OTTAWA — Karen Restoule, the director of Indigenous affairs at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, says she was struck by the number of times she heard the word “Indigenous” during Thursday’s federal-Alberta announcement regarding a new West Coast oil pipeline.

“(Prime Minister Mark) Carney and (Alberta Premier Danielle) Smith must have both said ‘Indigenous’ or ‘First Nations’ at least a dozen times each,” said Restoule. “I honestly lost track.”

Carney and Smith appeared together in Calgary to announce that they’d agreed on a route for a new pipeline, running southwest from Bruderheim, Alta. to the Roberts Bank terminal near Vancouver. The premier had originally preferred a northern route to Prince Rupert, B.C., which is closer to Asian markets, but some Indigenous groups along that route had said they were opposed.

Smith announced that she’d formally submitted the southerly pipeline proposal to the federal Major Projects Office for consideration as a project of national interest, and Carney has committed to declaring it as a national interest project by October 2027.

But what was just as key in the announcement, say observers, is how much emphasis Smith has been putting on ensuring buy in from Indigenous communities.

Tellingly, Smith was flanked at the announcement by Alberta Indigenous Affairs Minister Rajan Sawhney, who she said will be “very busy over the coming months.”

Sawhney met with more than 40 First Nations, in Alberta and British Columbia, in the months leading up to Thursday’s announcement, according to her staff.

Alberta’s November 2025 memorandum of understanding with the federal government laying the groundwork for the new pipeline said that it would entail “Indigenous Peoples’ co-ownership and economic benefits.”

The new pipeline will be built and majority owned by the Trans Mountain Corporation, a federally owned Crown corporation, with minority participation from Pembina Pipeline Corp. But Smith said Thursday that the proposal includes an equity ownership opportunity for First Nations’ partners, saying more details of that will be shared in the coming months.

Pembina previously formed a 50-50 partnership with a coalition of First Nations and Métis communities to try buying the existing Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline , which was completed in 2024 after the federal government took over the beleaguer company as it was preparing to walk away from the politically fraught project. At the time, Ottawa said it wasn’t interested in selling.

Restoule says that Thursday’s pipeline announcement reflected a quiet shift in Indigenous relations that was started in Alberta years ago by Smith’s predecessor.

“Alberta’s been by far and away the leader within Canada in fostering partnership between Indigenous and industry groups,” said Restoule.

Restoule said that then premier Jason Kenney’s creation of the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (AIOC) in 2019 was a game changer in this respect. The provincial Crown corporation allowed Indigenous groups to take out large government-backed loans and use them to buy equity stakes in major resource projects. She said the AIOC was a workaround the federal Indian Act, which limits the ability of bands to put up reserve land as collateral for loans.

Stephen Buffalo, the Calgary-based president of the Indian Resource Council, agreed that the Kenney years were a key turning point in Industry-Indigenous relations.

“They were quite innovative in coming up with financial tools to allow us to participate fully in resource development,” says Buffalo.

Before its creation, First Nations participation in major projects was typically limited to collecting royalties from any resources produced on their territory.

“The (AIOC) came about because Jason Kenney engaged with Indigenous leaders and all parties realized that the old, and frankly paternalistic way of doing things restricted nations from getting involved in major resource projects, and seeing the benefits of those projects flow to their communities,” said Restoule.

(Kenney has since become a director on the board of Postmedia Network Inc., owner of National Post, but has no role in daily editorial processes.)

As of late 2025, the AIOC had provided more than $745 million in loan guarantees to help 43 Nations buy stakes in nine projects.

”These investments mean communities are building equity in major infrastructure, creating jobs and generating revenue that can be reinvested into housing, education, infrastructure and services,” said Sawhney in an email to National Post.

Restoule noted that, following immense pressure from pro-resource development Indigenous groups, the Liberal government under former prime minister Justin Trudeau rolled out a parallel federal Indigenous loan guarantee program in 2024.

She said that, on the whole, Indigenous people are more pro-development than is often assumed, noting that polls show some two-thirds of them support major resource projects.

Buffalo called what’s happened in Alberta an example of reconciliation meeting action.

“This is reconcili-action. You’re seeing (Indigenous) ownership of infrastructure, you’re seeing communities engaged with services in surrounding areas, and a lot of jobs being created across the board,” said Buffalo.

