakes are high.”

“The Court of Appeal’s complement remains significantly under-resourced compared to other provinces,” Court of Appeal for Ontario Chief Justice Michael Tulloch noted,

describing the challenge as “particularly pressing”

.

Their combined appeal was extraordinary in that both courts have seldom simultaneously pleaded openly for a larger complement. A former judicial affairs advisor in Justin Trudeau’s government said it only happens in “times of crisis.”

Ontario’s courts are far from the only federally appointed benches that say they are in dire need of more judges as the judicial system nationwide bends under the strain of growing and more complex caseloads combined with rapid population growth.

National Post contacted every provincial superior and appellate court in Canada as well as the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal to inquire if they faced the same challenges as in Ontario.

Among superior courts — which hear serious criminal cases as well as civil and family matters — and the Federal Court, the response was resoundingly yes.

In total, six of 10 provincial superior courts and the Federal Court said that they have pending requests for additional judge positions to the federal government, while the Quebec Superior Court pleaded for Mark Carney’s government to fill 15 vacant or new positions created by the province in 2024.

The heads of the P.E.I., Nova Scotia and Manitoba superior courts said they are satisfied with their current judicial complements.

At the appellate level, only the Ontario Court of Appeal said it had requested funding for more judges. But others, such as the Saskatchewan and B.C. courts of appeal, warned that the need could arise in coming years.

Chief justices from across the country told National Post that judges are overwhelmed by cases and litigants are increasingly frustrated by the lack of court dates and growing delays, all of which profoundly undermine access to justice.

Katie Black, the Liberals’ main advisor for judicial appointments from 2016 to 2018, said that the sheer number of courts requesting additional judges underscores the gravity of the situation.

“It is rare for Chief Justices to explicitly call on the provincial and federal governments to increase their complement.  It is only done in times of crisis,” Black, founder of law firm Black & Associates, said in an email.

“An increase to the judicial complement and court resources cannot be avoided if the objective is to achieve timely access to justice. Neither have kept up with the increase in population density seen in many regions across Canada.”

B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron Skolrood told National Post he put in a request to the federal government for seven new judicial positions in September.

He cited “increasing volume and complexity of criminal cases” combined with ongoing delays in civil and family matters as the reason his court needs more magistrates.

The superior court of Newfoundland and Labrador said it has requested two new judges and New Brunswick’s said three.

Both Alberta’s and Saskatchewan’s superior courts confirmed they had also requested funding for more judges but did not say how many.

“Alberta’s population is increasing faster than any other province. The pressures on the system promise to intensify,” said Court of King’s Bench of Alberta executive legal counsel Darryl Ruether. He noted that the province has the fewest judges per capita of the country.

In the meantime, many courts said they are prioritizing criminal cases to the detriment of civil or family matters because of the 30-month trial deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada’s Jordan ruling in 2016.

“In many instances the Jordan ceilings for criminal cases require the Court to prioritize criminal matters at the expense of hearing civil and family cases, which can have devastating consequences to the parties,” the chief justices of the B.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeal said in a joint statement.

The head of the Federal Court — which hears administrative issues such as immigration appeals, military discipline, tax bill appeals and competition cases — said that the court needs two more full-time and two part-time judges to deal with an explosion of cases.

“The Federal Court’s workload has increased by approximately 500 per cent compared to the five-year average before the pandemic,” Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton wrote in a statement.

Through a spokesperson, Chief Justice of Canada Richard Wagner called on the federal government to adequately resource Canadian courts.

“Canadians deserve to have their legal matters heard without unnecessary delay, and that requires having enough judges in place and ensuring they are appointed in a timely manner,” Wagner’s chief of staff, Daniel Byma, said in a statement.

But not all chief justices believe that more judges are the main solution to the issues that plague Canadian courts.

Glenn Joyal, the top judge of the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench, told National Post in a statement that his court implemented a “significant and transformative” reform of its case scheduling system over the last 15 years.

The changes made his court more efficient and made service delivery faster, less expensive and less complex, he said.

“Not all crises in the court system, can or should be expected to be resolved with more judges without a corresponding self-examination as to where systemic and court improvements can take place,” read Joyal’s statement.

In the same vein, Ontario’s Superior Court has recently embarked on a historic reform of its civil procedure rules, a first in over four decades.

“The current state of our civil justice system requires wholesale reform,” Chief Justice Morawetz said during the September opening of the courts ceremony.

Justice Minister Sean Fraser told National Post last week that his office was reviewing each request for new judges but declined to say if there would be money to increase bench sizes in the upcoming Nov. 4 budget.

“We’re currently assessing the validity of the asks that we’ve received to ensure that we agree. When we complete that exercise, and the answer will vary between province and province, we will come to a conclusion,” he responded during a press conference.

In a separate statement, Department of Justice spokesperson Ian McLeod said the federal government had funded 116 new judicial positions across Canada since 2017. That includes money for 54 new judges in superior courts since the 2021 budget.

Courts have to submit a business case to the federal government to justify the increased complement.

But creating a new judge job in a superior or appellate court cannot be done with a wave of a magical budget wand by the federal government.

