U.S. President Donald Trump says he will meet with Prime Minister Mark Carney, whom he called a “very nice gentleman,” at the White House in the coming days.

Trump and Carney spoke privately on Tuesday, the day after the Liberal leader won the federal election. Trump said Carney “couldn’t have been nicer and I congratulated him.”

Trump made the comments Wednesday in response to a reporter’s question in the Oval Office about the Canada-U.S. relationship. He said he plans to meet with Carney “within the next week or less.” He also expects to have a “great relationship” with Canada.

He weighed in on the Canadian election, calling it a tight race and said the outcome makes it “complicated for the country.”

He said he thought both Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre hated him, but added: “I actually think the Conservative hated me much more than the so-called ‘Liberal.’”

Carney has said previously he’s open to meeting with Trump if the president respects Canadian sovereignty and is willing to talk about a common approach to the Canada-U.S. trade relationship. The Prime Minister’s Office has not confirmed a date for the meeting.

According to

a statement from the PMO about the call

, both leaders agreed on the importance of Canada and the United States working together as “independent, sovereign nations for their betterment.”

The PMO’s readout said only that Trump and Carney would meet in the near future.

However, the

only public congratulations

from the Trump administration came via a statement from the U.S. State Department. It emphasized the extensive U.S.-Canada relationship and highlighted cooperation on issues like trade, immigration, drug trafficking and countering Chinese influence.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly sent

the statement to the Associated Press

, asserting that the Canadian election “does not affect President Trump’s plan to make Canada America’s cherished 51st state.” Trump’s press secretary,

Karoline Leavitt, reinforced this message

, stating that Trump’s calls for Canada to become the 51st state were “Trump truthing, all the way.”

How did Trump influence the election?

On election day

, Trump reasserted that the U.S.-Canadian border is “artificially drawn” and that Canada would benefit from annexation.

Trump’s antagonistic stance was widely seen as

influencing the Canadian election outcome

. The Liberal party, under Carney, campaigned heavily on defending Canada’s sovereignty against Trump’s provocations. Many analysts and Canadian officials believe that Trump’s threats and attacks galvanized Canadian voters, helping the Liberals secure a minority government despite earlier predictions of defeat.

In

his victory speech

, Carney, directly addressed Trump’s threats, declaring that Canada would “never” yield to U.S. pressure and emphasized the need for Canada to look after its own interests and maintain sovereignty. Carney also indicated that upcoming negotiations with the Trump administration would be approached with caution and a clear focus on Canadian priorities.

What happened on Trump’s first call with Carney?

Trump raised the idea of Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state when he spoke to Carney after he won the Liberal leadership in March. Carney did not mention it in his initial description of the call and only confirmed it when he was asked about the omission by a reporter during the election campaign. He emphasized that the conversation ultimately focused on

both leaders engaging as sovereign equals

.

Carney said that Trump, despite his assertive public rhetoric,

treated him as Canada’s prime minister

and acknowledged Canada’s sovereignty during the call. Carney stressed that any negotiations would proceed on Canada’s terms, as an independent nation.

According to the PMO, the leaders agreed to meet in person soon to continue discussions and to intensify talks between their respective trade and commerce officials to address immediate concerns.

How could Trump’s rhetoric affect the Canada-U.S. relationship?

The

political backlash in Canada

triggered by Trump’s comments led to Carney’s frequent warnings that the country must “dramatically reduce” its reliance on the U.S., signalling a move to

diversify trade and security partnerships

, by expanding trade with the EU and U.K., a complex task given Canada’s geographic and economic ties to the U.S.

Canadian officials are

now preparing

for a “fundamentally different relationship,” with less trust and a greater emphasis on safeguarding national interests.

Going forward some key issues could include:

• The $1.3 billion Canadian investment to enhance shared border security, focusing on drug interdiction (e.g., fentanyl) and infrastructure resilience.
• Canada could reconsider joining the U.S. missile defence program amid technological threats, marking a shift from its traditional stance.
• Joint restrictions on exports with security risks, cross-border data flows, and investments involving adversaries like China.
• Coordinated measures to reduce reliance on Chinese and Russian critical minerals and technology, emphasizing North American self-sufficiency.

Where does Canada stand in its trade relationship with the U.S.?

Trump’s 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian autos (effective May 3)

risk triggering a recession in Canada

, which relies on the U.S. for over 20 per cent of its GDP through exports.

