Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont

crossed the floor on Tuesday

to join the ranks of the Liberal Party, saying he felt disconnected from the Conservative party’s direction.

Describing himself as a “Red Tory,” d’Entremont said he was

drawn to priorities set out in the 2025 federal budget

, such as infrastructure, fisheries, agriculture, and defense, all of which are integral to voters in his rural riding of Acadie-Annapolis in southwest Nova Scotia.

His riding includes a Canadian Armed Forces base that stands to benefit from increased military spending outlined in the Liberal government’s 2025 budget.

Meanwhile, the lobster industry is a fundamental part of the economy there. The industry faces significant challenges that dominate voter concerns. d’Entremont expressed belief in working to address such community and economic challenges, feeling that was not possible under Pierre

Poilievre’s “negative” leadership style

.

His move has been met with mixed reaction. Some Conservative MPs have criticized d’Entremont for betraying the party and misrepresenting voters who elected him as a Tory.

Late on Tuesday, Sebastian Skamski, former director of media relations in the Opposition Leader’s office, posted on X, stating: “Just 40 days ago, Chris d’Entremont said his constituents were hurting under Mark Carney’s government & warned that another massive Liberal deficit would make things worse. Today he turned his back on Canadians & betrayed them to advance his own personal ambitions.”

Just 40 days ago, Chris d’Entremont said his constituents were hurting under Mark Carney’s government & warned that another massive Liberal deficit would make things worse.

Today he turned his back on Canadians & betrayed them to advance his own personal ambitions.

Shameful. pic.twitter.com/IPAgzkhHIl

— Sebastian Skamski (@Skamski) November 5, 2025

The X post includes a clip of d’Entremont rising in the House of Commons on Sept. 25 to support a Conservative motion regarding “food taxation.”

His comments followed Poilievre’s in the House on Sept. 16, when he called on Prime Minister Mark Carney to “keep his election promise and ensure the deficit is not larger than $62 billion” in order “to lower the cost of food.”

d’Entremont levelled

similar criticism when he rose in the House

, while also urging the government to be responsive to opposition MP suggestions.

“Canadians are hurting. Families are being forced to cut deeply into their grocery budgets just to get by. And, frankly, that leaves me a little bit angry and a little bit sad.”

Canada is a wealthy country, d’Entremont said, but he suggested that under the Liberal government it’s being mismanaged.

“Since I was first elected in 2019, the cost of living has skyrocketed. And families (in his riding have been) struggling. We warned the Liberals that out-of-control spending and massive deficits were irresponsible. But, of course, they didn’t listen. And now after six months under a new prime minister who promised financial discipline, Canadians are still waiting.

The prime minister said he’d be judged by the costs at the grocery store, states d’Entremont.

“Well, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are judging him, and they are not impressed. Instead of delivering relief, this government delayed its budget.

At that point in time, a federal budget was still in the offing, noted d’Entremont. “We haven’t seen a budget in a year and a half. Why? Because (Carney) is projecting an over $92 billion deficit. That’s a monstrous, irresponsible burden on future generations.

“We’ll hear about “a generational investment. But what it really is, is a generational debt that my kids, their kids and their kids’ kids are going to have to try to pay in one way or another. That causes inflation and extra costs to future generations.

He went on to say: “

People find themselves pinched. They are having to make tough decisions on whether to feed their children, heat their homes or buy the things that school requires, and then get their kids into sports, if they are lucky. Unfortunately, the food basket is far too expensive.
In my riding, food banks are overwhelmed, and I am sure food banks across Nova Scotia are experiencing the same thing. Food bank usage is up 142% across Canada. While the government claims to be putting money back into taxpayers’ pockets, it continues to take it away through many other means.

“I urge members to vote with us. Let us work together. We hear a lot of that here in the House of Commons, especially from the government side, where members say that we should just work with them.
A number of suggestions have come from the opposition side, whether from the Conservatives, the Bloc or other opposition members, for finding ways to work with the government, but the government continues to close its ears and not listen to the good ideas that come from opposition members.”

