LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree speaks at a press conference announcing the government's firearms buy-back program on Parliament Hill in West Block in Ottawa, Ont. on Tuesday, Sept. 23 2025. Bryan Passifiume/Postmedia Network

OTTAWA — While the federal government

weathers the latest wave of backlash over its firearms buyback

, it has also been looking at ways to sell the program to gun owners.

Earlier this year, Public Safety Canada hired a consulting and research firm to conduct a series of focus groups and surveys to test potential concepts for a nationwide advertising campaign to raise awareness of the compensation program and encourage gun owners to participate.

The government is banking on the willingness of gun owners to do so, with Prime Minister Mark Carney calling it “voluntary.” Officials caution that gun owners have roughly a year to decide how to dispose of any of the more than 2,500 makes and models of firearms they own, which the Liberals have banned since 2020.

Much like the policy itself, the results for the potential ads were mixed.

“Many participants felt that the collage of smiling individuals looked more like an ad for a dating app, something health-related or for a college as opposed to addressing gun violence,” according to one section of a report authored by Environics Research and disclosed as part of the government’s reporting of its public opinion research.

Visuals of green parcels of land also triggered concerns about perpetuating the stereotype “that gun violence is caused by people in rural areas who own hunting rifles as a necessity and as part of their way of life.”

A spokesman for Public Safety Canada confirmed the campaign has yet to launch and that “creative choices will be available in due course.”

“Advertising is being planned to help raise awareness among firearm owners when the program is opened to all eligible owners later in the fall,” wrote spokesman Tim Warmington.

The testing of potential concepts was presented to the government in August 2025. The report says around 2,000 Canadians were surveyed online, including 600 gun owners. It also conducted 11 focus groups with 80 people, some of whom were gun owners and some who were not, back in March.

Those involved were read a script for a potential radio ad that listed the ways that the government was combating gun violence.

It included phrases like “stricter gun control” and “investments in law enforcement and border security.” It also mentioned “community funding to take on the root cause of crime” and ended by naming “the assault-style firearms compensation program that will remove prohibited firearms from our communities.”

While the report suggests those in the general public favoured the ad, about half reportedly recognized what the program was. By contrast, those who actually owned guns all knew what it was, but felt the opposite.

“There was an underlying feeling that the ad was aimed entirely at the non-firearm owning general public and not at firearm owners, to reassure and comfort them rather than discussing and solving the issues at hand.”

“At times, the overall message was ‘fear-based’ and overblown, making guns appear like the sole cause of violence.”

Gun owners were also shown three different concepts for poster and social media advertising on how the buyback program was open, with the same visuals shown to the general public, but with different text.

Only one of the three options actually showed the image of a gun, with the text below reading, “confirm your firearm or device is eligible.”

That option included stylized images of trees, cars, and laptops along with other random shapes, which gun owners said they found “confusing” and not relevant, even “trivializing” the topic, while they could appreciate that the message was at least simple.

The next option, a side profile of a human face, made up of a collage of other photos of faces, also elicited confusion among gun owners, who were “uncertain whether the people in the ad concept were supposed to be those giving up their guns or potential victims of gun violence.”

However, those in the general public reported feeling some emotional draw to the image, with women and those in Quebec being reminded of the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique shooting, where a gunman shot 14 women and injured 13 others.

For others, all the faces reminded them more of a “dating app” than an awareness campaign against gun violence.

The last option, which featured both a rural and a downtown cityscape, elicited some of the strongest criticism from gun owners and those from rural areas more generally.

“The rural landscape image, especially in the context of targeting law-abiding gun owners, creates confusion. Some participants felt it stigmatized farmers and hunters rather than addressing the bigger issue of urban gun violence.”

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.


This building on Clarke Street in Chinatown houses the Service a la famille chinoise du Grand Montréal, seen in Montreal on Thursday, March 9, 2023.

OTTAWA — The RCMP has closed its investigation into two alleged Montreal-area secret Chinese police stations in Quebec without laying charges.
 

In a statement, RCMP Quebec division spokesperson Cpl. Erique Gasse confirmed that the police force had closed the two-year-long investigation “recently.” The information was first reported by the
Journal de Montréal
.
 

“We confirm that we have closed the foreign interference investigation into alleged illicit activities reported in connection with Chinese diaspora service centres in the Montréal area. Due to ongoing legal proceedings, we are unable to comment in greater detail,” Gasse said.
 

“At this stage, the RCMP is not recommending that charges be laid,” he added. Gasse declined to say exactly when the police force closed the investigation.
 

In 2023, the RCMP announced that it was investigating two Montreal-area community organizations — Service à la Famille Chinoise du Grand Montréal (SFCGM) and the Centre Sino-Québec de la Rive-Sud (CSQRS) —
secretly housed a Chinese “police station”
 

The RCMP alleged the centres may be supporting efforts to intimidate or silence critics of China’s ruling communist regime. The investigation came after a report by human rights group Safeguard Defenders that alleged it had found 110 overseas Chinese police stations, including some in Canada.
 

