LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

A man walks through the snow towards residential houses in Nuuk,the capital of Greenland.  Most Canadians reject the idea of the United States taking over Greenland, according to a new national survey commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies.

Most Canadians reject the idea of the United States taking over Greenland, according to a new national poll.

The Leger survey, which was commissioned by the

Association for Canadian Studies,

found that 61 per cent of Canadians think the federal government should protest a U.S. takeover. The poll also found that 71 per cent of Canadians think C

anada should be
concerned
about U.S. President Donald Trump’s
 
attempts to
acquire
Greenland from Denmark. Only 13 per cent said should not be concerned.

“There is a fairly robust consensus amongst Canadians that we will be affected negatively by a U.S. takeover of Greenland and to a significant degree those who are concerned want our politicians to let the U.S. know about it and do so unambiguously,” said Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies.

The poll was conducted between Jan. 16 and 18, before Trump announced on social media that he had “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region,” after his speech at the World Economic Forum on Tuesday.

“This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations.”

Canada is geographically much closer to Greenland than the U.S., Jedwab noted, with the two countries separated by only about 26 kilometres across the Nares Strait, near Ellesmere Island. Canada and Denmark also share a land border on Hans Island, a small,

uninhabited island that is located between Canada’s Ellesmere Island and Greenland.

A majority of Canadians in every province across the country were concerned about Trump’s plans for Greenland, ranging from 67 per cent in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to 76 per cent in Atlantic Canada. Canadians 55 years of age and older were most concerned (84 per cent), while those aged 18 to 34 were less concerned (56 per cent).

Jedwab explained the view held by younger Canadians as not so much “attributable to support for a U.S. takeover (as) related to less awareness or interest in the issue.”

 Canada’s Ellesmere Island (pictured) is just 26 kilometres from Greenland. The close proxiity has many Canadians concerned about U.S. designs on it.

Similarly, 84 per cent of Canadians in the older age bracket said a U.S. take over would be detrimental for Canada, while only 47 per cent of younger Canadians agreed. Among all Canadians, 61 per cent said they believe a

U.S.
takeover of
Greenland will
negatively
affect
Canada.

Concern across Canada ranged from 66 per cent of B.C. residents to 57 per cent of Albertans.

While 61 per cent of Canadians think the federal government should protest a U.S. takeover, among Canadians 55 and over that number jumps to 72 per cent, and it drops to 47 per cent among Canadians aged 18 to 34.

Overall, 24 per cent of survey respondents weren’t sure Canada should speak up.

The numbers might be mixed because “those who prefer Canada stay low do nonetheless feel that Canada will be negatively affected,” Jedwab said. “They’re probably more concerned with the damage a government protest against U.S. actions in Greenland will adversely affect relations with our neighbour.”

However, he added, the consensus for “speaking up is too wide for our government to overlook, and we’ll have to see how the issue evolves to determine whether there is any shift in public opinion.”

The online Leger survey was conducted among 1,527 respondents in Canada. A margin of error cannot be associated with a non-probability sample in a panel survey for comparison purposes. A probability sample of 1,527 respondents would have a margin of error of plus or minue 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

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


Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre speaks at a news conference in Calgary, on Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2025.

OTTAWA

— It’s weeks into a new year and U.S. President Donald Trump is everywhere, again.

Not just everywhere, but on stage at a gathering of world elites, where he reinforce to the crowd of political leaders and the investor class that had descended on the Swiss town of Davos of his desires to make Greenland his own.

He also used his World Economic Forum appearance on Wednesday to fire a missive at Prime Minister Mark Carney, warning that Canada ought to act “grateful” for its U.S. neighbour.

Although Carney never spoke the president’s name, he urged middle powers to call out “hegemons” and unite in recognition that the rules-based order they had for so long counted on was no more.

With applause for the prime minister’s words echoing at home so does a question for Opposition Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre: how should he respond?

The question of how to confront Trump and Canada’s relationship to the U.S. and the rest of the world has dogged Poilievre for the past year, with signs emerging that the Canadian electorate’s mood was shifting, particularly among those 55 and older, by this time last year.

Although a general election does not appear imminent, Poilievre faces a vote next week on his leadership of the Conservatives, a contest many party faithful expect he will easily pass following his party’s 2025 election loss, after a campaign that was largely waged on the very set of issues that continue to loom today.

For Ben Woodfinden, his former director of communications, how to respond comes down to recognizing the moment as current reality, acknowledging also that Canadians’ attention on Trump ebbs and flows.

“The reality is the next election is probably going to be in the next three years, so there’s a very good chance that Trump is still president whenever the next election takes place,” he said.

“I think confronting that reality that (Trump’s) not just going to go away, it’s unpleasant, and it’s less than ideal, but I think it is reality.”

Woodfinden says Conservatives should not veer from their winning set of issues, but must find a way to showcase that Poilievre not only cares about the cost of living, but paint him to be a leader Canadians can imagine on a world stage.

“It’s not about making that the only thing they talk about, but I do think it’s something that he needs to try and demonstrate.”

Poilievre’s response to speech has so far come in the form of a post on X, where he circulated a post penned by Calgary MP Michelle Rempel Garner, where she challenged the prime minister to match his words about “the hard realities of a fractured geopolitical system,” with action that, as she wrote, was “conspicuously lacking from Mr. Carney’s speech.”

From delivering on plans to get new natural resource projects off the ground to arming Canada’s military with more personnel and equipment, to eliminating regulatory burdens and showing a path to new trade deals, the MP underscored the need for clear timelines on Carney’s promises, while pointing to the Liberals’ record over the past decade as as only having made things worse.