• Floor-crossing MP hints that more Conservatives might follow him to the Liberals
• Canadians paid 3.5% more for groceries in August. What’s driving up prices?

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.

OTTAWA — In early September, Prime Minister Mark Carney warned Canadians that his first federal budget would include austerity measures.

The former economist pointed to what he described, not for the last time, as “unsustainable” government spending hikes over the last decade.

Six weeks later, during what was billed as a pre-budget speech at the University of Ottawa, Carney warned that his government would turn back the annual spending increases that averaged more than 7 per cent a year during the Trudeau years.

“Our new government is changing that,” he told the audience of mostly students, while adding that Canadians should be prepared for upcoming sacrifices.

Tuesday’s budget, however, seemed to sing a different tune.

Spending during this fiscal year, which overlaps almost completely with the start of the Carney government, is expected to jump by $37.6 billion, or 6.9 per cent, just a hair off the 7 per cent increases that the prime minister had seemed to abhor.

The one notable exception was cuts to the public service, both programs and jobs. The Liberals say they’ll trim $59.6-billion over the next five years, mostly from an expenditure review where each department was tasked with finding 15 per cent in savings over the next three years.

Don Drummond, a former high-ranking executive at the Department of Finance and chief economist at TD Bank, said the Carney government’s first budget showed a commitment to large spending increases and deficits for the next few years, despite Canada’s trade woes and other looming threats.

“It’s definitely not an austerity budget,” he said.

With the government’s various spending plans that are being described as “investments” and annual increases to debt interest, overall spending will still jump significantly this year and over the next half-decade. The government’s projections call for a spending jump of $101.1 billion between 2024-25 and 2029-30, an annual increase of $20.2-billion or 3.5 per cent.

Spending levels — and the notion of austerity — are of course highly charged in political circles.

With the addition in recent hours of former Tory MP Chris d’Entremont to the Liberal caucus, Carney’s budget will need only two non-Liberal votes — or abstentions and absences — later this month to pass, and to therefore avoid triggering an election.

But the NDP, seen as perhaps the Liberals’ best hope for support for the budget, have insisted they won’t support an “austerity” budget. Economists say the NDP has nothing to fear on that front.

“I don’t call this austerity at all,” said Emmanuelle Faubert, economist at the Montreal Economic Institute, of the budget. “I call this spending.”

According to the budget, the government expects to post a deficit this fiscal year of $78.3-billion, the third-highest in Canadian history and the largest ever in a non-pandemic year. The Carney government’s forecast calls for modest dips in the annual deficit over each of the next four years, although the cumulative effect will be another $320-million of new debt before the end of the decade.

The federal government has now accumulated $1.27 trillion in debt, almost half of which has been added over the last five years. With the budget’s updated forecast for this fiscal year, Ottawa is now on pace to amass $593.1-billion in debt over that five-year span, or 46.7 per cent of the total debt accumulated since Confederation.

Many of the new budget’s measures are linked to efforts to make the Canadian economy better able to export beyond the United States. The big pots of spending include allocations for new infrastructure, defence, housing, and skills upgrades.

While the forecasted annual increases over the next four years may be within screaming distance of expected inflation, at least compared to the spending hikes of the last decade, they don’t include any new spending ideas that have yet to be put in the plans, or responses to future crises.

National Post

• Carney racks up largest ever non-pandemic deficit in federal budget
• How Carney’s budget could affect your wallet, from a $150 cheque to a $1.5-million yacht

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.

Now that the dust has settled on the

2025 federal budget

announcement, it’s time to see how ordinary Canadians might see their everyday lives affected by some of the

government’s decisions

. Here are a few takeaways.

More money from a deposited cheque

If you’re the type who still deposits paper cheques in the ATM (or hands them to a bank teller) there’s good news.

The budget proposes

raising the amount of money immediately available from a just-deposited cheque to $150 from the current $100.

“Access to cheque fund rules are now over a decade old and have not kept pace with cost-of-living increases or technological advances,” the budget document notes.