In fact, every new judicial position requires funding from both the federal and provincial governments.

Ottawa pays for a magistrate’s salary (roughly $415,000 in 2025), while each province covers the salary of their staff and overhead such as equipment, an office and courtrooms.

Since the size of most benches are set by provincial law, a province must generally amend its legislation or regulations to account for the new judges.

That can lead to situations like in Quebec where the province creates new positions that sit vacant because Ottawa hasn’t agreed to fund the additional judge salary.

“On average, each vacancy results in approximately 11 lost trial days per month, depriving the public of timely hearings,” Quebec Superior Court Chief Justice Marie-Anne Paquette said in a statement.

“Including the 6 unfilled additional positions, the total number of lost trial days rises to 165 per month, which represents a significant number of trials and hearings for the citizens we serve.”

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

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


A general view of the Honda CRV production line is shown during a tour of a Honda manufacturing plant in Alliston, Ont. on Wednesday, April 5, 2023.

OTTAWA — The upcoming federal budget will feature a broad new strategy to boost the performance of Canadian business, including measures to allow companies to write off their new machinery and other capital costs more aggressively, National Post has learned.

Government sources confirmed that the budget, to be unveiled next week, will take aim at Canada’s lagging productivity and competitiveness, while reducing the risk and uncertainty of corporate investment.

The new strategy, largely a response to Canada’s tariff battles with the United States and China, will include changes to the provisions for capital cost allowance (CCA). The CCA changes will allow businesses to be more aggressive in accounting for the depreciation of capital costs, such as the purchases of buildings, machinery, vehicles and other equipment.

Capital expenses affect many businesses and the budget changes will allow them to lower their costs and to improve competitiveness against foreign rivals, making Canada a better place to invest.

“A lot of what you’ll see in the budget speaks to that imperative,” a government source said. “You want to make Canada a destination for investment.”

The risk profile of many types of Canadian investments has changed since U.S. President Donald Trump launched a tariff war earlier this year against Canada and many other countries. Canada is also facing export tariffs from China and a slowing global economy.

Canadian business has been under even more competitive pressure since Trump’s so-called “one big, beautiful bill” introduced a number of provisions to reduce the costs of U.S. companies. Those changes included an “immediate expensing” provision that allows some capital investments to be depreciated immediately, instead of over a number of years.

Dan Kelly, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), said improving business productivity through accounting changes is important because it helps companies of all sizes in virtually all sectors without picking winners.

It’s also efficient, Kelly said, because it doesn’t add to the size of government. “It’s exactly what the doctor ordered.”

The federal budget’s efforts to reduce investment risk and improve competitiveness also marks another stark contrast between the Carney government and that of his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, who was widely viewed as unfriendly to Canadian business.

In the wake of the Trump tariffs, Carney’s responses have also included emphasizing trade diversification, using public procurement of housing, defence hardware and other purchases to buy Canadian, tax cuts, and major infrastructure projects designed to help Canadian companies export.

In what was billed as a pre-budget speech, Carney told a University of Ottawa audience last week that the government’s budget strategy will be “to catalyze unprecedented investments in Canada” over the next five years.

Canada’s “economic strategy needs to change dramatically” because the U.S. has changed its trade policies, he said, while adding that the government will make “generational investments” with the goal of building a stronger economy.

“Now is not the time to be cautious because fortune favours the bold.”

Tim Sargent, head of domestic policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank and a former high-ranking executive at the Department of Finance, said he suspects the government’s budget efforts to improve productivity through business accounting changes would include suspending scheduled changes to the Accelerated Investment Incentive (AII). Those scheduled changes, announced in 2018, would make Canadian businesses’ purchases of machinery, property and other capital goods more expensive because they wouldn’t be eligible to be written off as aggressively.

The upcoming budget, to be unveiled on Nov. 4, is expected to be one of the most important in recent decades. Carney’s emphasis on bold strategies and his lengthy list of priorities suggest that the government will make a series of expensive, long-term investments designed to set the Canadian economy up for future growth. The budget is also expected to forecast one of the largest deficits in Canadian history.

This budget will also be politically important beyond the fact that it will set out the government’s plans for what’s left of this fiscal year. The governing Liberals are three seats short of the 172 needed to form a majority. That means the government’s budget bill will need either support from three opposition MPs, or for at least five MPs to abstain.

If neither of those things happen, the bill would fall, likely prompting another federal election. Budget bills are considered matters of confidence, which means that the government has lost Parliament’s confidence if they are not passed.

Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon has confirmed that the Carney government would fall if the budget bill is not passed.

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.


Federal Energy Minister Tim Hodgson: “Wanting Albertans to feel like they have a strong place in Canada is really important to me.”

OTTAWA — When Mark Carney was first campaigning for the job of Liberal leader and, ultimately, prime minister, he cast himself as a political outsider.

After winning the job, Carney recruited another political outsider to join his ranks: Energy Minister Tim Hodgson.

Hodgson and Carney go way back. The prime minister tapped Hodgson to serve as his special advisor when he was appointed governor of the Bank of Canada. A former investment banker, Hodgson joined the Liberals as a political newbie and was soon handed the file of natural resources. It comes at a time when the prime minister has promised to build big in Canada, with a special eye towards developing its resources, from clean to conventional energy.