Despite Carney’s assertion that Canada has “

leverage

,” Trump could look for concessions on issues like energy policy or regulatory alignment. Matching U.S. tariffs could risk hurting Canadian industries reliant on U.S. imports, such as manufacturing supply chains.

In 2025, Canada will be taking on the

lead roles

within the G7 and the USMCA Free Trade Commission. Building on CUSMA/USMCA provisions, the countries will likely look to enhance tariff-free market access, streamline regulatory alignment, and address non-tariff barriers (for example, remanufactured goods rules). Canada is likely to want strengthened integrated automotive and manufacturing sectors, reinforced by CUSMA’s rules of origin and tariff exemptions.

Canada could meet potential U.S. demands for easier market entry for American financial institutions by countering with reciprocal conditions. Canada could also look for modernized provisions for

digital trade, small business support, and labour protections

to ensure equitable growth.

National Post, with additional reporting from the Canadian Press

• Trump tells Canadians to ‘elect the man’ who will let Canada become the 51st state
• Liberal Leader Carney declares victory at ‘hinge moment’ in history

 

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.

With the election count

all but finalized

, it looks as though the governing Liberals under Prime Minister Mark Carney will be forming a minority government. Here’s what that means for the party and the country.

What is a minority government?

It’s simply a government in which no party holds more than 50 per cent of the seats in Parliament. The magic number in this case is 172, but the Liberals, who went into the election with 152 seats, emerged with 169, three short of a majority. Thus, any piece of legislation will require some opposition votes, in addition to all the Liberal members of Parliament.

Can they do that?

Yes, they can. Akaash Maharaj, a senior fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, points out that Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet has already said he does not intend to bring down the current government

“for at least a year.”

“That was a remarkable thing for him to say, because he played his hand and gave up any influence he might have to try to extract things from Carney,” said Maharaj. “But it does mean that Carney can, in all probability, govern as if he had a majority for the first year. After that, especially once there is a new leader for the NDP, and the provincial elections in Quebec start to put pressure on the Bloc Québécois, the dynamics will change.”

What power do the other parties have?

The New Democratic Party, thanks to its poor showing in the election — just seven seats, a loss of

official party status

, and the announced resignation of its leader, Jagmeet Singh — has little power and even less desire to rock the boat and potentially trigger another election.

But the Conservatives, despite their 144 seats in the House of Commons, are in a somewhat weakened position as well.

“They are likely to find themselves without any dance partners in the political ballet of Parliament,” said Maharaj. “Having said that, I don’t think that they are powerless. More than 41 per cent of Canadians voted for them, and that suggests a significant hold on the public imagination. Conservatives will retain the power to influence public sentiment (and) to hold the government to account.”

He added: “One of the dynamics that I observed in this campaign is that, when the subjects of discussion in the public debate were issues like affordability, the housing crisis, the gap between rich and poor, whether people have hope for the future — all those issues favoured the Conservative Party. The Liberals stormed to victory because of the one issue that favoured them, and that is who is best placed to defend Canadian interests against the predatory government in the United States.

“That will remain a significant issue for the life of this Parliament, but all those other issues, the bread-and-butter issues, will continue to gnaw at Canadians. If Carney can answer them, then he will be in a tremendously strong position. But those are really difficult issues to deal with.”

How long is the current government likely to last?

“If this government follows the path of most previous minority governments, Mark Carney has about two years to win over Canadians,” Maharaj predicted. “It will be a very difficult two years for him.”

What is a confidence and supply agreement?

This is an arrangement under which a minority government receives the support of one or more parties or MPs on confidence votes and the budget (supply). In 2022, the NDP and the governing Liberals under Justin Trudeau signed

such an agreement

, with the NDP promising to support the government, and the Liberals pledging to move ahead on a dental care program and other issues. Singh announced the

early termination

of the agreement on Sept. 4, 2024.

Will this government form a confidence and supply agreement?

It’s unlikely, since the Bloc has already signalled its intention not to bring down the government, and the NDP no longer has much bargaining power.

“To all practical purposes, there is no New Democratic Party in Canada’s Parliament now,” said Maharaj. “There are seven independent MPs who ran under an orange banner.”

Are we better off with a minority government?

Maharaj said that in many ways we are. “We often … forget that a core part of democracy isn’t just voting for the government, it’s also holding the government to account between elections,” he said. “The role of opposition parties is an important and an honourable one, and a minority government gives those opposition parties the chance to restrain the worst instincts of the government. It also requires opposition parties to act in a more mature fashion.”