At the time, the RCMP said the investigation was part of a larger probe aiming to “detect and perturb criminal activities supported by a foreign state that can threaten the safety of people living in Canada.”
 

One month later, it said it had “shut down illegal police activity in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.”
 

Leadership for both groups has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and filed a $4.9-million defamation lawsuit against the national police force in 2024. In April, National Post reported that the RCMP had obtained a third pause of the lawsuit as it aimed to complete its investigation by the end of the year.
 

“These allegations only serve to stigmatize and reinforce stereotypes and prejudices against a historically marginalized group,” SFCGM leadership said in
a January statement detailing
the impacts of the investigation on the organization.
 

SFCGM Executive Director Carol Cheung did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
 

The links between SFCGM and the Chinese government go back years and the organization likely received funding directly from Beijing, according to a 2023 report by the Toronto Star.
 

The newspaper cited Chinese media reports in 2016 that the SFCGM was designated as an Overseas Chinese Service Centre by China’s Overseas Chinese Affairs Office (OCAO), which became part of China’s controversial United Front Work Department in 2018. That designation generally comes with funding from the Chinese government.
 

In 2017, Chinese media published pictures of
Li with directors of OCAO
, which experts say was an
integral part of China’s “united front system”
that has been accused of stifling critics of the Chinese regime abroad.
 

The Canadian government has warned for years
that Beijing uses the United Front Work Department “to stifle criticism, infiltrate foreign political parties, diaspora communities, universities and multinational corporations.”

On Friday, Gasse said “

the RCMP will continue its efforts to combat foreign interference and any form of intimidation, harassment, threats or harmful targeting of diaspora communities or individuals in Canada.”

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.


Canada Post workers on strike on Alta Vista Drive in Ottawa on Friday, Sept. 26.

Canadians are dealing with their second Canada Post strike in under a year, as The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) reacted to Thursday’s news of sweeping changes to the Crown corporation by announcing a nation-wide strike, effective immediately. Pickets were already in place at Canada Post operations on Friday morning.

Here’s how the strike might impact Canadians.

What happens to your mail?

Canada Post noted that mail and parcels will not be processed or delivered for the duration of the strike, and that some post offices will be closed. Service guarantees are suspended for items already in the system, and no new items will be accepted until the disruption is over.

“All mail and parcels in the postal network will be secured and delivered as quickly as possible once operations resume,” Canada Post added in a statement.

What about passport applications?

The government is recommending that people use another courier to apply by mail, or to apply at a Service Canada Centre or passport office.

“In preparation for a possible labour disruption, we’ll deliver your passport through another courier,”

it added

 in a statement. “Some delays may occur.”

Will benefit cheques still go out?

Canada Post and CUPW say they have agreed to “continue the delivery of socio-economic cheques during any labour disruption, for eligible and participating government organizations.”

They added: “The agreement ensures government financial assistance delivered by mail will reach seniors and other Canadians who rely on it.”

What about bills and bank statements?

Many of Canada’s major banks are reminding customers that they can access bank statements and bills online, and can make payments through the bank’s website.

Several have also encouraged anyone needing a new debit or credit card to visit a branch.

Is this sudden strike legal?

Despite the sudden nature of the walk-out and the lack of advance notice, the strike appears to be legal.

Rafael Gomez, director of the Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources at the University of Toronto, notes: “They’re in a legal position to strike from the standpoint that a contract ended and CUPW has done everything that is legally required in order to get into a strike position.”

The last strike, which took place just before Christmas, ended with postal workers returning to their jobs — though a national ban on overtime work continues — but without a new contract. Instead, the government commissioned the

Kaplan Report

on the future of Canada Post, which it then drew on for many of Thursday’s recommendations.

“It was just sort of left in limbo,” Gomez says. “When you leave a file like this hanging, stuff like this kind of hits you in the face as if it’s out of nowhere, but it’s not. It’s been building.”

What did the government do to upset the union?

Procurement Minister Joël Lightbound unveiled the changes

d
uring a press conference

, in which he noted: “Canada Post is effectively insolvent, and it is facing an existential crisis.”

Changes included transitioning the country’s remaining four million individual addresses to a community mailbox system over the next nine years; relaxing delivery standards to allow for more transportation of mail by ground rather than air; and ending a moratorium on closing rural post offices.

How did the union react?

Not well. Jan Simpson, CUPW national president,

said in a release

: “This announcement was an outrage.”

Calling the announcement “slapdash” and “an insult to the public and to postal workers,” she concluded: “In response to the Government’s attack on our postal service and workers, effective immediately, all CUPW members at Canada Post are on a nation-wide strike.”

What does Canada Post say?

In

its own release

, Canada Post said: “We’re disappointed that the union chose to escalate their strike activity, which will further deteriorate Canada Post’s financial situation.” It added: “We understand that this latest update significantly impacts your business.”