It also plans to reduce the number of days banks may hold deposited cheque funds before releasing them to customers, and to raise the current threshold of $1,500, below which shorter hold periods apply.

Less tax on a plane or boat

At the other end of the financial scale from a $150 cheque, the budget

removes a tax

that was introduced in 2022 on airplanes with a value of more than $100,000 or boats worth more than $250,000. This luxury tax was equal to the lesser of 10 per cent of the total value of the vehicle or 20 per cent of the value above the threshold.

It should be noted that cars worth more than $100,000 are still subject to this tax.

Higher penalties for predatory debt advisors

The budget notes that unlicensed debt advisors, also known as lead generators, can deceive consumers into filing for bankruptcy in exchange for payment.

“When filed unnecessarily, insolvency proceedings can increase the costs of unnecessary fees and fines, and the longstanding perpetuation of a borrower’s cycle of debt,” it says.

It plans to add remedies, including restitution, for non-compliance with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and to increase the

maximum criminal fines

under that Act to $100,000 from the current $5,000, and to $1 million for corporations.

Canada Post can set its own postage rates

The Canada Post Corporation Act restricts Canada Post from increasing stamp prices without Governor-in-Council approval, a process the crown corporation calls

“lengthy and cumbersome,”

taking up to nine months.

The new budget proposes amendments to the Act that will let Canada Post set postage rates on its own.

“This measure is expected to benefit all Canadians by helping improve the future financial sustainability of Canada Post operations,”

the budget states

.

Banks must give more notice of closures

According to the

Canadian Bankers Association

, the number of bank branches in Canada has been falling in recent years, dropping 9 per cent from 2012 to 2022. As of last October there were 5,460 branches in Canada, compared to 5,605 the previous year, and 5,783 in 2020.

The budget proposes to

amend the Bank Act

to require that banks provide public notice of branch closures on their websites, and to prohibit the charging of certain account switching or closure fees from the time the bank gives notice of its intent to close a branch until 12 months following the closure.

The budget also says the government will review fees charged by banks, including Interac e-transfer fees and ATM fees. “We will use every tool and agency at our disposal to address any unjustified fees and pain points for Canadians,” it says. “We will provide an update on this work in 2026.”

Less income tax for the middle class

Under the heading “Delivering a middle-class tax cut,” the government is

moving forward

with the proposal to reduce the lowest marginal personal income tax rate to 14 per cent from 15 per cent, effective July 1, 2025.

This is the tax rate applied to the first $57,375 of an individual’s taxable income. The maximum tax savings will be $420 per person and $840 per couple in 2026.

• John Ivison: Carney’s budget finally offers hope that years of economic mismanagement may be over
• FIRST READING: The most egregious jargon of Carney’s budget, from ‘rightsizing’ to ‘fiscal firepower’

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.

OTTAWA — The Liberals’ newest addition to caucus, Chris d’Entremont, said on Wednesday that he was not “aligned” with his former leader Pierre Poilievre’s political ideals and hinted that other Conservatives may be following his example.

D’Entremont appeared at Prime Minister Mark Carney’s side during a press conference in Ottawa, the morning after

his surprise decision to leave the Conservative caucus

and cross the floor to join the minority Liberals just hours after the tabling of their budget.

“I’m honoured to welcome him as the newest member of our government caucus,” said Carney. “Chris’s decision to join the government caucus at this crucial moment for our country is exceptionally valuable and important.”

The minority Liberals are just two seats away from a majority which could guarantee the passage of their budget without the help of opposition parties.

Speaking to reporters, d’Entremont said he has been mulling over this decision to leave Poilievre’s Conservatives for a long time.

“Over the last number of months, I wasn’t feeling that I was aligned with the ideals of what the leader of the opposition had been talking about. So, I’ve been sort of relooking at what my career is bringing, and what I can do for my constituency,” he said.

D’Entremont said he held many conversations with his “friends” in the Liberal benches — relationships he formed when he was Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons — and came to the conclusion that he was better off joining their ranks.