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson sat down with National Post to discuss his file.

This is a portion of a longer interview and has been edited for length and clarity.

The problem with government

National Post:

What’s been your diagnosis of why government works the way it does? I think there’s an expectation, or at least a signal the government has sent, and you’re no small part of that, that you want it to work faster, maybe a bit more like the private sector. What has, in your mind, since you’ve been six months working inside of government, what has been the biggest barrier (that) kind of stands in the way of why we haven’t been able to do that?

Hodgson:

I think there’s a risk aversion in government that causes government to want to move slowly, to consider all the possible risks in every scenario. And while I think there is merit in doing that, sometimes, certainly you find in the private sector, that you need to take risks to get rewards. And I think that balance in government probably got, as the prime minister would say, we were really good at asking, if not, how. I think what we’re trying to do is shift it from — we are in, as the prime minister calls it, a hinge moment. You’re in a moment of rupture in the global trading order, and that level of risk aversion doesn’t serve us well.

National Post:

Have you found moments where you’ve encountered that risk aversion within government, say in the public service, or in your department, where you’ve had to kind of push back a little bit, or challenge the conventional thinking, perhaps?

Hodgson:

Look, I think the civil service is very good at pointing out, “these are the risks of this, this.” And it’s like, “yeah, but here are the rewards.” In the private sector, you have to take risks to get the rewards. Oftentimes the risks are … the risks are very politically obvious. The rewards are diverse to all Canadians. So we have to keep recognizing that, yes, there are political risks in taking decisions, but those rewards go to all Canadians, and that’s ultimately our job is to serve all Canadians. So, don’t over-index on risk. Consider the risks carefully, but also make sure you’re focusing on what are the rewards. What are the rewards for all Canadians? And sometimes we have to take those political risks.

What about Alberta’s pipeline pitch?

National Post:

What do you make of the arguments that you’ve heard from the premiers and perhaps others in the oil patch as, ‘well scrap it, and proponents will come?’ Scrap it being Bill (C-69), Bill C-48 —scrap it, and the proponents will come for this pipeline?

Hodgson:

I’ve said this publicly many times. Can you imagine an OECD country that rips up its environmental legislation and does not replace it with something new? I can’t. So let’s talk about how long it takes to get that new legislation passed, and then let’s talk about how long it’s going to take, as every stakeholder wants to litigate it, every clause with the Supreme Court. And let’s talk about the dialogue that’s going to need to go on with Indigenous Peoples … I think that is a formula for delay. I think that is a formula for wasting time when we don’t have time. Our bill, the Building Canada Act, provides a mechanism to get through all this. We think it’s a much more thoughtful way of doing this.

National Post:

Having said that, with Bill C-5 now law, do you still see a need, specifically on the Impact Assessment Act,  which Bill C-5, the law touches? Do you still see a need to revisit that legislation at some point, if not now, at some point in this mandate?

Hodgson:

We are always looking at ways to make things better. I’ll give you (an) … example, the one project, one review, which we’re working on with each of the provinces right now, which will substantially reduce the regulatory burdens. And I would point out, it seems to be lost on a lot of folks: We have one project, one review with British Columbia right now. They approved the Ksi Lisims project at four o’clock on a Monday. The federal government approved it at 4:30.

National Post:

But specifically on the Impact Assessment Act, do you still see a need?

Hodgson:

That’s (Environment) Minister (Julie) Dabrusin’s area. I think the prime minister and Minister Dabrusin have been working very hard on their climate competitive strategy. They’ve said that will come out as part of the budget.”

Alberta separation and energy

National Post:

How much does the separation debate playing out in Alberta factor into government decision-making when it comes to energy projects?

Hodsgon:

(Pause) I’m hesitating because I think keeping this country together is the most important thing we can do. It’s the greatest country in the world. We are stronger together than we are apart. As somebody who grew up in the West and my mother’s family is all from Alberta, wanting Albertans to feel like they have a strong place in Canada is really important to me. I believe that if we can show all Canadians that we can develop our energy in a responsible way, in an environmentally responsible way, with the support of First Nations, we can do that. We can show Albertans there is a  strong place for them in Canada.

National Post:

But does the separation debate factor into decision-making?

Hodsgon:

We listen to all Canadians. I listen to Canadians in Prince Edward Island. I listen to Canadians in British Columbia. I listen to Canadians in Alberta. That’s why I went there early on. It’s why I stopped in Saskatchewan first. You know, as somebody from the West, I remember saying, ‘I’m not flying over Saskatchewan.’ So, do we listen to Canadians? Yeah, we listen to Canadians always, and we fully understand the debate that’s going on.

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.


Warning signage for suspected cases of measles is seen outside the main entrance of Woodstock General Hospital in Woodstock, Ont. in May of 2025. After a year of sustained community transmission of measles in Canada, the country is on the verge of losing its measles elimination status.

Canada is on the verge of losing the measles-elimination status it has held since 1998.

The World Health Organization’s definition of measles elimination requires transmission of the disease to stop within a 12-month period. Canada will

cross that transmission threshold

at the end of this month, following from an outbreak that started in October 2024.