He explained: “When we have majority governments, opposition parties often collapse into hysteria. Every issue is the end of the world. Every act by a minister or the Prime Minister is the act of a tyrant, and they’re able to catastrophize measures because they hold no responsibility for what happens or what does not happen. In a minority government, the opposition parties have some power and therefore have some responsibility, and there is some pressure on them to behave in a more mature fashion.”

In fact, he argued that a “slender majority” can in some ways be worse than an outright minority.

“If you have a government that has a one or two seat majority, it puts a dagger in the hand of every disgruntled backbencher, who can threaten to bring down the government if he or she is sufficiently aggrieved.”

• What does it mean for the NDP to lose official party status in Parliament?
• Bloc Québécois leader says he won’t ‘threaten to overthrow the government anytime soon’

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 new survey finds “an important minority of Canadians” channel strong negative sentiment towards Israel into negative views of Jews.

Israel Independence Day begins the evening of April 30, marking the Jewish state’s 77th birthday, amid a tide of antisemitism in Canada and elsewhere.

“While people certainly have the right to criticize the government of Israel, it’s a serious problem when it descends into antisemitism,” said Jack Jedwab, the president and CEO of the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute, in an email.

Two surveys by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies examine Canadians’ views on Israel, Judaism, and Jews, and explore the connections between opinions of Israel and attitudes toward Judaism and Jews. They also investigate the impact of Holocaust awareness on shaping these attitudes.

Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacks triggered the Israel-Hamas conflict, there has been a significant increase in hate crimes targeting Jews across Canada. Of the 1,284 police-reported religion-based hate crimes in Canada in 2023, an alarming 900 targeted Jews, according to the most recent Statistics Canada report.

The first Leger survey, conducted on March 1-2, 2025, asked questions of 1,548 Canadians. The second survey took place between April 17-19 and involved 1,603 Canadians.

One of the findings is that most people who hold a very negative opinion of Israel had the most negative views of Judaism. One survey found that the majority of people holding a negative view of Judaism hold negative views of Jews.

“The study confirms some links between anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment. The observation requires some nuance and is complex, as most Canadians holding negative sentiments toward Israel do not hold very negative sentiments toward Jews. Nonetheless, an important minority of Canadians do indeed channel strong negative sentiment towards Israel into negative views of Jews,” said Jedwab.

“There is a point at which negative sentiment towards Israel translates into an anti-Jewish sentiment.”

The second survey found that older Canadians more likely to view relations between Canada and Israel, as well as between non-Jewish Canadians and Jewish Canadians, positively rather than negatively.

The surveys also looked at how francophones and Quebecers perceived Jews and Judaism.

The survey found that 55 per cent of French-Canadians hold a negative view of Israel, compared to 42 per cent of English Canadians. Quebecers are more likely than the residents of other provinces to assess relations between Jewish and non-Jewish Canadians negatively. Quebecers are also the most likely to have a negative view of Israel. Francophones in Canada are also somewhat more likely to have negative opinions of Judaism and Jews, according to the surveys.

Richard Marceau, vice-president of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said one factor is the “lack of contact” between francophones and Jews. “Seventy-five per cent of Quebec Jews are English speaking as a first language,” he said.

Another reason, according to Marceau, is that “francophones, especially in Quebec, tend to have, generally speaking, a more negative view of religion.”

Quebec’s secular stance is reflected in public support for laws like Bill 21, which restricts public officials and certain public sector employees, such as teachers, from wearing religious symbols at work.

The survey found that people who responded they had good knowledge of the Holocaust viewed Jews, Israel and Judaism more favourably.

Marceau said education is an important tool in combating antisemitism. He said that there is generally a lack of understanding about Jews.

“Holocaust education to me is central, because the entire post-World War 2 infrastructure in terms of protection of human rights flew from what we saw in the Holocaust.”

He also said Canada needs better protection of Jewish institutions and a stricter enforcement of existing laws. He also advocates for making the glorification of terrorism a crime.

“It’s not normal that synagogues are vandalized, that Jewish-owned businesses … are vandalized. It’s not normal that to go to synagogue, you actually have to go through different layers of security just to go in to pray,” said Marceau, “It is the promise of Canada that is being broken towards the Jewish people.”

He added that antisemitism impacts all Canadians, not just Jews.