“In my case, as a Nova Scotian, we’re always trying to find ways to work together to solve issues that are important to our communities. And I didn’t see it by sitting in the opposition. I saw it by being a part of the government caucus,” he said.

“It’s time to actually try to lead a country, to try to make it better and not try to knock it down, not to continue to be negative,” he added.

D’Entremont said that other Conservative MPs may be feeling the same way he did.

“I would suggest that there probably are those that are in the same boat, but I will let them tell their stories if that time comes,” he said.

Carney declined to say how many Conservatives his party had approached to join the Liberal ranks.

“We’ll speak to anyone, publicly, or otherwise, that can support us,” he said.

D’Entremont said Poilievre’s leadership style ultimately played a role in his decision.

“I didn’t find I was represented there that my ideals of an Easterner, of a red Tory, quite honestly, of trying to find ways to find solutions and help your community rather than trying to oppose everything that’s happening,” he said.

When asked if he was promised a minister portfolio, he simply said “no.”

In response to Conservative leadership’s suggestion that he was sour grapes after the party did not support him in his bid as Speaker of the House of Commons last spring, d’Entremont admitted it was an “awkward time” for him, but he did ultimately “move on.”

Conservative MPs reacted with a mix of anger and disappointment to the news of d’Entremont leaving their caucus, with some calling him a “coward” or an “idiot.”

“I think they should look at themselves and see if they’re offering the right thing to Canadians of trying to build for the world,” said d’Entremont.

“We have a great opportunity here in Canada, and rather than knocking people down, we should try to find ways to work together. And that’s what I’ve always tried to do in my career.”

On Wednesday, Liberals were tight-lipped about the efforts behind the scenes to poach some more disgruntled Conservatives.

“I’m becoming used to waking up to surprises every day,” said Government House leader Steven MacKinnon.

— With files from Stephanie Taylor and Christopher Nardi

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.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Are President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs legal? We’re about to find out.

It’s a big day for the United States, especially for those interested in the separation of powers. Today, the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., begins hearing arguments in two cases that will determine whether the president was within his constitutional rights to impose tariffs on countries around the globe — or whether it was executive overreach. Trump declared national emergencies related to fentanyl trafficking and the trade deficit as justification for his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and now the justices must decide whether that was legal and, if so, whether the conditions for declaring national emergencies were met.

IEEPA tariff rates today range from 10 to 35 per cent, depending on the country and product. By the end of this fiscal year, if they remain in place, the tariffs are expected to rake in US$195 billion in revenue for the U.S. government.

What is IEEPA? 

The statute was adopted in 1977 to regulate presidential emergency powers previously exercised under the broader Trading with the Enemy Act, which lacked limits and oversight. It empowers the executive to use economic powers “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.”

In its nearly 50 years of existence, it has been a tool for sanctioning countries and terrorist groups, but it has never been used to impose tariffs — until now.

Courting matters

The legal argument centres on whether IEEPA gives the president the authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval — and whether delegating that power is constitutional. 

The president’s team argues that Trump has broad powers to “regulate importation” during a national emergency and that this includes tariffs. But opponents note that the term “tariffs” is absent from the IEEPA statute, and that the constitutional authority to impose tariffs has long been exclusively vested in Congress.

According to Thomas Berry, director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the CATO Institute, IEEPA enables a president to take various actions in the case of a national emergency. The statute lists various verbs and nouns, and by “plucking two of them,” the administration is focused on the words “regulate” and “importation.”

“(The White House) is arguing that the authority to regulate importation to deal with a national emergency includes the authority to impose tariffs essentially as leverage in negotiations,” explains Berry, noting that it’s a “novel” interpretation of the law. 

Trump’s lawyers argue that the congressional approval for the president to impose tariffs under IEEPA came when the law was passed and that the statute can be read broadly. But if that’s deemed to be true, such authority would have to be granted under one of two doctrines: nondelegation or the major questions doctrine. 

The nondelegation doctrine, Berry says, “holds that Congress can’t pass a law that’s so vague that it effectively allows the president to fill in the gaps and decide policy by himself.”