Buffalo, who was actively engaged in Alberta’s previous push for a northern pipeline, admitted that he was somewhat disappointed by foregone economic opportunities in northern B.C. and northwestern Alberta.

A few hours prior to the Calgary announcement, Carney and B.C. Premier David Eby announced that the Trudeau-era ban on northern B.C. heavy oil tanker traffic would be staying in place.

He nevertheless stressed that Thursday’s announcement was a “good news day” for the opportunities the new pipeline creates.

Buffalo also noted that the developments will keep multiple liquefied natural gas projects in northwestern B.C. from getting swept up in a debate over removing a ban on oil tankers.

“It’s not always the loudest voices who speak for the rest of us, who want to see our communities uplifted and opportunities for young people,” said Buffalo, referring to a small number of anti-pipeline groups that have dominated the national conversation.

National Post
rmohamed@postmedia.com

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the month by which the prime minister has committed to declaring a pipeline in the national interest.

• Carney joins Smith as Alberta announces West Coast oil pipeline plan
• Danielle Smith opens door to amending Constitution to alter treaty rights

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

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra’s claim that Canada paying to construct the Gordie Howe International Bridge is a “big myth” has been branded “a punch in the face” by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s director of communications.

Andrew MacDougall, who held the role when the Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement was signed in June 2012, told National Post in an interview that the Trump administration “has shown time and time again that it will punch its friends in the face” in response to the ambassador’s comments.

Hoekstra made the remarks during a wide-ranging interview about Canada-U.S. trade on the July 2 edition of The Food Professor podcast . Canada footing the bill for the bridge “ is the big myth that is out there ,” he said. “I think it’s important that people realize this, okay? Because I hear it all the time. What does America have to do with this? We paid for the bridge. It’s our bridge. Just open it.”

While Hoekstra acknowledged that Canada loaned the bridge authority $7 billion for the construction, he said that as the bridge generates revenue, the cost will be paid back. “The bridge will actually be paid for by the folks who are using the bridge. It will not be paid for by the Canadian government. So, Canada put the money up front, but at the end of the day, the expectation is that there will be a ‘use tax’ that will pay for the bridge.”

MacDougall responded to Hoekstra’s comments on social media, labelling the U.S. politician “The Ambassador for Gaslight to Canada.”

Perrin Beatty, former president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, took a similar stance, writing on X: “Apparently, the US is being cheated because Canada paid to build the Gordie Howe Bridge. Here’s how Cleveland Health describes how to tell when you’re being gaslighted.”

And Dimitri Soudas, who was also director of communications under Harper and left the job less than a year before the deal was signed, said in a post that he was “in the room” during negotiations, adding, “history doesn’t become fiction just because you say it on television.”

The Ambassador for Gaslight to Canada https://t.co/ebYaNyWEii

— Andrew MacDougall (@AGMacDougall) July 3, 2026

Apparently, the US is being cheated because Canada paid to build the Gordie Howe Bridge. Here’s how Cleveland Health describes how to tell when you’re being gaslighted. https://t.co/WLGedJvc3T https://t.co/nFuwNBABLB

— Perrin Beatty (@PerrinBeatty) July 2, 2026

I was in the room.

Canada paid for the bridge.

Respectfully, sir, history doesn’t become fiction just because you say it on television.

Please stop. Sir. https://t.co/qGT9m4V2em

— Dimitris Soudas 🇨🇦⚜️🇬🇷☦️ 13.12.1943 (@DimitrisSoudas) July 3, 2026

Canada paid for the bridge over the Detroit River, and a deal was struck to allow Canada to collect the tolls until those costs are recouped, after which they would be split, with Michigan and Canada sharing ownership.

“I certainly remember what we agreed to,” MacDougall told National Post. “We would fund the bridge construction, buy the land in Michigan needed, build the interstate on ramps, and that we would make the money back by tolls that were collected on the bridge — but only from the Canadian side, not the American side.”

He added that Hoekstra, who was previously a congressman for Michigan, “ought to know not only the history of it, but why it was so important for Michiganders to get this done, because it was horrible going through Detroit and Windsor and bottling everything onto one bridge.”

The Gordie Howe Bridge, with its six lanes and modern technology, promises to ease cross-border bottlenecks.