“The most patriotic Canadian action His Majesty’s Local Opposition can take right now is to hold Prime Minister (Mark) Carney to account for delivering real results, while advancing our own clear, concrete measures to lift Canada out of a decade of depending dependency.”

Poilievre’s office did not respond to interview requests on Wednesday. Before Carney spoke, a spokesman in Poilievre’s office circulated a statement that panned the prime minister’s trip as an “

unneeded indulgence.” 

“His trip will not resolve a single tariff or solve the steadily rising cost of food at home,” Sam Lilley wrote.  

From the time he ran for party leadership until last year’s election, Poilievre has earned cheers from rally-goers and other supporters for lambasting the World Economic Forum as a summit of out-of-touch, private-jet flying elites who pay no mind to the struggles of everyday people, pledging to “ban” any future ministers from any involvement.

When asked whether Poilievre’s position remains the same, and if he would boycott the event himself should he one day become prime minister, his office did not respond.

Ginny Roth, who worked as his communications director during the 2022 leadership race, said what Poilievre had to say about the gathering from many months ago still rings true and can resonate.

She said “a huge opening” exists to counter what she called the “symbolic gestures” that often come from leaders at the gathering by driving home issues like the state of Canada’s military capacity as a NATO member.

Roth sees an opportunity for Conservatives to turn their attention to foreign policy by looking at the approach taken the last time the party was in power under former prime minister Stephen Harper and updating it to fit the circumstances of 2026.

Some voters want to see a “full picture”

At the same time, she said, the party should not deviate from the household finance issues that Poilievre’s voter coalition remains focused on.

Roth said Poilievre’s “passion” over recent years has been on those struggles with foreign policy, “further down the list.”

“But I also think he wants to be prime minister, and he understands, and he served in a government where foreign policy was a matter of concern and interest,” Roth said.

Jamie Ellerton, a former staffer in Harper government and principal at Conaptus Public Relations, said those in the federal Conservative caucus would be “wise” to lend their support for Carney’s speech, which he characterized as offering a clear-eyed assessment about where world leaders find themselves and “staunchly pro-Canadian.”

While the party should lay out its vision, he suggested it should offer support for the Carney government where it can, pointing to how Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe have adopted a more collaborative approach with the prime minister.

“I think what you heard in that message is something a Conservative prime minister could have delivered,” Ellerton said of Carney’s Davos speech.

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.


A traveller walks through the domestic departures level at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, on Thursday, July 3, 2025.

A former flight attendant from Toronto allegedly posed as a pilot and used a fake identification card in order to fly for free hundreds of times, according to American authorities.

The 33-year-old has been charged with wire fraud after falsely posing as a commercial airline pilot, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii Ken Sorenson said on Tuesday. He was indicted last October after being arrested in Panama and extradited to the United States. The man also posed as a flight attendant, although he was not working as one at the time, court documents said.

He pleaded not guilty this week, the Associated Press reported.

The man “presented a fictitious employee identification card to obtain hundreds of flights at no cost,” over a period of four years, Sorenson said in a news release.

It is alleged that the man also requested a jump seat in the cockpit of an aircraft, even though he was “not a pilot and did not have an airman’s certificate.” A cockpit jump seat is an extra seat that can be occupied by a pilot who is not scheduled to work,

Simple Flying explains

. The U.S. attorney’s office told National Post that although he requested to use the jump seat, there is no information to indicate whether he did or not.

The man worked as a flight attendant at a Toronto-based airline roughly between July 2017 and October 2019, according to court documents obtained by National Post. The airline was not specified.

Porter Airlines, which is headquartered in Toronto, and WestJet, based in Calgary, did not immediately respond to National Post’s request. Canadian airlines such as Air Canada and Flair told National Post that the man had not been employed by them.

Daily Mail

reported

that the man used a fake ID to secure free flights on an online booking system reserved for airline staff. This method was used to book flights on airlines that were headquartered in Honolulu, Chicago, Illinois, Fort Worth and Toronto, according to court documents.

Although the airlines were not named, National Post has reached out to Hawaiian Airlines, United Airlines, and American Airlines for comment.

If convicted, the man faces up to 20 years in prison, a fine of up to US$250,000, plus a term of supervised release, Sorenson said.

A motion to detain him without bail was filed on Jan. 16. He is currently in custody at the Federal Detention Centre Honolulu located in Hawaii, a search of the Federal Bureau of Prisons database indicates.

The trial by jury is set to begin on March 17.

In a separate case out of Florida last June, a 35-year-old man booked “free flights on an airline carrier’s website that were only available to pilots and flight attendants,”

a news release from the U.S. attorney’s office said

. He was found guilty of wire fraud and “entering into a secure area of an airport by false pretenses.”

He took more than 120 free flights “by falsely claiming to be a flight attendant.”

The story of convicted felon and author Frank Abagnale Jr., made popular by the movie Catch Me If You Can, echoes the allegations against the ex-flight attendant from Toronto. The hit Hollywood film, based on Abagnale’s memoir, tells the story of a young man who scams his way into getting free flights by posing as an airline pilot. The main character, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is eventually arrested by an FBI agent, played by Tom Hanks.

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 five-year-old 20-pound albino Burmese python is shown in this stock photo. An Ontario man was recently banned by a Superior Court judge from bringing a similar snake to family court.

An Ontario man has been ordered by a Superior Court judge not to bring a snake to ongoing proceedings in a family law dispute.