Could the government force the workers back to their jobs?

It could, but it’s a tricky situation, says Gomez.

He points out that the federal government could invoke Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end the strike. But the last time it did that, to end

a strike by airline flight attendants

, the order was ignored, and public opinion sided with the union.

“Section 107 I think after that Air Canada incident was effectively delegitimized in the eyes of both the public and also the actors in the industrial relations system,” he says.

Another option would be a return-to-work vote in Parliament, which would have more legitimacy than the Canada Labour Code, but could be risky given that the Liberals still have a minority government, and could be toppled by a vote of confidence.

“Traditional bargaining should be the answer,” he concludes. “You hash it out.”

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.


U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra (left) delivers a monologue before taking part in a discussion on Canada-U.S. relations with Colin Robertson, a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, during the Global Business Forum in Banff, west of Calgary on Thursday, September 25, 2025.

U.S. ambassador to Canada

Pete Hoekstra

snapped back when asked about Donald Trump at a forum in Alberta on Thursday, saying he was offended by Canadians calling the president “uninformed.”

Hoekstra made the comments in Banff while speaking at the

Global Business Forum

, a private gathering of professional leaders from different walks of life. He also said “numbers are down” for Canadians using preclearance at airports to travel to the U.S. and his government should “look at it.”

Part of the exchange between Hoekstra and moderator, former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson, was published in

a video by The Canadian Press

. Hoekstra made it known to Robertson that Trump was “extremely well informed.”

“You may not like some of the things that he says or whatever, but again, to describe the president as being uninformed…you don’t hear Americans talk about our disagreements with Canadian politicians, saying they’re just uninformed,” he said.

Robertson noted that the president seems “not well informed” when he makes comments about Canada not having anything the U.S. might want, bringing up

potash

as an example, The Canadian Press reported.

Hoekstra said that he takes “great offence at Canadians saying our president is uninformed, our president is untrustworthy, and those types of things.”

Robertson asked if Hoekstra empathizes with Canadians who are upset about Trump’s 51st state comments.

“My direction from the president is very, very clear: prosperity, safety and security. And for those Canadians who want to talk about growing business opportunities, securing and their borders and those types of things…the embassy is open to do business with you,” Hoekstra responded.

“If you wanted talk about the 51st state, I’m sorry, I don’t have time to do that.”

 U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra speaks before taking part in a discussion on Canada-U.S. relations with Colin Robertson, a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, during the Global Business Forum in Banff, Alta., on Sept. 25, 2025.

Another part of the conversation was captured on video and published 

by CBC News

. Hoekstra pointed out to Robertson that although he thought “Canadians like the preclearance process,” the numbers are down.

Canadians have avoided travelling south of the border since a rocky relationship with the U.S. was sparked by Trump’s second term as president. His rhetoric about

Canada becoming the 51st state

, as well as an

ongoing trade war

, has left

Canadians feeling like they’re unwelcome

. Many

Canadians have even sold their U.S. property

and a movement was started for Canadians to avoid

buying products made in the U.S

.

In July,

according to Statistics Canada

, the number of Canadian residents returning from the U.S. by air decreased by just over 16 per cent from the same month a year earlier.

“We’re not sure we can make the numbers work anymore because preclearance is something that is done at the expense of the U.S. government. We pay for it,” he said.

Currently, there are 15 preclearance locations around the world. Implemented in 1952, the process allows travellers to go through  customs before boarding a flight that is bound for the U.S. and “proceed directly to their connecting flight or destination” upon landing,

according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

. Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Victoria, and Winnipeg all have preclearance.

If the number’s don’t “work anymore,” Hoekstra said, “you gotta take a look at some of these things.”

Robertson later questioned Hoekstra about his preclearance remarks, noting that Canadians still travel to the U.S. “an awful lot,” even if it’s not as much as they did six months ago or a year and a half ago.

“We’re your biggest source of tourism. Ending preclearance, doesn’t that cut off your nose to spite your face?” asked Robertson.

“Nobody said we were ending preclearance. Don’t put words in my mouth,” said Hoekstra. “If you have a business segment that is down 20 to 25 per cent—”

“Then you wonder why,” said Robertson, cutting off Hoekstra, who then scoffed.

“You take a look at the why,” Hoekstra continued, according to CBC News, “but you would also have a responsibility to your shareholders or the owner of the company in terms of how you will respond.”

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.


Effective immediately, Caroline Mulroney (pictured above in a file photo) has decreed: All 143 government agencies are subject to a hiring freeze.

The president of Ontario’s Treasury Board, Caroline Mulroney, is responsible for making sure all of the province’s agencies, boards and commissions are well run. Effective immediately, Mulroney has decreed: All 143 government agencies are subject to a hiring freeze.

In 2018, Premier Doug Ford’s newly elected government mandated a hiring freeze for the public service — a freeze that remains in place to this day. Mulroney’s decision means these measures apply, as well, to provincial agencies, boards and commissions.