Michigan and Canadian officials planned an opening ceremony for the $6.4 billion bridge last month, but abandoned the event at the last moment when U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick reportedly intervened.

It came after Trump suggested that the U.S. should own half the project in February, pledging to block its opening “until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given” Canada.

MacDougall says he’s not surprised by the actions of the Trump administration, in part because of the family that owns the existing Ambassador Bridge and has operated the structure connecting Detroit and Windsor since the 1970s.

They have opposed the Gordie Howe Bridge for years, and in January, the billionaire head of the family, Matthew Moroun, made a million-dollar campaign donation to MAGA Inc., according to campaign finance reports .

The Gordie Howe Bridge could be seen as a threat to Moroun’s bottom line, and MacDougall says his “monopoly” on the busy trade corridor was one of the reasons the deal was so difficult to navigate.

MacDougall’s comments echo those of Windsor mayor Drew Dilkens, who told National Post in an interview that “there is absolutely no doubt that the interests of the private operator of the Ambassador Bridge are completely in play with respect to the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge.”

Meanwhile, the new bridge is serving as a flashpoint in the U.S. elections, with Republican Senatorial candidate Mike Rogers previously saying only he can get the bridge to open, while also claiming “it was not a great deal for (the U.S.)” and that “we’ll never see any revenue from that thing” in a question-and-answer session with the Detroit News .

On the other end of the political spectrum, Democratic candidate Mallory McMorrow released a campaign-style video telling Trump to “open the damn bridge.”

Hoekstra claimed that both the U.S. and Canadian governments “look forward” to getting the bridge open, but they “recognized that there are some issues that are outstanding” that need to be “ironed out.”

Mayor Dilkens, however, said he hopes Carney will “play the long game.”

“If we have to wait a little longer for this bridge to open, we can do it. But don’t go on bent knee to the United States and accept a bad deal to get this bridge open. We will get through this. We will wait, and we will be patient.”

• Canada paying to construct Gordie Howe bridge is 'big myth', according to Ambassador Pete Hoekstra
• Canada paid for the Gordie Howe bridge but U.S. Senate hopeful says it 'was not a great deal for us'

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.

Eligible Canadians will receive their first quarterly payment under a new government benefit from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) this week.

It marks the first instalment of the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit (CGEB), formerly known as the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) credit.

First tabled in January, Bill C-19, the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit Act, increases the value of the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit by 25 per cent for five years, starting July.

It’s a change the government says will deliver $8.6 billion in additional support over the 2026-27 to 2030-31 period, including to 500,000 additional individuals and families.

Payment varies based on income and family size, and is recalculated every July based on the information from the previous year’s tax return.

The maximum amount for a single individual is $679 per year, and the maximum for a single individual with four children is $1,826.

For married or common-law couples, the maximum is $890, and the maximum for couples with four children is the same as for singles, $1,826.

These amounts are broken into quarterly payments, with the first on landing on Friday, July 3.

Despite its new name, the eligibility, payment calculation and structure of the benefit will be the same as the previous GST/HST credit.

Residents of Canada for tax purposes who are 19 years or older in the month before the government makes a payment, and at the start of the month when a payment is made, are eligible for the CGEB within certain income thresholds.

Individuals do not need to apply for the benefit because the CRA checks for eligibility when assessing tax returns. Those who are entitled to the benefit will start receiving quarterly payments automatically.

Bill C-19 also included a one‑time payment to individuals equal to 50 per cent of the GST credit’s annual 2025-26 value, which eligible Canadian’s received on June 5. The maximum amount couples or single individuals with four children received was $717.

Canada’s Department of Finance previously said: “Combined with the one-time top-up, this means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year, and about $1,400 a year for the next four years; and a single person will receive up to $950 this year, and about $700 a year for the next four years.”

Previous payments this year on Jan. 5 and April 2 were classified as GST/HST credit payments, while a fourth quarterly payment of the CGEB will be made on Oct. 5 this year.

However, payments that are less than $50 per quarter are delivered as a single payment in July.

• Canadians could get up to $1,826 over the next year from a new government benefit. Here's who qualifies
• Many Canadian taxpayers getting inaccurate info from CRA agents, report finds

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.

The CEOs of prominent Canadian Jewish organizations have written a joint letter protesting the “serious failure of governance, curation, and public trust” of the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights exhibit, Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present, and demanding change.