According to a November 2025

decision

by Justice Calum MacLeod, the man appeared at a family court case conference with an albino ball python named “Rico,” insisting that the snake was a service animal.

The man, identified in the MacLeod ruling as Daniel King, presented documentation stating that he required the snake for his mental well-being and it was accredited as a service animal. And even though the other party to the dispute, identified as Michelle Lee Parker, objected to the presence of the snake in the courtroom, the conference proceeded with the python present.

Parker then brought a motion before the Superior Court in Brockville, Ont. to ban “Rico” and any other snake from future proceedings.

In reviewing the evidence, Justice MacLeod wrote that “the ‘doctor’ who wrote the note stating that (King) needed the presence of the service animal is not a person registered with any (Ontario medical colleges). Furthermore the ‘certificate’ appears to be from a non-existent national registry of service animals.”

Parker argued that “the use of the snake as a service animal is a fraud and is simply a mechanism to intimidate her,” wrote MacLeod, adding that she attested in the motion materials that she has a snake phobia and King knew it.

MacLeod noted that King had been served with notice of the motion as well as Parker’s motion materials, but he neither responded nor filed any material presenting his side of the story.

“I am satisfied on the evidence that Rico is not a service animal within the meaning of any applicable standard or legislation,” wrote MacLeod. While he recognized that various types of service animals may be required by individuals with physical or mental disabilities, he stated that “t

here is no evidence”

King suffered from a disability requiring accommodation through the “use of a snake as a service animal.”

Moreover, he wrote, when an animal “interferes with the administration of justice or negatively impacts other participants in the justice system, the use of the service animal in the courtroom may be prohibited.”

MacLeod decided to leave it to the presiding family court judge to review any future evidence from King that he requires the presence of a service animal. But he ruled that King will have to bring another motion to support such a claim. He ordered a ban against King from “bringing Rico or any other service animal” into the courthouse without leave.

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.


US President Donald Trump delivers a special address during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 21, 2026.

Donald Trump said the U.S. won’t use military force in its bid to acquire Greenland for “national security” reasons.

During his lengthy speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday, Trump said the U.S. likely won’t be able to achieve its goal without employing “excessive strength and force,” which he said would be “unstoppable.”

“But I don’t have to use force, I don’t have to use force, I won’t use force,” Trump said.

The president broached the Greenland issue early in his speech and, despite repeatedly deviating to other topics, returned to it often.

He said he respects the people of Greenland and Denmark, but said “every NATO ally has an obligation to defend their own territory and the fact is no nation, or any group of nations, is in a position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States.

He went on to say that were it not for U.S. intervention in WWII, Greenland would have fallen to the Germans, remarking to the audience that they’d now be speaking German or Japanese.

More to come.

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


U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a special address during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 21, 2026.

DAVOS, SWITZERLAND AND OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney left the World Economic Forum in Davos without meeting President Donald Trump Wednesday as the U.S. leader warned Canada should be more “grateful” for its southern neighbour.

“Canada gets a lot of freebies from us by the way,” Trump told a WEF audience, after mentioning the U.S. plan to build a missile defence system called the Golden Dome. “They should be grateful also but they’re not.”

Trump’s remarks come one day after Carney delivered a striking speech in front of the forum, declaring the old rules-based order dead and called on middle powers to call out bullies and hegemons, without naming specific countries.

Trump said he watched Carney’s address. “He wasn’t so grateful,” said Trump. “They should be grateful to us, Canada — but they’re not. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that Mark, the next time you make your statements.”

Carney left Davos around 2 p.m. local time, almost exactly when the U.S. president arrived to deliver an over hour-long speech at the glitzy international summit. Carney’s office confirmed that the prime minister did not meet or talk with Trump Wednesday.

Carney was not the only leader to avoid Trump at the summit. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen also delivered a speech to the WEF on Tuesday and jetted out of Davos without seeing the U.S. president.

European allies have been on edge over Trump’s ambitions to take over Greenland, an autonomous territory which belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

During his speech, Trump said “I won’t use force” but reiterated that the U.S. will have Greenland.

“This enormous unsecured island is actually part of North America,” said Trump, while he called for negotiations with Denmark.

The president has threatened 10 per cent tariff starting in February on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland over the Greenland issue. Countries in the European Union are mulling potential countermeasures against the U.S.

Carney has said he strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and the future of the territory should be determined by the people of Denmark and Greenland. During the summit, Carney also acknowledged the growing importance of arctic security among NATO partners and said Russia does pose a “prospective” threat to that region in the world.

While in Davos, Carney met with multiple world and business leaders over two days, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Apple CEO Tim Cook.

Carney wraps up an eight-day international trip that included a visit to China, the first trip by a Canadian prime minister in over eight years. Viewed as a reset in relations between China and Canada, the visit also included a “landmark agreement” that will allow market access of Chinese electric vehicles into Canada in exchange for a lowering of Chinese tariffs on canola exports.

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.


Security video shows Linda O'Leary (in blue jeans and white top) and Kevin O'Leary (in black shirt) beside the speedboat they drove to a neighbour's cottage on the evening of a fatal boat crash.

A three-way flurry of lawsuits and countersuits that started flying soon after a fatal cottage country boat crash involving reality TV celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary has finally been settled after six years of vigorous litigation.

“Yeah, it’s finished. Everything is in essence finished,” said Rui Fernandes, lead lawyer representing Kevin O’Leary and his wife Linda O’Leary. “It’s confidential, sorry,” he said when asked for details. “You’re never going to find out because it’s confidential, right?”