“We instituted the hiring freeze across the Ontario public service in 2018,” Mulroney affirms in an interview, “and around the same time, the provincial government began a comprehensive review of our agencies.”

“There was some consolidation that occurred subsequent to that,” Mulroney elaborates. “Some new agencies were created; there was a pandemic; but we’ve continued to review the governance and the structure of the relationship between government and the agencies.” Over the Ford PC’s tenure in government, the number of provincial agencies was reduced from 191 to 143.

Today’s announcement by Mulroney extends the reach of Ontario government’s 2018 hiring freeze beyond bureaucrats within government ministries, to include personnel within public agencies who perform specific regulatory, advisory, adjudicative, or service-delivery functions, sometimes at arms-length from government departments.

In Ontario, that list of agencies, boards, and commissions includes Ontario Health, Metrolinx, the Ontario Energy Board, the province’s Lottery and Gaming commission, the Human Rights Commission, and Legal Aid Ontario.

“Over the last few years,” Mulroney reports, “we’ve been looking more closely at them and realized that the hiring freeze that we imposed on the OPS (Ontario public service) — it would be prudent as a next step to impose it now on our agencies.”

“The freeze will involve a cap,” she explains, “and for business-critical services, agencies will still have the ability to fill those spots. We don’t want to affect any business-critical decisions and business-critical services.” The minister’s press release also reinforces the government’s aim of “putting more resources into frontline service delivery and back into the pocket of taxpayers.”

“We expect in the future for agencies to bring forward HR plans to be approved by ministries,” Mulroney explains. She hastens to add: “I recognize our agencies deliver a big part of our mandate and so they’re delivering critical public services. We just believe that the approach that we’ve used in the Ontario public service can also be followed within these agencies.”

“Staffing in government agencies has risen by more than five times the rate of the OPS since 2023 (4.7 percent in agencies vs. 0.87 percent in the OPS),” the minister’s press materials state, “which has led to financial pressure that could jeopardize frontline service delivery.”

The hiring freeze on the public service since 2018 “kept growth relatively flat the entire time, while ensuring high quality public services for Ontarians,” Mulroney asserts. The province’s population in that window of time grew from 14 to 16 million.

This show of discipline by Ontario’s Treasury Board will no doubt be welcomed by many in the province. And I can’t resist asking Mulroney if her government has encouraged the feds to do something similar. Under the leadership of former prime minister Justin Trudeau, the federal civil service exploded, reportedly growing at a rate twice as fast as Canada’s population.

Mulroney colours within the lines — she’s circumspect. “Since Mark Carney was elected,” she responds, “I think there has been some talk” of reducing size within the federal public service. “But,” she reiterates, “this is about Ontario and what we’re doing, and how we can manage growth and still provide those services that we were elected to provide in the most cost effective way.”

Then, she adds: “I’ll be happy to talk about it with members of other governments, if they decide to consider this kind of an approach.”

Mulroney expects the public sector unions will understand the reasons for placing a hiring freeze on agencies, boards and commissions. And she takes care to reiterate — “this is a cap” — it’s about managing growth. “I think business owners,” she adds, “will say that this is something that they have to do every single day, so I don’t think that it’s an unreasonable thing to expect from our agencies.”

“Austerity” is a buzzword creeping into the vernacular of ordinary Canadians. But Mulroney isn’t embracing the term: “This isn’t about austerity,” she says evenly. “This is about good fiscal management. And we’re making the investments that we need to make to continue to build our province, and have measures in place to sustain people as we’re going through this difficult time because of the tariffs. But we’re doing so in a targeted and responsible way.”

Mulroney is also scheduled to today release the province’s public accounts for 2024-2025, together with Ontario’s finance minister,  Peter Bethlenfalvy. Of course, she’s not going to pre-empt that announcement, but she assures me “we’ll have some good news that will show that our fiscal management has been viewed as transparent and well run … I think we’ve got good news for taxpayers, and on our debt sustainability measures, I think those measures will also show that they’re trending in the right direction.”

As U.S. President Donald Trump wreaks havoc on the province’s economy — and Ontario’s debt grows weighty — this 51-year-old minister logically and calmly explains the rationale for imposing a hiring freeze on government agencies. Mulroney’s unrelenting focus on good governance and fiscal discipline is a breath of fresh air in a chaotic world. Steady, she goes.

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 woman looks at pictures of Israeli hostages during a vigil on the anniversary of the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel that triggered the ongoing war in Gaza, in front of McGill University, in Montreal, Oct. 7, 2024.

More than a quarter of Canadians believe “Jews are often to blame for any acts of prejudice they face,” according to a new national poll that the researcher says is indicative of post-October 7 victim-blaming on social media.

Leger found that 28 per cent of Canadians agree (nine per cent strongly and 19 per cent somewhat) with the statement that Jews are often to blame. The poll, which was conducted for the Association for Canadian Studies, found that just under three-quarters (72 per cent) of Canadians disagreed (37 per cent strongly and 35 per cent somewhat).