Opponents argue that even if the court decides that IEEPA grants the president authority to levy tariffs, the statute is so broad that it violates the nondelegation doctrine. But that will be a “tough argument” to make, according to Berry, “because no law has been struck down by the Supreme Court under the nondelegation doctrine in 90 years.”

So the justices’ decision will likely hinge on their statutory interpretation of IEEPA — on whether they believe that the words “regulate” and “importation” constitute legal authority for the president’s tariffs during a declared emergency.

The White House believes IEEPA grants the president broad authority to respond to foreign threats, including economic and national security concerns, and that tariffs are a tool for protecting the U.S. economy.

Many legal experts, including CATO’s Berry and Clark Packard, a research fellow in the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, believe the Supreme Court will rule against the president. 

Berry points to the major questions doctrine that has been developed in recent years by the conservative-leaning justices. It says the courts should be very skeptical when a president tries to use an old statute to enact a new policy that’s never been used before or that no one anticipated when it was enacted. This doctrine was applied when President Joe Biden tried to use an old 2003 HEROES Act to enact student loan forgiveness, and the court struck that down, 6-3.

“So I think all of the precedents and reasoning of those decisions apply just as much here, and the conservative justice certainly should, by the same reasoning, strike this down,” says Berry.

Packard says the “law is pretty clearly on the 

anti-tariff side.” He gives it a 60:40 chance, but like many of his colleagues across Washington, he notes that “it’s certainly not a slam dunk.”

Trump’s best chance for winning? His legal team is arguing that this is a national security and foreign affairs case because it involves international negotiations and alleged drugs crossing the border, for which his legal team says he needs more leeway and deference. 

“It’s possible that he might win over some justices who are particularly concerned about national security issues,” says Berry, pointing to Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. “But I don’t see that winning over a five-justice majority.”

Whatever the justices decide, the ruling could come quickly, with some experts pointing to as early as a month from now. 

The president is clearly concerned that this will not go his way. He posted on Truth Social on Sunday that if his ability to move quickly and nimbly on tariffs is removed, “we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation.”

Trump and his team have also warned that refunding the IEEPA tariffs could cause an administrative nightmare and hurt the U.S. economy. 

Trade experts point out that Customs and Border Protection are accustomed to processing duty refunds — and that the president has plenty of other, clearly legal levers he can pull to impose such tariffs.

Looking for cues

Everyone who has been affected by the tariffs, from world leaders to small business owners, will be watching to see what the justices ask the legal teams on Wednesday.

One rule of thumb, Berry says, is to see whether a justice gives more questions to one side. “That usually means they’re more skeptical of that side,” he says.

“The more justices raise national security, the more they might be sympathetic to the administration. But the more they raise separation of powers, major questions, and statutory interpretation concerns, I think the more sympathetic they are to the challengers.”

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.

The mayor of Toronto has made good on a promise she made to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

Olivia Chow was spotted in Toronto on Tuesday riding her bike in a blue-and white Dodgers jersey. The sight came just a few days after the Blue Jays were defeated in Game 7 of the 2025 World Series, as the Dodgers won the championship for the second year in a row.

“I make good on my bets,” Chow said on Facebook late Tuesday. “Congratulations to the Dodgers and Karen Bass. The Blue Jays made you fight for every inning, and our city showed what teamwork looks like.”

https://www.facebook.com/MayorOliviaChow/posts/694263100395178

A few weeks ago on Breakfast Television, it was revealed that the Toronto mayor made a friendly bet with Bass, one rooted in their love for baseball and cycling: The mayor of the city that loses wears the jersey of the opposing team on a bike ride.

“If Toronto loses, I’ll ride in miles. If L.A. loses, she’ll ride in kilometres,” Chow previously told

CityNews

.

• ‘Genocide in Gaza’: Jewish groups call for Olivia Chow to apologize, resign for anti-Israel remarks
• Less than half of Toronto residents approve of Mayor Olivia Chow’s performance: poll

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.