“I think a lot of Canadians see it as a frontal attack on what Canada stands for.”

• FIRST READING: More than 300 candidates sign on to campaign pushed by radical anti-Israel group
• Opinion: The moral and legal case for Israel’s war against Hamas

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.

Mould has been discovered in nearly half of the Royal Canadian Navy’s 12 frigates.

Cheryl Forrest, who speaks for National Defence, confirmed that mould has been found in five frigates, the most recent on HMCS Vancouver this year.

“Small amounts of mould have been reported in two areas of high humidity on HMCS Vancouver recently and were quickly removed and the areas cleaned,” Forrest said in an email. “This also resulted in enhanced inspections of similar areas of concern on the ship with no other mould areas reported.”

The other contaminated ships are HMCS St. John’s in 2011, HMCS Calgary in 2018, HMCS Halifax and HMCS Charlottetown in 2019.

While Forrest didn’t mention it, a report from the Directorate of Force Health Protection released in 2018 indicates an air quality assessment aboard HMCS Winnipeg found higher-than-normal levels of mould spores in three compartments while the frigate was sailing from Tokyo to Hawaii in July 2017.

The mould was removed from “affected frigates,” Forrest said. “Technical enhancements were completed to improve air quality. If mould recurs, ships have been directed to clean and report it immediately.”

Maritime and shipboard environments can be humid and warm, which makes them naturally prone to mould, she said.

The issue of mould in the Halifax-class warships made headlines recently when a Federal Court judge shot down a proposed class action case led by a former Royal Canadian Air Force captain who claimed “dangerous levels of toxic mould” in HMCS Vancouver caused him serious ongoing health problems. The judge ruled Félix Dunn, an air combat systems officer who was stationed aboard the warship from June until December of 2016, couldn’t sue the federal government over the mould issue because Veterans Affairs Canada had already compensated him for the same injury.

Forrest said the military has developed an air quality program for the frigates “to support a safe working environment.”

“This involves the Canadian Forces Deployable Health Hazard Assessment Team onboard a Halifax Class frigate each year for a period of two weeks to undertake an indoor air quality assessment throughout the ship. Collected samples are tested by an independent laboratory to determine if mould spores are present in a greater quantity than a sample of outdoor air reference sample.”

HMCS Ville de Quebec “was surveyed (last October) and no significant mould issues were identified,” Forrest said. “HMCS Vancouver has been selected to have this survey undertaken during 2025.”

Inspection and cleaning routines for the ventilation trunking, or ductwork in the frigates, happens on a five-year schedule, she said. “Areas which are prone to high humidity (such as places where food is served and prepared, and washrooms) are inspected and cleaned more frequently (on a 12-month or a 24-month schedule).”

Preventative medicine experts from Canadian Forces Health Services also conduct a visual sanitation certification every six months on the ships, with air quality inspections conducted on a three-year cycle.

When National Post asked if people are reporting illness due to the mould in the frigates, Forrest said, “a review of records for the last 36 months revealed no mould-related symptoms having been reported to our Preventative Medicine Offices.”

But Ken Hansen, a defence analyst and former navy commander, said reporting health problems due to mould could hurt a sailor’s career.

“You’d probably be posted ashore as unfit for sea duty,” Hansen said.

“So, there’s a money penalty there. Plus, everybody is training with an eye to getting promoted and moved up, or getting on to a career course, both of which you would be prohibited from doing… If you’re ill, there will be a restriction on your employment, which means the career manager will pull your file out of the stack that’s going in to the (annual selection) board. So, there’s another penalty.”

When a sailor’s identified as unfit for sea duty, they go on a period of two years of accommodation, he said. “Literally it’s a stopwatch that’s counting down to your last day in the service, and there’s huge pension and income implications for that.”

Many choose not to complain about various ailments for fear of torpedoing their careers, according to Hansen. “There are a lot of guys walking around who are hurting and they are not telling anybody.”

The navy has made technical changes to combat mould in the frigates, including drainage modifications in the primary air conditioning systems, fleet-wide air conditioning control system upgrades, and primary air rebalancing trials, Forrest said.

“Strict mould cleaning procedures are in place for our frigates,” she said. “Training and direction are regularly provided on the importance of ships’ cleaning to maintain shipboard air quality.”

Richard Shimooka, senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, wasn’t surprised to hear mould has been detected in nearly half the navy’s frigates, the first of which, HMCS Halifax, launched in 1988 and went into service in 1992.