“I would first say that victim-blaming is not unique to antisemitism but part of a broader phenomenon to which several groups are regrettably vulnerable. So I was not entirely surprised,” said Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies, in an email.

“But, in this case, there is a post-October 7 climate with the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, where we’re seeing heightened tensions resulting in increasing attempts to hold Jews in Canada responsible.” He pointed to Radio-Canada journalist Élisa Serret’s recent comments accusing Israelis and Jews of running Hollywood and financing “a lot of American politics.” She was

“relieved from her duties”

last week.

Support for the statement that “Jews are often to blame for any acts of prejudice they face,” was strongest in Quebec (36 per cent), followed by Manitoba and Saskatchewan (30 per cent), the Atlantic provinces (28 per cent), British Columbia (27 per cent), Ontario (24 per cent) and Alberta (21 per cent). Canadian men were more likely (34 per cent) to agree with the statement compared to women (22 per cent).

Younger Canadians expressed higher rates of support for the sentiment, with 34 per cent of those between 18 and 24 strongly or somewhat agreeing, as well as 37 per cent of 25 to 34 year olds. Older Canadians were more likely to disagree with the statement. Over three-quarters (77 per cent) of 45 to 54 year olds and those aged 65 and older (78 per cent) opposed the view that Jews were responsible for their own targeting.

An

earlier poll

conducted by Leger found students were likely to see Muslims and not Jews as the most targeted group in the country, despite

Statistics Canada data

showing more than four times the number of hate crimes had been perpetrated against the Jewish community in 2023.

“As revealed in previous surveys, the phenomenon of post-October 7 victim-blaming is circulating on certain social media platforms where younger Canadians are somewhat more active in those spaces and more exposed to such narratives,” Jedwab wrote.

A similar generational difference was seen in the polling of Americans on the subject.

Support for a similar statement was highest among young Americans, with 21 per cent of those between 18 and 29 years old saying “yes” when asked if “Jews are often to blame for any acts of prejudice they face.” Fifty-eight per cent said “no” and 22 per cent said they don’t know or prefer not to answer. Older cohorts were slightly more likely to oppose the view. Among those aged 40 to 49, 62 per cent said “no” and 14 per cent said “yes.” For those aged 50 to 64, 15 per cent said “yes” and 60 per cent said “no.” For those aged 65 and over, it was 17 per cent “yes” and 66 per cent “no.”

Overall, a majority (60 per cent) of Americans opposed the statement. Americans were considerably less likely to agree with the sentiment (17 per cent) than Canadians (28 per cent).

“The victim blaming appears a fair bit less prevalent in the United States and despite that country’s high rate of polarization post October 7 some will contend that there is greater attention in addressing this phenomenon,” Jedwab said.

The poll was conducted between Aug. 29 and 31, based on an online survey of 1,627 Canadians and 1,014 Americans. A margin of error cannot be associated with a non-probability sample in a panel survey for comparison purposes. A probability sample of the same number of Canadian respondents would have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.52 per cent, 19 times out of 20. A probability sample of the same number of American respondents would yield a margin of error of plus or minus 3.99 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.


Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum shake hands after a joint press conference at the National Palace in Mexico City on September 18, 2025.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two characters with rival ambitions who have not always seen eye to eye are suddenly compelled to work together to take on a common antagonist …

It could be the theme of a superhero flick, but it’s the reality of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war that has Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum reaching for their capes. They hope their newfound cooperation can serve up a plot twist in the upcoming renegotiation of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

Last week, the two North American leaders met in Mexico City to expand both their economic and security ties, deepening their trade pact ahead of talks about the renewal of the free trade agreement. Both worry that the White House’s demands may prove disruptive in negotiations, so they’re seeking strength in numbers.

“I have full confidence, and so does the president (Sheinbaum), that we can find the adjustments needed to reinforce competition and competitiveness in our region,” Carney said in Mexico, noting that they would share intelligence on cross-border criminal organizations and work to improve border security. Fentanyl coming in from the border has been a particular concern for Trump

“We will move forward together,” Carney said, dispelling any notion of Canada sidelining Mexico in talks with the U.S.

The two countries have strong reasons to work together, but will their new pact make things easier or harder in negotiations with Trump?

Tariff-ic incentives

This year, the White House has imposed a 35 per cent tariff on non-CUSMA-compliant Canadian exports and a 25 per cent tariff on most Mexican non-CUSMA-compliant exports. But the U.S. president has also used Section 232 tariffs, citing national security threats, to impose sanctions — and notably overriding CUSMA — on steel and aluminium trade, with tariffs as high as 50 per cent.

The general tariffs, levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, have been questioned in U.S. courts, and the Supreme Court is set to review the case in November.