Canada has tallied more than 5,000 cases this year, more than twice the amount of the cases recorded in the past 25 years combined.

As a result, this November, the

Pan American Health Organization

, a regional office of the World Health Organization office, will convene the annual meeting of its Measles and Rubella Elimination Regional Monitoring and Re-Verification Commission

to determine Canada’s status

.

How dangerous is measles?

Measles is a human-only viral infection transmitted by respiratory droplets. It is considered one of the world’s most contagious infectious diseases, as one contagious person can infect 12-18 others. Approximately 40 per cent of people who contract measles are hospitalized, and for some it can be fatal, notably for children who unvaccinated.

Before the vaccine was available, epidemics were frequent, and

2.6 million lives were lost each year.

How does the incidence in Canada compare to the U.S.?

In the United States, a total of 44 outbreaks and 1,596 cases have been reported in 2025, much fewer than Canada, but it’s still a five-fold jump over the 285 cases the U.S. reported last year.

While the original 2024 outbreaks (

Texas

in the U.S.,

New Brunswick

and

Ontario

in Canada) have been declared over, others states and provinces are still working to either stabilize outbreaks or manage recent flare-ups.

The vaccination rates for both countries have fallen below the

95 per cent threshold needed to prevent outbreaks

, according to BlueDot,

a website providing international data about infectious diseases, founded by Dr. Kamran Khan, a practising infectious disease physician and a professor of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Toronto.

The overwhelming majority (95 per cent) of Canada’s cases, says BlueDot, have been among people who were unvaccinated, under-vaccinated or have an unknown vaccination status.

What about the rest of the world?

On a global scale, the

incidence of measles largely coincides with low vaccination rates

. Countries with high vaccination coverage, such as China, Norway, Sri Lanka and Turkey, have low incidence of measles. Countries with low vaccine coverage, including Cambodia, Mexico, Nigeria, and Romania, have high incidence of the disease.

How did international travel play a role in Canada’s latest outbreak?

The

Public Health Agency of Canada cited international travel

as the initial

source of the outbreak

that began a year ago. Canada has since had had thousands of cases across 10 jurisdictions, including hundreds of hospitalizations and two deaths in infants who were born prematurely with infections contracted before birth.

Declining vaccination rates, say

health authorities

, often due to vaccine hesitancy and disruption of routine immunizations during the COVID-19 pandemic, have also played a significant role in the resurgence.

What role does the vaccine play in measles incidence?

Most new cases have been in communities with lower vaccine uptake.
Provinces such as Alberta, have experienced sharp declines in childhood vaccination
and more than triple per capita measles case rates compared to other provinces.

About

72 per cent of Albertan children

had their second dose of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine by age 7 as of 2024, down from about 82 per cent in 2019, according to provincial data. Alberta identified almost 2,000 measles cases since March, giving it the country’s highest case rate per capita.

Ontario’s population is more than triple Alberta’s. It has reported 2,375 cases as of early October. Ontario declared its outbreak over on October 6, after no new cases were reported in 46 days.

Meanwhile, Ontario has also seen vaccination rates slip, with measles inoculations down to 70.4 per cent for children by age 7 in 2024 from 86.1 per cent in 2020.

What’s next for Canada’s status?

Public health authorities stress that restoring high vaccination rates is key to regaining measles elimination and preventing measles from becoming endemic again.

“This wouldn’t be the first time a country has lost, or nearly lost, its measles-free status,” says Dr. Mariana Torres Portillo, BlueDot’s head of surveillance. 

Several countries have managed to regain control after significant outbreaks, says Dr. Torres Portillo, adding some, such as Morroco, Brazil and Hong Kong have successfully restored their measles-free status.
“Hope is not lost. What we want to avoid now is seeing measles become endemic again in the Americas, and the key is to increase vaccine coverage.”

All of the World Health Organization’s regions have

committed to eliminate measles

by 2030.

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.


Bailey McCourt in an undated photo. Kelowna RCMP say she and another woman were assaulted in an attack on July 4. She later died of her injuries, and her estranged husband James Plover has been charged with second-degree murder.

OTTAWA — The aunt of a Kelowna, B.C., woman killed in an intimate partner violence case is set to discuss a bill aimed at addressing such violence with Justice Minister Sean Fraser on Wednesday.

Debbie Henderson, whose late niece, Bailey McCourt, was bludgeoned with a hammer in a downtown Kelowna lot earlier this year, appeared in Ottawa on Tuesday, joined by Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre.

Henderson implored the federal government to pass Bill C-225 – also known as Bailey’s Law – a private member’s bill put forward by Conservative MP Frank Caputo.

Henderson, ahead of her meeting with Fraser, said she “hopes he listens to the cries of our family and that we have a productive conversation.”

The bill, if passed, would establish GPS monitoring and a registry for convicted domestic offenders. It would also automatically make the murder of an intimate partner a first-degree crime.

“It needs to be passed quickly. There’s no need to wait. The next person could be you or it could be one of your family members, and we don’t want to see any other family member go through the horror that our family has gone through,” said Henderson.