“Each one now takes a million dock work hours to get up and running for a deployment,” Shimooka said. “It used to take 100,000. Now it’s up to a million and it’s going to go higher.”

The frigates have operated in hot climates, such as the Indian Ocean, he said. “There’s a lot of accumulated time on these vessels and they’ve been worked hard.”

• Ex-captain says mouldy Canadian navy warship made him sick, but class-action lawsuit was denied
• ‘Degraded’ ventilation and old equipment led to buildup of mould in Canadian warship

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.

It’s said that politics is as unforgiving as a blood sport — one move can make or break a career. For outgoing NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, we can now pinpoint the exact moment that sealed his fate: when, in December, he said he wouldn’t play “games” with the Conservatives.

Singh was speaking about the third non-confidence motion the Conservatives had introduced to try to bring down the deeply unpopular government of Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau. Despite

ending

his party’s confidence-and-supply agreement with the Liberals in September, Singh

accused the Tories

of “playing games” and pledged to continue propping up the government. As it turns out, Singh might not have been playing the game, but that doesn’t mean the game wasn’t being played.

While the government had survived confidence motions on

Sept. 25

and

Oct. 1

, the

Dec. 9 vote

was different because the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it, after Trudeau failed to acquiesce to

an ultimatum

issued by the party. Had the Bloc and NDP voted for the motion, the government would have fallen and we would likely be in a much different situation today.

At the time, Singh took a lot of flack,

especially

from

conservatives

, for continuing to prop up a government whose policies he clearly didn’t support. But from Singh’s perspective, the decision made perfect sense. After all, the NDP has never had as much influence over government policy as it did while the

confidence-and-supply deal

was in place between March 2022 and September 2024.

Singh knew that when an election was eventually called, he would be able to go to his voters and say that the NDP finally achieved real-world results on issues like pharmacare and socialized dental care. But he also knew that if Canadians went to the polls right away, the Conservatives, who

were then leading

both the Liberals and New Democrats by more than 20 points, would likely have formed government.

If that had happened, Singh would have lost all his power. Even if the Conservatives had been held to a minority, it’s unlikely that the NDP wouldn’t have had much sway over the government, as there are few issues that free-market Tories and socialist Dippers agree on. As Singh

told the media

at the time, he was worried that the Conservatives would cut the very programs he had fought so hard to get the Liberals to enact.

From an ideological perspective, Singh’s calculus thus made perfect sense. And perhaps, despite announcing his resignation on election night, the NDP leader will be able to sleep soundly believing he will someday be remembered as the Tommy Douglas of tooth decay.

But, for better or worse, politics is about more than just policy. It’s about power. Which is why the most successful politicians are quick to punt ideology to the sidelines when it suits their political interests. Singh put ideology over party and it cost New Democrats dearly.

The day after the Liberals survived the third confidence motion of the fall sitting,

an Ipsos poll

showed the Conservatives way ahead of the pack with 44 per cent support, compared to 21 per cent apiece for the Liberals and NDP. If the government had fallen, Trudeau wouldn’t have had time to resign and find a new party leader before the election, meaning the NDP would have had a real chance of forming the official Opposition for only the second time

in history

.

This would have helped sustain the NDP brand and extended Singh’s political career. Instead, Singh waited out the clock and allowed the Liberals to find their next messiah. Ultimately, Singh’s plan to run on the concessions he received from the minority Liberal government backfired when left-wing voters finally realized that Canadian elections are always a binary choice between the two parties that actually have a shot of forming government.

And so it was that Monday’s election saw the New Democrats

lose 18 seats

, including Singh’s own seat in Burnaby Central. Singh’s signature policy wins may live to see another day, but his party is now a shell of its former self, having been reduced to seven seats, from a high of 103 in 2011 under Jack Layton. Rebuilding the party will be an uphill battle.

This was a historic election for this country because it will likely mark a turning point in Canada-U.S. relations and, with a little luck, in how serious Canada takes its own defence and economic prosperity. But this may also be the era that historians look back on as the period in which the NDP’s power finally crested, before the Orange Wave crashed ashore, turning the New Democratic Party back into what it was always meant to be: a left-wing protest party with no hope of gaining any real power.

National Post

jkline@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/accessd

• Jesse Kline: Liberals prove they’re the ‘natural governing party’ after all
• Carson Jerema: Pierre Poilievre didn’t stand a chance