But even if those tariffs dry up legally, the U.S. administration is preparing to ramp up its use of the Section 232 tariffs in several areas, including semiconductors, copper, pharmaceuticals, lumber, commercial aircraft and jet engines, and a few other areas, with investigative reports for these due before the end of the year. Trade experts expect these investigations to lead to more tariffs on these products — and their derivatives — that override CUMSA, much like we’ve seen with steel and aluminum.

With so many tariffs potentially further weakening CUSMA, it is even more important that Canada and Mexico manage to keep as much of the agreement intact as possible.

Strategy as key

Carney and Sheinbaum hope their cooperative overtures can bolster their positions in CUSMA renegotiation talks, which are set to get underway next summer.

Wendy Cutler, senior VP at Asia Society Policy Institute and a former trade negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, sees it as a positive step and doubts that the White House will mind that Carney and Sheinbaum are coordinating.

“The U.S., under the Trump administration, I’m sure has concluded it has the most leverage of anyone. And it’s not going to be nervous about Canada and Mexico uniting on certain issues.”

“It could give (Canada and Mexico) more leverage vis-a-vis the U.S.,” Cutler said, but only if the countries remain united.

“If they’re not united,” she warned, “I think, like any good negotiator, the U.S. will play one off against the other,” noting that’s what they kind of did during the initial CUSMA negotiation.

Other experts say all-out unity isn’t necessary, so much as a better understanding of each other’s priorities.

The Canada-Mexico pact is “designed to have cooperation and collaboration in important areas,” said Jeff Schott, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

To continue enjoying the benefits of North American integration, Schott noted, Canada and Mexico know they need to work effectively with the U.S. and with one another, in both economic and security terms.

They don’t have to have a commonality in every area, Schott said, but they should “have a coordinated approach that promotes the best result for all three countries in North America.”

But any level of cooperation could still backfire.

“I do think (the pact) probably bothers the U.S.,” said Clark Packard, a research fellow at the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. “But ultimately, this wouldn’t have happened if the U.S. had just abided by the terms and spirit of cooperation under (CUSMA).”

Mexico and Canada both know they won’t have as much leverage as the U.S., and the negotiations will require a balancing act, Packard explained, because they will be starting from a “position of lower trust” in Washington.

He recommended that Carney and Sheinbaum push hard for tools that can help ensure CUSMA cannot be further abused by the fact that all three countries can impose national security-type trade measures that otherwise override CUSMA, essentially creating exceptions to the deal.

“Given the Trump administration’s proclivity to abuse national security as a pretext for rank protectionism,” Packard said, “I would ask for something like a requirement that Congress vote on the national security declaration” to offer an extra layer of assurance.

Likely flashpoints

All three countries have launched public consultations domestically ahead of the CUSMA review, and we will learn more about those in November, but experts already anticipate heated debate in a few areas.

Most trade experts expect the U.S. to push for stricter rules of origin, particularly for automobile manufacturing, and provisions for restricting or more intensely screening Chinese investment in the three countries. But Washington will likely also push for improving the rapid response mechanism when it comes to labor and updating the digital provisions.

Cutler said she’s concerned that if Washington presses Ottawa and Mexico City for preferences over one another in terms of where investments should go and on rules of origin, “I think that’s going to be very difficult for Canada and Mexico to accept.”

A bright red line, meanwhile, could be what the U.S. asks for in terms of external tariffs towards China, she added.

Tightening automotive rules of origin — CUSMA currently requires 75 per cent of the value of passenger vehicles, light trucks, and core auto parts to originate in North America — means costing producers even more, Schott warned.

“The more you tighten the rules of origin, the more you impose cost pressures that producers may not be able to recoup in the marketplace,” he said.

Packard agrees that auto rules or origin will be a contentious issue, but he is also keeping his eye on lumber, agriculture, and dairy, in particular.

Dairy is a tough issue for Carney to budge on, owing to domestic politics and the lobbying power of Ontario and Quebec’s farmers, but Andreas Schotter, an international business professor at Western University’s Ivey Business School, said Carney should hold the contentious Canadian dairy quota as a “trump card” in the CUSMA negotiations. He suggests giving it up for leverage and then following up later with dairy subsidies to offer farmers continued support.

Schotter is impressed by the fact that Sheinbaum agreed to meet with Carney, but he said one meeting is not enough. He urged Carney to “keep on pedalling” to move forward with the pact.

Whatever becomes the most-heated CUSMA-related topic in the months ahead, there will be one key difference within the U.S. that could benefit Canada and Mexico. Next November’s midterms mean members of Congress will be looking to shore up support in their constituencies. That will lead to more voicing of concerns about the costs of tariffs and interrupted trade policies that are hurting their voters. With the IEEPA tariffs, few American Republicans have dared to say anything for fear of a backlash from Trump — or even being primaried — but messing with CUSMA will likely invite public pushback.

“Congress is going to be a very active partner in this negotiation, unlike their role in other tariff negotiations in recent months,” said Cutler, noting how CUSMA needs congressional approval and North American businesses will want to be heard about how Trump’s tariffs are hurting them.