A portion of the negotiated settlement, however, has peeked out from under the cloak of secrecy.

What is known is that the total payout from both boat operators involved in the collision to all the 14 claimants could not have exceeded a combined $2 million; no single operator paid more than half of that; and two of the claimants — both children seeking damages for the death of their mother — were each paid $100,000 minus a $25,000 cut paid to their lawyers, not including taxes and fees.

That is significantly less than amounts initially sought in several multi-million-dollar claims.

The settlement ends all lawsuits, third-party claims, and notices of claim in all courts that were filed after a horrific scene surrounded by some of the most luxurious vacation property in Canada.

 Suzana Brito, 48, from Uxbridge, Ont., and Gary Poltash, 64, of Florida, died of injuries sustained in the 2019 collision. Three others were hurt.

It was a dark, moonless night in the summer of 2019 on Lake Joseph when O’Leary was a passenger in a speedboat driven by Linda, his wife. The couple were returning to their lakeside cottage from a neighbour’s dinner party when it collided with a larger pontoon boat.

The other boat, owned by Dr. Irv Edwards, a physician in Los Angeles who owned two cottages on Lake Joseph, had 12 people aboard out stargazing after a different party and was being driven by Richard Ruh, a doctor from Buffalo, N.Y., who rented a cottage from Edwards.

Two people who were lying down at the front of the pontoon facing the sky were killed when the O’Leary’s boat hit the prow: Suzanne Brito, 48, from Uxbridge, Ont., and Gary Poltash, 64, of Florida.

Afterwards, police charged the drivers of both boats.

Ruh had taken the wheel of the pontoon boat from Edwards and was charged with failing to exhibit a stern light on a power vessel underway; he did not contest the charge and was convicted.

Linda O’Leary was charged with operating a vessel in a careless manner and pleaded not guilty. After 13 days of evidence at her trial in 2021, she was found not guilty. The judge ruled the larger boat had turned its lights off to allow passengers to gaze at the night sky and was stationary at the time of the collision. The O’Leary boat had its navigation lights on.

Kevin O’Leary was the only defence witness to testify at her trial. He said the larger boat was in complete darkness before the crash: “That boat was invisible,” he testified, “and we went right into it. It was chaos. We didn’t know what happened.”

Determining the criminal facts did not decide the civil matters, however. Civil cases run on a different course with different standards of proof.

 Linda O’Leary and Kevin O’Leary arrive at the American Music Awards at the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles in 2017.

Wrongful death and injury lawsuits were filed in Ontario courts in the months following the collision against both boaters. There were 14 claimants from among the pontoon boat passengers or their families, including Brito’s young children, her parents, brother and sister; and Poltash’s family, including adult children.

The claims of Brito’s children — aged 12, 11, and nine at the time — alleged negligence in the operation of both boats resulting in the death of their mother and sought damages for loss of guidance, care and companionship, loss of dependency and loss of services.

The O’Leary’s also sued, jointly claiming more than $3 million for economic loss, pain, suffering, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.

The Federal Court, which decides marine law, took precedence and the Ontario court matters were put on hold while the Federal Court heard a series of claims and motions.

In 2022, a Federal Court judge ordered that both sets of boat owners and operators — namely the O’Learys for one boat and Edwards and Ruh for the other — had limited liability of $1 million each under the Marine Liability Act, meaning that any potential damages from a future liability finding could not exceed that amount against either boater.

That capped a total top amount to answer all claims from the collision for all parties against both boats at $2 million. The ruling did not assess or decide any culpability.

The move to Federal Court also prevented claimants from seeking punitive damages for any alleged conduct that a jury might have considered.

 Kevin O’Leary’s speedboat.

After feisty and sometimes acrimonious interactions, the parties eventually negotiated a settlement, but it required involvement of the Federal Court because Brito’s children were under the age of 18.

Normally, no part of such a privately arrived at settlement agreement would be public, but because a judge needed to approve the children’s portion of the deal to protect their interests, some parts were filed in court.

A decision on that matter, and on a request to have the court file sealed from public view, was released last week. By the time of the decision by Federal Court judge Elizabeth Heneghan, one of Brito’s children had turned 18, leaving only two minors to deal with.

Heneghan assessed the settlement amount of $100,000 to each minor dependent and the $25,000 in legal fees being claimed by lawyers for the children.

By the time legal fees, pro-rated costs, taxes and fees were added and deducted to the various subtotals, each child was given $72,538.56, which is to be held by the court until they turn 18.

Heneghan ruled that was reasonable given the liability cap, that parties denied liability and that without a settlement everyone faced a litigation process that would be “lengthy and time-consuming, with no certain outcome.” She also denied the requested sealing order.

A lawyer for the children told court that had their claims gone to trial, there was a possibility liability would be found against one boat only, reducing the amount of money available to answer claims.

“I am very limited on what I can say on this,” Patrick Brown, lawyer for most of the Brito claimants, including the children, told National Post when asked about the settlement. “There will not be any more pending civil cases,” he said.

“You would hope that litigation moves at a quicker pace, but there were a lot of moving parts. I think when you’re dealing with any matters like this, closure is always important to family members,” Brown said.

Fernandes, who represented the O’Learys, said all parties agreed that the settlement should be confidential. Fernandes would not say whether his clients paid out in the settlement or, if they did, how much.

“What I’m saying to you is somebody paid and one boat owner or both boat owners could limit liability to a million each. But it doesn’t mean that each paid a million. It doesn’t mean that one paid a million, because that’s confidential.”