The letter accuses the museum’s CEO Isha Khan of not “engaging constructively” in developing the exhibit, and instead of responding “with a troubling lack of transparency, integrity, and meaningful dialogue.”

Signed by Simon Wolle, CEO of B’nai Brith Canada, Noah Shack, CEO of Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and CEOs of Jewish federations from across Canada, the letter urges CMHR board of trustees’ chair Benjamin Nycum and the board “to rectify the failures in curation and governance and hold Ms. Khan accountable.”

The CEOs make their case for accountability, stating that attempts were made by the Jewish community to engage the museum and “ensure the exhibit met the standards of historical accuracy, scholarly integrity, and meaningful consultation,” by offering input from subject-matter experts, instead of the CMHR “relying on the advice of political activists.”

And now there have been “real-world consequences,” write the CEOs, with the exhibit pitting communities against one another and emboldening audiences to express Jew hatred, including using the exhibit to advocate against the museum’s Jewish founder, Izzy Asper (as shown in a CIJA X post ): “Reconciliation is renaming Izzy Asper Street, Free Palestine.”

The CIJA post also asked whether the museum’s leadership “support a national museum giving a platform to extremists calling for the erasure of Jewish people from public life?’”

For months, we warned that @CMHR_News' "Nakba" exhibit prioritized political activism over the standards of balance, governance, and curatorial integrity expected of a national museum.

Yesterday, the Heritage Minister confirmed that the museum's leadership failed in both… https://t.co/05naPW5jO5 pic.twitter.com/h2nJdsiTdh

— CIJA (@CIJAinfo) June 30, 2026

The CEOs’ letter cites Prime Minister Mark Carney’s June 1 address to the Jewish community in Toronto , when he advocated for Canadians “not (to) transpose foreign conflicts onto each other” and public institutions “to ensure that no Canadian community is driven from those institutions by hatred.”

The letter also refers to the recent exhibit response from Marc Miller, federal minister of Identity and Culture that it is “regrettable” and “a failure.” As reported in the National Post , Miller said in late June that “not identifying Hamas as a terrorist organization is, I think, a failure. And not clearly stating that, for example, Hamas intended to kill Jews is, I think, an unfortunate error in curation and should be rectified.”

However, rather than addressing concerns, Khan simply “encouraged” the Jewish community to trust the museum’s process, write the CEOs.

There was “an intentional effort to keep representatives of the community and experts who could provide a supportive lens to the curation team out of the process. Even the museum’s own Board of Trustees was kept at a distance. This lack of oversight was among the factors that led the Museum’s only Jewish trustee to resign .”

The letter points, in particular, to Khan sitting for an interview with anti-Israel activist Samira Mohyeddin as part of the exhibit’s launch.

Khan has publicly stated that the “exhibit isn’t a historical retrospective.” In an interview she did last November with CBC radio in Winnipeg, excerpted in The Jewish Post and News , she called the exhibit “human rights stories about displacement” developed in consultation “with a really wide network of Palestinian Canadians and others from across Canada.”

She continued: “This exhibit is about the experiences of Palestinian Canadians who have lived through forced displacement and their families. So it’s told from their perspective, from their eyes, just like many other exhibits in the museum are.”

The CEOs say ignoring the warnings shared by the Jewish community has resulted in “an exhibit that risks inflaming hatred and importing a foreign conflict into Canadian society without the balance, rigour, and context required of a national museum.”

National Post has reached out to the CMHR for further comment.

The CIJA told National Post it is joining B’nai Brith to mobilize Canadians across the country to call on the CMHR board of trustees to “do its job as Marc Miller has stated.”

• Nakba exhibit 'should be rectified,' Heritage Minister Marc Miller says
• Jewish board member resigns over Nakba exhibit at Canadian human rights museum

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.

The opening of the Gordie Howe bridge is stalled because the U.S. wants to review the impact of construction costs and delays on revenue-sharing, according to U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra.

Hoekstra said that Canada footing the bill for the bridge “is the big myth that is out there … I think it’s important that people realize this, okay? Because I hear it all the time. What does America have to do with this? We paid for the bridge. It’s our bridge. Just open it.”

He made the comments during a wide-ranging interview about Canada-U.S. trade on the July 2 edition of The Food Professor podcast .