Long road ahead

There has been little progress on the U.S.-Canada trade negotiations in recent weeks, and all of the experts expect those talks to fold into the CUSMA review next year.

Because Trump has “essentially ripped up a binding framework that has damaged our commercial relationship,” Packard said, Canada and Mexico have strong arguments heading into the negotiations. But that doesn’t mean they will go well — or quickly.

“I anticipate these negotiations are going to be pretty fraught and lengthy,” Packard said.

Schott agrees, but he thinks some of the timing will come down to internal U.S. politics. In fact, he’s not sure the negotiations will start on time next July, given that it’s in the middle of the midterm election campaign.

“I can see nothing really major changing or being advanced or agreed to until after the results of the midterm elections,” he said.

Some fear it will take even longer.

“My sense is that it won’t be completed in 2026 — that it will continue unless Trump feels he’s gotten everything he can,” said Cutler.

“And I think that won’t be the case.”

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.


Starbucks will be closing some of its Canadian locations as part of a $1B restructuring.

Starbucks is closing some of its locations throughout North America, including in Canada, and eliminating around 900 non-retail jobs as part of

a $1 billion sweeping restructuring

.

The announcement was made Thursday by chairman and chief executive officer Brian Niccol in

a post made to the Starbucks website

.

“Our goal is for every coffeehouse to deliver a warm and welcoming space with a great atmosphere and a seat for every occasion,” Niccol said. But during a company-wide review, the company identified shops “unable to create the physical environment our customers and partners expect, or where we don’t see a path to financial performance, and these locations will be closed.”

While Starbucks regularly opens and closes stores because of expired lease and poor financial performance, Niccol

acknowledged that the restructuring will impact employees and customers

.

“Our coffeehouses are centres of the community, and closing any location is difficult,” he said.

The company expects its total number North America stores to be reduced by about one per cent in fiscal 2025, ending the year with nearly 18,300 locations across the U.S. and Canada.

Meanwhile, he said Starbucks plans to upgrade more than 1,000 locations over the next year to “introduce greater texture, warmth, and layered design.”

Affected employees – referred to as “partners” – in closing stores will be notified this week.

Starbucks says it plans to

offer transfers to nearby locations

where possible. Otherwise, there will be severance packages and the possibility of being rehired as new stores open.

The layoffs come as talks between Starbucks and the Workers United union, which represents over 12,000 baristas, have hit a wall.

In December, some union members walked off the jobs in multiple U.S. cities. The strike spanned several days during the peak holiday season.

There were store closures, criticized by the union.

The company said earlier this year it would eliminate 1,100 corporate roles. In August, it also announced a modest 2 per cent hike to all salaried employees in North America this year.

Starbucks shares were down marginally in afternoon trading. They have risen about 9 per cent since Niccol took over in August 2024.

In his first year as CEO, Niccol zeroed in on investing in Starbucks’ stores to reduce wait times and restore a coffee-house environment, while also trimming management layers.

However, the company has posted a string of quarterly sales declines as demand for its expensive lattes took a hit from consumers.

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.


Afternoon traffic on highway 401 East and West bound in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

A civic group is advocating for Toronto to adopt congestion pricing, following the route taken by cities such as New York, London, Stockholm and Singapore.

It’s a tactic aimed at

reducing traffic

in downtowns, with the collected congestion fees meant to go toward improving public transit and urban infrastructure.

The new organization called

Build Toronto

, launched by national non-profit organization

Build Canada

,

is suggesting a congestion charge of $15 per vehicle to drive in the downtown core.

The congestion pricing suggestion was put forward in a memo,

“Keep Toronto Moving With Congestion Pricing”

posted to the Build Toronto website and written by

Jamie McDonald

, CEO of A2X, a firm that provides accounting for sellers on popular online platforms such as Shopify, Amazon, eBay and Etsy.

McDonald contends congestion pricing “works where everything else has failed. Widening highways and removing tolls only make congestion worse … Expanding highways has failed — the 401 is one of the widest in the world and still jams daily.”

The goal, he says, is to reduce downtown commute times by 15–20 per cent within two years, while funding major transit improvements.

Congestion pricing in London has removed tens of thousands of cars a day from its core, he argues. And he notes that in New York,

it has taken 43,000 cars a day off Manhattan’s streets

(based on preliminary data from its first week of operation).

McDonald proposes the following actions:

  • Toronto should introduce a downtown pilot zone.
  • On 400-series highways and expressways within and surrounding the city should adopt Singapore’s model of adjusting tolls in real time to maintain average speeds of around 60 km/h.
  • Exemptions for emergency vehicles and wheelchair-accessible vehicles should be standard. Targeted discounts for low-income drivers and residents living inside the zone can follow London’s model.
  • Revenues should expand GO train frequency, improve Toronto Transit Commission reliability, and build park-and-ride facilities at transit hubs.