He agreed with Brown that it is good to conclude the cases.

“I can’t comment on the O’Learys specifically, but I know in all litigation, and I know in this case, everybody’s happy that it’s over. It’s a long time, right, to be dealing with it. I think everyone, all the parties, are happy that it’s over.”

Lawyers representing Edwards and Ruh did not respond to requests for comment from National Post prior to publishing deadline. Lawyers representing other claimants did not respond.

Kevin O’Leary came to wide public attention as a celebrity investor on the reality TV series Dragons’ Den and has since reprised that role on Shark Tank for U.S. television. He is also a former candidate for the leadership of the federal Conservative party and often appears on TV news as a commentator.

The 71-year-old recently made a feature film debut playing a cutthroat empresario in Marty Supreme, a movie starring Timothée Chalamet as a frenetic prodigy in the 1950s world of underground table tennis.

• 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.


NDP leadership candidates Rob Ashton, left to right, Tanille Johnston, Avi Lewis, Heather McPherson and Tony McQuail, pose for a photo following the NDP French language leadership debate, in Montreal on Thursday, November 27, 2025.

OTTAWA — The five candidates to lead the federal NDP are standing in lockstep against the Liberal gun “buyback” program, reinforcing a longstanding distinction between the two progressive parties on gun-ownership rights.

All five campaigns told the National Post they oppose the Liberal government’s

fledgling mandatory compensation program

for “assault-style” firearms, which targets the owners of more than 2,500 makes and models of guns the government has deemed too dangerous to be kept in the hands of civilians.

Filmmaker and activist Avi Lewis, a favourite to become the

party’s next permanent leader

in March, said in a statement that he’d swap out the divisive Liberal gun buyback for gun laws that “respect expert recommendations, legal and responsible gun ownership, and constitutionally-enshrined Indigenous and treaty rights to hunt and fish.”

Lewis’s statement got a thumbs up from Tracey Wilson, a vice-president with the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, who called his defence of law-abiding gun owners “shockingly based.”

Lewis said federal Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangree gave away the Liberals’ game, and killed whatever credibility the program had, when private comments

recorded without his knowledge

surfaced online last fall.

“The … program is in shambles in large part because of hot mic comments from (Anandasangree) suggesting that it’s driven by cynical politics rather than effective policy,” said Lewis.

Anandasangree implied

in the leaked audio

that the Liberals were moving ahead with the buyback to placate voters in Quebec and expressed doubts about whether it could even be properly enforced.

Edmonton MP Heather McPherson, the only sitting MP in the NDP leadership race, said that, while she thought it was important to rein in the weapons targeted by the program, Ananasangree’s comments make the gun buyback dead on arrival.

“Getting assault-style rifles off our streets must be a priority … but even the Liberal minister has admitted the buyback program wouldn’t work or be enforceable,” said McPherson, suggesting that authorities focus on intercepting illegal firearms at the Canada-U.S. border.

McPherson added that the Liberals haven’t put in the work to secure buy-in from the provinces, pointing to Manitoba NDP Premier Wab Kinew’s recent announcement that

his government won’t be participating

in the buyback.

“The Liberals are forcing this program ahead without properly working with provinces … so Manitoba is right to be frustrated,” said McPherson.

Even the

leadership race’s token pacifist

, organic farmer Tony McQuail, said he disapproved of the Liberal gun buyback.

“As a rural farmer, I’m also a gun owner and feel that Canadian gun owners deserve better than (a) hasty and unproven (program) with ineffective implementation,” said McQuail.

The two remaining candidates, Rob Ashton and Tanille Johnston, said authorities should focus on stopping the most “horrific” instances of gun violence that are carried out using illegal firearms entering Canada from the U.S. Johnston was

asked about the gun buyback

after the party’s November leadership debate in Montreal.

Leadership applicant Bianca Mugyenyi, wife of disqualified candidate Yves Engler, also said she was against the buyback, calling it a “bureaucratic failure.”

True to

her anti-Israel positioning

, Mugyenyi said the Liberals were hypocritical for disarming citizens at home while abetting violence abroad against Palestinians.

“It is … grotesque that this government claims to care about ‘safety’ while shipping military-grade weapons to fuel a genocide in Gaza,” said Mugyenyi.

Ex-NDP MP Charlie Angus says that, despite taking shape at the time of the Liberal-NDP

supply and confidence agreement

, the gun buyback has always had the Liberals’ fingerprints.

“It’s a Liberal policy. The Liberals have mishandled this policy a hundred times. We’ve been burned by it a thousand times,” said Angus.

The Liberals faced

criticism from the NDP

over preliminary efforts to classify certain firearms as “assault-style” weapons, with the NDP raising concerns about potential adverse effects for hunters, farmers and First Nations.

The program wasn’t mentioned in the text of the Liberal-NDP agreement and the NDP’s platform heading into last spring’s election contained

no references to gun control

.

Angus, who held a northern Ontario seat for two decades before retiring from politics last year, said it was critical for the party to stay engaged in issues important to rural voters like gun-ownership rights.

“As far as the party goes, it’s going to come down to (whether we can) be present in the cities and also speak to the working class,” said Angus.

Angus

recently endorsed McPherson

to be the party’s next leader but says he’s also talked to Lewis about needing to keep a foot in rural and remote communities.

“I’ve told Avi (Lewis) that if he wants to win, he needs to be able to speak to (places like) Thompson, Manitoba and Red Deer(, Alberta),” said Angus.