Henderson said “all parties should be on board” in fast-tracking the bill she believes “sets partisanship aside.”

“I feel this bill is a non-partisan bill. It’s a human issue, it’s directly related to saving lives and justice for victims,” Henderson told media outside the House of Commons.

Henderson said the Liberal government’s recently introduced bail reform legislation has so far failed to address the urgency and scale of intimate partner violence.

While Fraser said B.C.’s lobbying on the McCourt case influenced several aspects of the government’s legislation, Premier David Eby acknowledged yesterday the law stops short of meeting all the family’s and the province’s goals. He said B.C. will continue to advocate for the McCourt family.

Poilievre told media that his party is still evaluating the bail reform legislation, but his focus Tuesday was on Bailey’s Law.

“The time to move is now. The time to set partisanship aside is now,” said Poilievre.

Caputo, appearing alongside Henderson and Poilievre, echoed this view.

He said he expects to achieve unanimous support for the bill.

“We have the victim’s family, and we have Premier Eby saying pass this law,” said Caputo. “This bill should move, and it should move fast.”

“The time to address this was yesterday. It was before July 4, when Bailey was killed. We have to move. We have to listen to Canadians. If we, as legislators, are not prepared to listen to Canadians and move rapidly, then why are we here?”

Henderson said her family will hold onto the hope that Bill C-225 will pass until she sees otherwise.

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.


Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons Steven MacKinnon speaks to reporters ahead of a cabinet meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025.

OTTAWA — With one week to go before Mark Carney’s government tables its first budget with no clear partner in sight, the Liberals and opposition parties are pointing fingers at each other in an attempt to shift the blame in case of a snap election.

The minority Liberals have 169 seats — just three seats shy of a majority — which means that they need to find at least three MPs from the opposition benches to either support their budget or abstain to ensure that they survive the confidence vote on the budget.

If they don’t, Canadians could be headed to the polls during the Christmas season.

That is exactly the scenario that Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon has been threatening could happen in televised interviews over the weekend, claiming that his government does not currently have enough votes to pass the federal budget.

“Of course, they don’t have the numbers yet,” said Lori Turnbull, professor in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University, in an interview. “Surely, they can’t expect the opposition parties to say they’re going to support (the budget) when they haven’t seen it.”

The budget will be tabled by Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne on Nov. 4 and MPs are expected to debate a Conservative amendment and Bloc Québécois subamendment to the budget before they leave for Remembrance Day break week.

That means that the first confidence vote on the budget could happen as early as mid-November, when MPs return to Ottawa.

“Budget 2025 is about meeting this hinge moment, building a stronger economy where everyone has a chance to get ahead, and empowering Canadians with new opportunities, better careers, and a lower cost of living,” said John Fragos, Champagne’s spokesman.

“There is no appetite for political games at this hinge moment,” he insisted.

On Tuesday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre declined to say if his party would be willing to bring down the government over the budget and spark an early election.

“Our message to the Liberals is that we want an affordable budget for an affordable Canada. We want the government to bring down the cost of its spending so we can bring down the cost of living,” Poilievre said during a press conference in Ottawa.

“So, it will be up to them. If they’re going to increase the cost of living for Canadians again with more inflationary spending, then Canadians will judge them accordingly.”

Poilievre also declined to say, when pressed by another reporter, if he and every one of his 143 MPs would be sitting in the House of Commons during the vote on the budget.

The opposition leader has been asking for the government to keep the deficit under the $42 billion mark and to scrap “hidden taxes” on food, which the Liberals deny exist.

Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet previously said his party would not be supporting the budget before his party presented a series of six “non-negotiable” demands that include higher Old Age Security transfers to seniors aged 65-74.

“It is the exclusive responsibility of the Liberals to find someone with whom (they can) reach an agreement in order to have their budget eventually adopted,” he said Tuesday.

“I believe that communication channels are still open.”

There are also seven NDP MPs and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to turn to.

May told reporters on Monday that she’s made it “very clear” to the government that she would not vote for a budget that includes “fossil fuel subsidies.”

“That’s my one condition. Otherwise, I haven’t read the budget yet, so I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote,” she said.

An NDP source said the party has not presented a “shopping list” of demands of its own, nor will it come to a decision about the budget before it is tabled next week.

However, observers have pointed out it is unlikely that the NDP would support an “austerity” budget with cuts to the public service.

Carney met with all four party leaders earlier this month, and MacKinnon and Champagne have been having ongoing talks with representatives of all parties.

However, the NDP source said there has not been a “flurry of activity” from the government to convince opposition parties to support its budget until now. They described the ongoing talks with various parties, not as negotiations, but as “pro forma” discussions.

Former Liberal minister Marc Miller candidly admitted that things were easier when Trudeau’s minority government had a deal with the NDP, but he said “each vote was a negotiation” with higher stakes each time and the process “probably gave too much power” to the NDP caucus.

May said that there are options for the government to ensure that it doesn’t fall, whether it would be negotiating a new confidence and supply agreement with an opposition party or simply delaying the vote on the budget to make sure there are enough votes to pass it.

“We’re in a minority Parliament. There is no one, all powerful player here. We have to work together. That’s a good thing for democracy.”

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.