This is not the first discussion of congestion pricing for Toronto. In late 2024, the Toronto Region Board of Trade announced a new

Congestion Task Force

to dig into the problem and come up with “actionable solutions.”

In its

December 2024 statement

it recognized that establishing congestion pricing is not an easy sell, stating that it’s not a “silver bullet” or “one-size fits all” solution.

For example, it noted New York debated congestion pricing for decades. A plan for Manhattan’s central business district was approved in 2019 but then delayed. Governor Kathy Hochul paused the program in 2024, citing concerns over post-COVID economic recovery. Still, it

launched in January

.

In

Vancouver

the city council pushed back against it 2022. The concept had been intensely criticized by businesses worried urban road tolls would discourage patrons. And many citizens worried about the extra cost for drivers who rely on their cars.

Sometimes the debate is nuanced. For example, in London the number of vehicles driving into the city centre dropped by 

18 per cent during weekdays

 as a result of congestion pricing. But earlier this year, a transport analytics company declared London 

the most congested city in Europe

, with drivers spending increasing amounts of time sitting in traffic.

Transport for London’s response

was that the increased congestion was caused by some car lanes being “repurposed for other uses” such as bike lanes — the subject of

recent heated debate

in Toronto.

Toronto has had its own tugs of war over congestion pricing. In 2016, a

$2 toll on the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway

was proposed by the city, with an anticipated $200 million boost for transit and infrastructure funding. But the province nixed it, citing affordability concerns. More recently, the Ford government has banned any future tolls on provincial highways and removed them from the 407.

However, the Board of Trade is hopeful that improving public transit, including projects like the Ontario (subway) Line could make congestion pricing more palatable in time.

“As we’ve seen in other global cities, congestion pricing can play a helpful role in alleviating traffic…. (I)t can take years to build consensus and implement and relies on important factors like viable transit alternatives to be successful. Beginning the conversation now can prepare the region for if and when a model could work here in the future.”

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.


Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Steven Guilbeault announces the creation of the Canada Strong Pass, at the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa on Monday, June 16, 2025.

OTTAWA —
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s office says the federal government has “no intention” of repealing either the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act. For now.
 

“We are committed to supporting strong, independent newsrooms across the country,” Guilbeault’s director of communications Alisson Lévesque said in a statement
first reported by Politico
. “The federal government has no intention of repealing either of the Acts.”
 

But hidden behind the definitive-sounding statement is a major caveat: trade talks with the U.S. government.
 

Lévesque explained to National Post that though Guilbeault has no intention of repealing either law, the minister is not in charge of ongoing negotiations with the Trump administration.
 

That means she can’t say if the Acts are being used as a bargaining chip with the U.S by Prime Minister Mark Carney and
Dominic LeBlanc, the minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade.
 

“For us, currently, the intention is not to repeal those acts… But I can’t pretend to know the end result of the negotiations with the United States” which are “very much” the main factor that will determine the future of both acts, she said.
 

The Prime Minister’s Office did not immediately respond to questions about whether it had any intention of repealing either act.
 

Both the Online News Act and the Online Streaming Act have been in the crosshairs of U.S. lawmakers for years because they directly impact U.S. web giants. Both laws were flagship digital policies by former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s government.
 

The Online News Act c
ompels social media giants to negotiate revenue-sharing deals with news publishers for the use of their content.
 

The bill specifically impacted Meta and Google, though both have taken opposing routes to get exempt from the Act. Meta banned news content outright on its platforms when the bill became law, while Google signed a $100 million annual deal with Canadian publishers last year.
 

But the act’s future was suddenly cast in doubt in early August when Carney suggested he was considering substituting or rescinding it to ensure local news is disseminated wider and faster amid Meta’s ban of Canadian news media links.
 

Carney suggested rescinding or amending the law was “part of our thinking around” improving the reach of local media.
 

“Ensuring that Canadians have access to local, unbiased, and timely life-saving information — especially during emergencies, as the Prime Minister noted when asked about this issue—is essential to keeping Canadians safe,” Lévesque said in her statement Thursday.
 

In August, National Post revealed that Republicans on an influential House committee had written to top Trump administration officials asking that they pressure Canada to kibosh the controversial Online Streaming Act.
 

In the letter,
they argued that the law
— which brought online streaming platforms under Canadian broadcasting laws and led to a ruling that they have to pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenue into a Canadian content fund — was a “major threat” to the trade relationship.
 

The Act is strongly supported by Canadian broadcasters, who argue it levels the playing field by compelling streaming giants to pay the same fees they’ve had to for decades under broadcasting laws.

Testifying at the House of Commons Heritage Committee on Wednesday afternoon, Guilbeault repeated his government’s pledge to boost funding for the CBC and Radio-Canada by $150 million by next year, but noted that he wanted to see some changes with that money.

“We’re certainly going to demand a certain number of things” from the public broadcaster, Guilbeault told MPs.

“You can expect to see something about investments in local news across the country”, adding that he expected “good news” on that front to come quickly.

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.