Clement Nocos, director of policy at social democratic think tank the Broadbent Institute, said that the wholesale rejection of the Liberal gun buyback among NDP leadership hopefuls is consistent with the party’s past policy positions.

“The Liberal government’s ‘Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program’ is largely a distraction that has the appearance of improving public safety, given the visibility of the gun violence issue in the United States … while failing to address the root causes of violence in Canada such as inequality and the cost-of-living crisis. It also does not address the source of illegal assault rifles in Canada: their import from the across the U.S. border,” said Nocos.

“Canada already has gun control laws that clearly lend to a difference in gun violence when compared to the United States (and) violent crimes committed with assault rifles have also made up a insignificant proportion of all gun crime in Canada,” Nocos added.

Nocos noted that former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh

previously announced a commitment

to add more than 1,000 new personnel to the border to stop the flow of illegal guns entering Canada.

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.


Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with President of China Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China on Friday, Jan. 16, 2026.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Arrests, extended detainments, agricultural product bans, tariffs and expelled diplomats have been the hallmarks of Canada-China relations in recent years — and they formed the backdrop to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s historic trip late last week to Beijing.

But Carney made it clear he aimed to diversify Canadian trade, and while few geopolitical experts predicted much to come of his meeting with Xi Jinping, apart from initial discussions about electric vehicle (EV) quotas and canola tariffs, the two men struck a deal.

By March 1, Beijing is expected to cut its canola seed tariffs from 85 to 15 per cent and to exempt canola meal, lobsters, crabs, and peas from tariffs, which officials believe will unlock CA$3 billion in annual exports. Canada, for its part, will allow 49,000 Chinese EVs in at a tariff rate of 6.1 per cent — far lower than the 100 per cent EV tariffs imposed in 2024. Less tangibly, the countries have signed memorandums of understanding (MOUs) related to energy and clean tech that could lead to future deals.

“We are forging a new strategic partnership that builds on the best of our past, reflects the world as it is today, and benefits the people of both our nations,” the prime minister said Friday in a statement. He also noted to reporters in Beijing that the deal sets Canada up “well for the new world order,” noting that Canada’s relationship with China has become “more predictable” than its relationship with the United States.

So far, U.S. President Donald Trump has responded congenially.

“If you can get a deal with China, you should do that,” he said.

Still, with a review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement looming this summer, and amid tariff threats over support for Greenland, the China deal comes at a precarious time. Could Carney’s inroads with Xi help or hurt him in his dealings with the White House — and could improved relations with China help him politically at home?

CUSMA in peril?

The president has suggested that he may not be that committed to CUSMA.

“There’s no real advantage to (CUSMA), it’s irrelevant,” Trump said last week. “Canada would love it. They need it.”

But would the president really undo what his first administration forged and labelled as the “gold standard” of free trade agreements?

Stephen Nagy, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and professor of politics and international studies at the International Christian University, said he expects the Trump team to see any China deal as a violation of CUSMA. He could see a world in which Trump pressures Carney to follow U.S. guidelines — against China — or threatens not to renew CUSMA.

“That’s bad for Canada. We trade about $900 billion a year with the United States, and 70 per cent of our trade is with the U.S., so losing that market — even just 10 per cent of it — would really hurt the Canadian economy.” 

Others see the deal as genius.

“This is a master stroke,” said Reza Hasmath, a politics professor at the University of Alberta. “You’re able to get more joint ventures through more Chinese capital to Canada, you alleviate the issues you have with the Prairies, particularly canola trade, and when it comes to CUSMA … it gives [Ottawa] leverage because it shows Canada is looking for other markets.”

Hasmath does not believe the U.S. will abandon CUSMA, as that would be the “nuclear option.” 

“You can threaten it … but to actually do it is a detriment to both our economies,” he said. “So we hope both sides are not going to press the nuclear button to do that.”

Still, the deal could lead to disagreements, particularly over Chinese access to the North American market and security.

Nagy, for example, pointed out that the Chinese EVs will mean not only disrupting the Canadian market but the broader market as well.

Whitney Lackenbauer, a professor and Canada Research Chair in the Study of the Canadian North at Trent University, looks at it through a security lens with a focus on the Arctic. He said the deal could pose some challenges in dealings with the U.S.

“In a way,” he said, “it is playing into certain primordial MAGA narratives about a country like Canada being unreliable or susceptible to Chinese influence.” 

But Lackenbauer also noted that it’s a tradeoff in the sense that it shows Canada is diversifying its trade.

“Canada has had to do the unthinkable, which is buttress against American- or Trump-inspired economic uncertainty,” he added. 

That defensiveness explains the China pivot, according to Anna Ashton, a China expert and head of Ashton Analytics. 

“The last year of U.S.-Canada trade relations has been so brutal that, at this point, it seems predictably enough set on a negative course that I think Canada is looking to stop the bleeding and shore up big trade relationships where it can.”

She echoed Carney in saying that China offers trade relations with a more predictable partner.

“China may not be offering the kind of loyalty and alliance that Canada has had with the United States, but what it is offering is more predictability.”

Ashton also pointed out that the U.S. has not exactly been dealing with the U.S. on CUSMA matters in good faith.

“Even where [Canada] followed the letter of the agreement, the spirit of the agreement has been consistently violated by the U.S. side,” she said.

So a big CUSMA blowup is unlikely, but China brings its own traps, experts say.