NDP leadership candidates, left-to-right: Tanille Johnston, Avi Lewis, Tony McQuail, Heather McPherson, Rob Ashton and President of the Canadian Labour Congress Bea Bruske pose for a family photo ahead of the NDP Leadership forum in Ottawa on Oct. 22.

OTTAWA — Federal NDP leadership candidates are backing Alberta’s spurned labour unions after the Alberta government used the notwithstanding clause to force striking teachers back to the classroom. 

Edmonton MP Heather McPherson took to social media shortly after the back-to-work bill was tabled on Monday night, calling it an “unprecedented attack on workers” and “direct assault on our democracy.”

The Alberta government bill

, passed early Tuesday morning, used the notwithstanding clause to lock in a government-proposed deal over the objections of teachers, paving the way for classes to resume this week. This marks the first time that the constitutional provision, which allows legislatures to temporarily suspend certain rights, has been invoked in an Alberta law.

The bill also bypassed Alberta’s Bill of Rights and Human Rights Act.

McPherson said

in a video message

that the legislation sets a “dangerous precedent” for workers across Canada and called on all concerned Canadians to make their objections known.

“If we don’t stand up now, that line (Alberta Premier) Danielle Smith has crossed, that line will keep moving,” said McPherson.

McPherson has had her own skin in the game with a son in grade 12, one of roughly 750,000 students across the province impacted by the three-week-long teachers’ strike.

She told reporters in Ottawa last week that she fully supported the striking teachers and put any loss to her son’s education “solely on the shoulders of Danielle Smith.”

Fellow NDP leadership hopeful Rob Ashton was quick to follow McPherson’s lead, calling the Alberta back-to-work legislation “shameful”

in a statement released

on Tuesday.

“This isn’t just a provincial issue, and this isn’t just about teachers. It’s about every worker in this country. It’s about our families and our future,” said Ashton.

Ashton, who is also president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, promised to help his “union family in Alberta” fight back against the legislation.

“Workers have fought back before, and we have won. And make no mistake, we will win again,” said Ashton.

A third candidate, filmmaker and activist Avi Lewis, expressed his support for the Alberta Teachers’ Association and Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) President Gil McGowan

in a social media post

.

McGowan called the Smith government’s use of the notwithstanding clause to end the teachers’ strike

a declaration of war

on Canadian workers, and says he’ll work with partners across the country to unleash an “unprecedented response.”

He invoked the memory of past general strikes when musing about possible responses on Monday.

“The stakes are at least as high now as they were when our forebears made the decision to participate in things like the (Winnipeg) General Strike of 1919,” McGowan told reporters outside Alberta’s legislature.

McGowan’s AFL is one of several labour unions digging in for a no-holds-barred fight with Alberta’s government.

The executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress will be holding an emergency meeting on the situation in Alberta on Tuesday evening, according to multiple sources.

Former NDP strategist Erin Morrison, currently a vice-president at Texture Communication, said that the prospect of an extended Alberta-wide labour disruption raises the stakes for both McPherson and Ashton.

“No doubt, both will stand with teachers as Danielle Smith attacks their right to strike

— but can Ashton use this as a leadership moment? Or will McPherson rise when all eyes are set on her home province?” said Morrison.

Morrison also said the focus on Alberta could further squeeze Lewis out of the picture.

“Although it’s too early to count anyone out, my read of the membership is that it’s shaking out to be a contest between Ashton and McPherson,” said Morrison.

National Post

rmohamed@postmedia.com

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


An analysis of polling data by CNN indicates that Canada enjoys more popularity among Americans than does U.S. President Donald Trump.

While the White House and loyal members of his administration will swear to Donald Trump’s popularity among the American people, a CNN analysis of polling data claims that U.S. citizens actually like Canada more.

Alongside host Sara Sidner on Monday, chief data analyst Harry Enten said the U.S. president has a net popularity rating of -10, whereas Canada’s is at +49, a difference of nearly 60 points.

“When you pick on Canada as the United States president, you are picking on a country that the American people adore,” Enten said.

“Pretty much every single time, among most Americans, Americans will choose Canada over Donald Trump.”

The last U.S. president to record a rating higher than Canada’s current, he added, was George W. Bush in the early 2000s.

To come up with his figures, Enten relied on his own aggregation of data from a pair of 2025 Pew Research Centre surveys that explored Americans’ net favourable opinion of Canada and Trump’s net approval rating.

The first

, released in June and based on polling of 3,605 Americans conducted in the spring, found that 74 percent held favourable views of Canada, while 25 percent viewed the country unfavourably. The rest had no opinion or refused to answer.

(Canadians were also polled and 64 per cent reported an unfavourable view of the U.S., up 23 points since the same time in 2024 and eclipsing the previous highwater mark of 62 per cent from 2020 when Trump was last in office. Both are the highest percentages since data was first recorded in 2002.)

The second

was an early Aug. 14 survey of 3,554 Americans that put Trump’s approval rating at 38 per cent and his disapproval at 60.

 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.

The roughly three-minute segment began with Sidner asking the data specialist about U.S. sentiment towards the Trump administration’s use of tariffs on goods from other countries.

Citing data from a pair of CBS News surveys carried out by YouGov, Enten said, “Americans have moved more against tariffs than any other major Trump policy that he’s been pushing during the second term.”

Enten, using

a survey of 2,232 Americans last November

, noted 52 per cent favoured the idea of tariffs on imported goods. That number has since fallen to 40 per cent, he reported.

He was referencing

a 2,441-person survey this October

in which 60 per cent said the Trump administration is too focused on tariffs.

“If I were advising President Donald John Trump when it comes to his policies, I’d say step off the tariffs, at least from a political point of view, because the bottom line is it doesn’t sell with the American people,” Enten said.

 A Florida billboard displays a message reading ‘tariffs are a tax on your grocery bill’. The Canadian government placed anti-tariff billboards in several American cities to inform Americans of the economic impact of tariffs.

Enten also remarked that only 36 per cent of Americans support new tariffs on Canada, but that figure comes from

an April poll

conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Reuters.

His analysis comes as Canada-U.S. trade relations are particularly fraught in the wake of an Ontario anti-tariff ad campaign that ultimately led to Trump calling off negotiations with Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ottawa. He also called for an additional 10 per cent tariff on Canadian imports, though no further details have been released regarding the timing or the affected goods.

Enten also addressed how Canadian attitudes towards the U.S. have shifted over the past two years, using data from Angus Reid surveys asking respondents whether they see the neighbouring country as a friend or foe.

In October 2023

, just seven per cent of 1,622 Canadian adults polled would have advised Ottawa to approach the U.S. as an enemy or potential threat. Most (48 per cent) viewed the nation under former president Joe Biden as a valued partner.

A similar survey of

1,700 this October

, however, found 46 per cent are now likely to view the U.S. as an enemy or potential threat, and a further 24 per cent urged the federal government to tread cautiously.

National Post has contacted CNN for more information regarding Enten’s aggregate.

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.


Leader of the Conservative Party Pierre Poilievre speaks in the Foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025.

OTTAWA

— Opposition Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said on Tuesday that Prime Minister Mark Carney “approved” Ontario’s anti-tariff ads, which U.S. President Donald Trump blamed as the reason for ending trade talks with Canada. 

It came the day after Ontario Premier Doug Ford told reporters that Carney and his chief of staff, Marc-Andre Blanchard, were shown the ads before they aired.

Poilievre, who has been intensifying his criticism of Carney over Canada not yet securing a deal with Trump, says the prime minister must now “come clean.”

“He claims he was on the verge, once again, claims that he was on the verge of getting a deal,” the Conservative leader told reporters.

“Then he approved the ad, and then he blamed the ad for the fact that there is no deal.”

Poilievre did not directly answer whether Ford ought to have pulled the ads sooner but instead said that premiers were “stepping up to fill the void” left by Carney, not yet securing a deal to see U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum lifted, or at least lessened.

Carney, who is currently in the middle of a nine-day trip to Asia, was scheduled to leave Canada as Trump posted on Truth Social late last week that he was ending trade talks with Canada, citing ire over the ads taken out by Ford’s government.

The Prime Minister’s Office has not yet responded to a request for comment. But CBC News, citing a senior federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the federal government was not involved in producing or distributing the ads, according to the broadcaster.

Ford’s government began running the ad campaign, which featured a 30-second and 60-second version, two weeks ago, to the tune of $75 million.

They had been playing during the

Major League Baseball championship series and

the 

Blue Jays’ American League championship, which is attracting strong viewership

The ads included audio from a radio address by former U.S. president Ronald Reagan in 1987, saying, “High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens. Markets shrink and collapse. Businesses and industries shut down and millions of people lose their jobs.”

In Trump’s posts about the ads, he included a statement from the

Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation (and) Institute, which directed users to listen to the former president’s full remarks from the 1987 speech, as several sentences were excluded from the excerpt Ontario ultimately used for its ads.  

The U.S. president has since said he does not plan to meet with Carney for a “long time,” while the Canadian prime minister has said Canada stands ready to resume negotiations and was close to reaching a deal before Trump ended talks.

Ford announced last week that Ontario was pulling the ads at Carney’s request, but not before they ran during two World Series games last weekend.

The premier has summarized the backlash over the ads by saying “mission accomplished,” given the amount of discussion it has generated south of the border.

Ford has said it was never his intention to “

poke the president in the eye,” but wanted to send a message to Americans about the impacts of the ongoing Canada-U.S. trade war, which was launched when Trump began hitting Canadian goods with tariffs. 

The Ontario premier has also spoken out about how the trade deal Canada was discussing focused on the 50 per cent U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum and appeared not to mention the auto sector.

Carney’s government said it was focused on dealing with steel, aluminum and energy in the current trade talks.

British Columbia NDP Premier David Eby said his province intends to move ahead with its own set of ads targeting Americans over the impact of U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber, which Trump recently increased by 10 per cent.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said she was pleased to see Ontario remove its ads and said it was important to be “

mindful that the U.S. administration is unpredictable.”

National Post

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


An arriving passenger uses a biometric scanner at George H.W. Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.