Driving a wedge

Nagy warned that China’s concessions are part of an attempt to “drive a wedge” between Canada and the U.S., noting how, when Beijing’s partners align with them politically, they’re rewarded. When they don’t, China turns to economic or political pressure, as seen with tariffs, inspections, and hostage diplomacy, Nagy added.

Carney, he said, needs to be prepared for China’s charm versus coercion approach. 

China may be letting Carney stick his toe in, but “they’re going to cut it off as soon as they have a chance,” Nagy warned. He pointed to China’s current strained relations with Japan as an example.

“Japan and China have terrible relations right now, and their economic relationship is worth about $300 billion,” he said.

“And [Beijing is] still willing to put pressure on the Japanese, because of a political disagreement, over the economic relationship.”

The Canadian relationship, meanwhile, is worth only a fraction of that, he said, referring to the CA$130 billion as merely a “drop in the bucket” to China.

In the future, China may resort to economic coercion with Canada, Hasmath acknowledged, noting that it cannot be stopped. Its impact, however, can be mitigated, he said.

“If China wants to use this sort of economic coercion … we can’t fully stop it, but we can reduce its impact.”

Canada can’t decouple from China, he said, without losing something like 20 per cent of the Canadian economy. But it can pursue a 10-20 year plan of derisking and pursuing the Indo-Pacific strategy, gradually reducing Canada’s economic vulnerabilities to China, including the over-reliance on some supply chains and markets.

But avoiding great power economic coercion, he said, does not mean needing to avoid China altogether. 

“It’s done by all great powers,” he said. 

Ashton agreed. “China can be coercive … that’s something that is well known by all of its trading partners,” she said, but the same is true of the United States.

“It was the Trump administration itself that pushed for the CUSMA deal, and it is the Trump administration that is kind of turning its back on CUSMA and trying to create a situation where it can demand and receive without reciprocating.”

Despite needing to diversify trading partners, Carney was also responding to domestic pressures with his China deal. Could his diversification efforts lead to an even bigger electoral win for the Liberals in the near future?

Domestic dividends vs. Conservative fodder

High Chinese tariffs on Canola have been hurting Western farmers, which is why Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have wanted Canada to re-engage with China to boost agricultural exports. 

The deal is a win for those farmers, and it could win some otherwise Conservative support for Carney’s Liberals as a result. Nagy said he expected this support to be limited, noting that conservatives he engages with personally were opposed to a China deal. 

“They seem to be quite upset about the visit [to China],” he said, noting how Premier Scott Moe’s Conservatives are smaller in number. 

While Western farmers wanted their market opened, the eastern provinces of Ontario and Quebec have been clear about preferring to keep their markets closed, and yet the new deal will see Chinese EVs hitting the Canadian market with comparably lower prices than domestic cars. That could be a win for consumers who can’t afford the higher-priced vehicles, but it could undermine domestic sales.

The deal will upset some, as it
has Ontario Premier Doug Ford
. But Hasmath described the political calculation as low-risk and high-reward. To his mind, the deal will appeal to the Prairies that need canola exports while likely not alienating Liberal strongholds in Ontario and Quebec.

If Carney can get joint-venture EV plans into Ontario ahead of a new federal election, said Hasmath, “he’s setting himself up to score a lot of political points.” 

Will it pay off?

Carney’s approach to taking “the world as it is” — diversifying away from U.S. unpredictability, and closer to Beijing — is bold. This new deal should deliver much-needed revenue to the Prairies and, if EV plants can be built soon, could lead to automotive job growth. If so, and especially if Carney can keep CUSMA on track, the prime minister could be setting himself up for a majority Liberal win in the next election.

And if CUSMA talks go nowhere, some, like Nagy, have said this could potentially be good for Carney, too, at least politically.

“If [CUSMA review talks] go poorly, they’ll probably blame the Trump administration for everything. The Canadians will rally behind that, and I think that will be good for the Liberals,” said Nagy.

The CUSMA review looms this summer, and with Trump eyeing Greenland and threatening sanctions against allies, the real verdict will come in job numbers, affordability, business boardroom satisfaction, and, ultimately, Canadian ballots.

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 newsletters here.


In 2013, almost 3,000 troops from across Canada participated in Exercise Maple Resolve at CFB Wainwright in Alberta, a large-scale exercise involving realistic and intensive training scenarios.

The Canadian military would be “foolish” not to draw up plans on how to respond to a U.S. invasion, says an expert on Canada-U.S. relations.

The Canadian Armed Forces is reportedly looking at employing insurgency-style tactics like those used in Afghanistan in the unlikely event that the U.S. military attacks Canada.

“They’d be foolish if they didn’t, if only because Donald Trump has said he’s concerned about Greenland. He’s concerned about the threat from Russia and China in the Arctic. Sub out the word Greenland for the word(s) Baffin Island or Iqaluit or any other sort of place north and you’d have a potential for American troops up there,” said Asa McKercher, the Hudson Chair in Canada-U.S. Relations at St. Francis Xavier University’s Brian Mulroney Institute of Government.

Canada’s top soldier, Gen. Jennie Carignan, was out of the country Tuesday and unavailable for comment.

“As is routine, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces conducts analysis on a variety of scenarios, both real and hypothetical, to ensure readiness,” Kened Sadiku, who speaks for DND, said Tuesday in an email. “As a matter of operational security, and as a critical element of our defence, we do not confirm such matters in public.”

While a U.S. invasion of Canada is “very, very, very unlikely,” McKercher said it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

After he was elected in 2024, Trump referred repeatedly to Canada as the 51st state. While his talk of annexation and how it would benefit Canada has dried up in recent months, Trump posted a doctored image overnight on his social media platform of a map showing Canada, Greenland and Venezuela covered in the U.S. flag.

“Donald Trump is treated in some ways like a toddler,” McKercher said. “He does silly things and people don’t believe him until he follows through.”

A Canadian insurgency would be effective because many Americans wouldn’t want Canada to be invaded, he said.

“This would create big problems potentially within the United States itself,” McKercher said.

Many Canadians would resent an American invasion, “and could make life difficult for Americans,” he said.

“If it came to that, what would prevent Canadian military members or insurgents from going across the border at any of the many, many points along our border that aren’t patrolled, and blowing up bombs in American cities? It’s inconceivable, but a crazy thing that I think clearly is on the mind of very serious people.”

Citing two unnamed senior government officials,

The Globe and Mail reported

that

the model being developed “was a conceptual and theoretical framework, not a military plan, which is an actionable and step‑by‑step directive for executing operations.”

McKercher said it’s “reasonable” to expect that Canada’s military would be unlikely to stave off a U.S. invasion for more than a day or two.

“We have a very small military; they have a very effective military,” McKercher said. “They have the ability to destroy our command-and-control centres, target our logistics networks, they’re aware of where all our bases are. There’s not a lot of hiding that we could do, probably, from American cruise missiles and drones.”

 Vincent Rigby, who was national security and intelligence advisor to the prime minister from January 2020 until June 2021.

Canada’s former national security and intelligence adviser, Vincent Rigby, said Tuesday that a U.S. invasion “falls into the category of very low probability, but very high impact, to put it mildly.”

Trump “talks a lot of smack,” Rigby said. “It’s part of his playbook. It’s destabilizing.”

But the Canadian military is supposed to plan for all scenarios, said Rigby, a former top intelligence adviser to former prime minister Justin Trudeau who spent 14 years with Canada’s Department of National Defence.

“They’re very good at it and given the current situation in the world, given the current state of Canada-U.S. relations, given the current state of U.S. foreign policy, I’m not completely surprised that they’re looking at possible scenarios.”

He fears the revelation that plans are afoot will agitate apprehensions amongst a lot of Canadians.

“It certainly stirs the pot a little bit,” Rigby said.

A U.S. invasion of Canada would be extremely unpopular amongst Americans, he said.

“That is a country that is completely and utterly divided — polarized,” Rigby said.

“There would be huge, huge segments of the U.S. population that would be just, ‘You’ve got to be kidding. We’re invading Canada?’ Who knows what that might set off in the United States?”

That “might be the last straw for a lot of Americans in terms of this president is completely and utterly off his rocker,” Rigby said.

Just because Trump posted a doctored photo recently of a map showing Canada covered in the U.S. flag doesn’t mean he’s about to launch an invasion, Rigby said.

“I think it’s part of his negotiation tactics. He likes to put governments on their heels. It strengthens his own bargaining position,” he said. “The crazier stuff that he puts out there, it gives him greater leverage. It’s sort of the mad man theory — do crazy stuff and people will give in. People will make concessions.”

Trump appears focused on Greenland right now, Rigby said.

But “he is thinking about the Arctic, writ large. That includes Denmark and Greenland, but it also obviously includes Canada. And so, we have to keep up our guard in the Arctic.”

Rigby fears Trump “could do something silly in the Northwest Passage, or could do something silly on a Canadian island in the Arctic archipelago. So, is he going to seize all of Canada and try to make it the 51st state? Not in the near term. Don’t see that. But could he do something very aggressive in the Arctic if he feels we’re not doing our job? Absolutely. It’s a tightrope that Canada has to constantly walk right now with the United States.”

A U.S. invasion would likely target Ottawa, he said.

“They’d probably go straight for Ottawa and try to cut off the head of the government,” Rigby said.

“But this is a huge country — 10 million square kilometres, second largest country in the world. Vast parts of the country without huge population density. Would they be able to take every single city? Every single province? No.”

The Canadian military likely wouldn’t be able to stop U.S. tanks rolling across the border, Rigby said. “It would probably be a matter of days, if not hours. But could we put up resistance in the rest of country? We probably could — some low-level guerrilla type activity.”

While the U.S. has the strongest military in the world, “even they have limited resources at the end of the day,” Rigby said. “The notion that they’re just going to take a country as large as Canada and control it in the face of guerrilla opposition and that sort of thing – it’s a little bit much. So, it’s a classic case of be careful what you wish for and how much you want to bite off.”

Canada needs to show the U.S. it is serious about defending the Arctic, Rigby said. “All the stuff we say we’re going to do in the Arctic, including purchasing submarines, increasing our satellite capability, our surveillance capability, we’ve got to do that. And we’ve got to do that fast.”

There was no talk about how to thwart a U.S. invasion when Rigby was national security intelligence adviser during the last year of Trump’s first presidency, he said. “And I don’t think it’s been an issue under any government for a long time…. You probably have to go back almost a hundred years since that was last taken seriously.”

Canada has planned for a U.S. invasion before, McKercher said Tuesday.

“Probably the most famous Canadian military plans regarding an American invasion occurred in the 1920s,” he said.

McKercher pointed to Canadian military Lieutenant Colonel James “Buster” Sutherland Brown’s plan formed over a century ago in the event of a war between Britain and the U.S., “which even in the 1920s seemed pretty crazy, but was potentially conceivable.”

Brown’s plan involved Canadian preemptive strikes “to invade American border towns and then wait for the British Empire to sort of come save us,” McKercher 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.