New Department of Homeland Security regulations in the United States will, beginning Dec. 26, require all non-citizens (including Canadians)

to be photographed

while entering or leaving the country.

The initiative is intended to build a comprehensive biometric data collection aimed at improving identity verification, combatting visa overstays and reducing passport fraud. The regulations note: “The best tool to combat passport fraud is to utilize the digital photos contained in e-passports to biometrically verify that a person who presents a travel document is the true bearer of that document.”

This is hardly the first or most intrusive measure when it comes to collection of biometric data at border crossings. Here’s what to know.

What is biometric data?

From the Greek words for “life” and “measure,”

biometrics

basically refers to any measurement that sets one person apart from another — fingerprints, DNA, retina, even something as simple as height and weight. The word was first used in the late 19th century but has become much more common since the 1990s.

Are the U.S. rules a new measure?

The specifics are new, but the U.S. (and a lot of other countries) have been engaged in this kind of information gathering for decades.

For instance, the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (or 

US-VISIT

) was implemented in 2003 and required visitors who required a visa to submit to the collection of biometric data. However, the program has been expanded in the years since to include almost all visitors.

Similarly, the

NEXUS program

between Canada and the U.S. uses retina scans, fingerprints and, more recently,

facial recognition

to identify frequent cross-border travellers between the two countries. That program

started in 2000

with just a few hundred participants, but it has grown widely since.

 A visitor to the United States goes through the US-VISIT biometric entry procedure at a land crossing in Washington in 2004.

What is Canada doing?

In addition to being part of NEXUS, Canada has its own

biometric information gathering

systems. For instance, newcomers to Canada must submit a photograph and fingerprints (and a fee of $85) if they are applying for temporary or permanent residence, to extend a stay on a visa, or to claim refugee or asylum status.

There are exceptions, including those under the age of 14 or over 79. Notably, U.S. tourists entering Canada do not need to provide biometric information. The government of Canada

has a website

where visitors can determine if they are exempt.

Who else is doing it?

It’s easier to ask who isn’t doing it. Almost every country on Earth collects some form of biometric data on visitors, and a large number gather data from those leaving as well as arriving.

In France, for instance, the

PARAFE

(or Passage Automatisé Rapide Aux Frontières Extérieures) lets citizens from Canada and many other countries use a “PARAFE airlock” to enter and exit the country. This is because Canadian passports contain biometric data in the form of an embedded chip, with the system reads and compares to the passport holder.

Canada has had such passports since 2013. The government notes that the only data stored on the chip is an

electronic version

of the photo that also appears on the passport.

Just this month, the European Union began using its new biometric entry/exit system (EES) for all arriving travellers from outside the

“Schengen area”

; a fancy term for the nations of the European Union, minus Ireland and Cyprus, but including Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Iceland. Canadians and others will need to provide fingerprints and photos

as the system takes effect

.

Also, Britain implemented an electronic travel authorization document for non-visa tourists (including Canadians) at the beginning of this year. Application requires a photograph, as well as a fee of 16 pounds, equivalent to about $30.

 For tourists fond of collecting physical passport stamps, the experience will be a thing of the past after nations across the European Union switch to biometric and electronic border systems.

Is the collection of biometric data mandatory?

Effectively, yes. You don’t need to provide it to nations that require it. But then they don’t need

to let you in

either. So if you want (or need) to travel to a country that demands it, there’s no way around it.

Are there issues with some countries?

A

2021 survey

by U.K.-based cyber security company Comparitech of countries’ use of biometric data at borders and elsewhere ranked China as the worst. It noted that the country has

widespread and invasive use of facial recognition technology in CCTV cameras, in part to track and monitor the country’s Muslim and Uighur minorities.

It also noted “

a concerning lack of regard for the privacy of people’s biometric data,” and raised concerns about “severe and invasive” collection of data.

However, it’s worth noting that China has recently

exempted Canadian visitors

from providing fingerprints when applying for a visa or entering the country — at least until the end of this year.

Also high on that list of countries, tied for fourth-worst alongside

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Uganda, was the United States.

“Most concerning is its lack of a specific law to protect citizens’ biometrics,” the study noted. “While there is a handful of state laws that protect state residents’ biometrics …
this does leave many U.S. citizens’ biometrics exposed as there is no federal law in place. And this is despite the widespread and growing use of facial recognition in public places, biometrics within the workplace, and fingerprints for visas.”

At the other end of the scale was

Turkmenistan, although the study noted that this was likely due to lack of development within the country: “For example, no known biometric database exists and the use of CCTV with facial recognition isn’t known.”

 More than just borders: Facial recognition for fans entry into the Allianz Parque stadium in Sao Paulo, Brazil on October 11, 2025.

Should travellers be worried?

Maybe. Some groups, such as the Ottawa-based International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group,

have raised fears

that data could be stolen, or that “mission creep” could result in biometrics originally taken for border-crossing purposes to be used more broadly, such as warrantless mass surveillance of citizens.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol spokesperson Jessica Turner recently

told Radio-Canada

: “CBP is committed to its privacy obligations and has taken steps to safeguard the privacy of all travellers.” And in any case, it again comes down to whether one wants to follow another country’s rules to visit, or stay home.

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.