Hoekstra recognized Canada loaned the bridge authority $7 billion for the construction: “So, Canada, yes, Canada is serving as the bank for the bridge.” However, he noted that as the bridge generates revenue, the cost will be paid back. “The bridge will actually be paid for by the folks who are using the bridge. It will not be paid for by the Canadian government. So, Canada put the money up front, but at the end of the day, the expectation is that there will be a ‘use tax’ that will pay for the bridge.”

As previously reported by National Post , the revenue will eventually be shared by Canada and the state of Michigan, but that’s after Canada is repaid for the construction from the tolls. The government of Canada expects to recoup its investment over the next 36 years, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation .

But the opening has been held up as the revenue-sharing arrangement is reviewed . “We both look forward to getting it open,” said Hoekstra, but, he added, “the Canadian government and the U.S. government recognized that there are some issues that are outstanding.”

He noted that such large-scale projects are often not completed on time or on budget. “So, we have a bridge that has come in significantly over budget and has come in significantly later than originally forecast. That has changed the business model.”

And now, he says, the two federal governments have agreed to delay while they “get some of this ironed out … in terms of how the business case has changed, because it’s very, very different than when the original agreement was signed, what, 12, 15 years ago.”

He also alluded to concerns linked to owners of the Ambassador Bridge (also reported on previously by National Post ), which links Detroit, Michigan, with Windsor, Ont., and is the diversion for existing traffic to Gordie Howe bridge. The Moroun family of Detroit owns the Ambassador Bridge and made a US$1 million campaign donation to a MAGA political action committee back in January. Shortly thereafter, President Donald Trump stated on social media that he would block the opening of the Gordie Howe bridge.

Hoekstra said that “traffic is not increasing in that Detroit River corridor … The Gordie Howe Bridge is not generating new traffic. So, you’re moving revenues … to the Gordie Howe Bridge … So, it’s a diversion of funds that will end up paying for this bridge.”

NEW EPISODE OUT!

No edits. No filters. Just a candid conversation with Pete Hoekstra.

In our Season 6 finale of The Food Professor Podcast, Ambassador Hoekstra tackles the issues everyone is talking about:

➡️The future of CUSMA
➡️The real story behind the Gordie Howe… pic.twitter.com/U4ii8qQcqv

— The Food Professor (@FoodProfessor) July 2, 2026

The ambassador was invited onto the podcast to discuss trade, including the outstanding issue of Canada’s supply management system. He started off by stating that July 1 was supposed to be the day when a review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement (CUSMA) was to be completed, before potentially committing to extending it 16 years beyond the 2036 end point.

“Obviously, from our perspective, we’re not where we want to be. (Going forward) the president will be defining and clarifying (the) vision as to exactly where we’re headed at this point. I think that’s different from where we were 14 months ago … We were talking about a specific agreement that became very, very close to fruition in terms of getting it completed in the October, November time-frame that would have included steel, aluminum, auto parts, oil, and uranium. That would have been a pretty sizable deal too, you know, that we could have then built off of over the next seven months as we got to July 1. But that deal was not finalized.”

He says that now “the leadership of the two countries” need to outline the direction of future talks “since we haven’t made that much progress.”

When asked about Canada’s supply management system, a known trade irritant, Hoekstra counted it among a litany of issues that are unresolved from the U.S. perspective. “We want to deal with supply management. We need to deal with AI. We need to deal with digital streaming, online streaming taxes … We want to deal with the pharmaceutical industry. There’s a litany of things, but supply management is one of the areas that the president has talked about that we need to work on.”

When it comes to supply chain resilience, Hoekstra said, “Canadians have to define the expectations on the Canadian side … We’ve looked at shortening the supply chains. We find Canada to be a very, very reliable trading partner … I would say that the United States has great opportunities for bringing resilience into the food chain and shortening that supply chain by building and strengthening the relationships that we have … with Canada.”

He pointed toward the U.S. buying “a huge proportion of the food agriculture that Canada exports,” and rhymed off a list of numbers, such as buying 99 per cent of Canadian fresh vegetables that are exported. He said, with regard to baked goods, cereals and pasta, the U.S. buys 97 per cent of Canadian exports. And 80 per cent of Canadian beef exports.

Canadian spirits were a sticking point, as he noted the U.S. buying 93 per cent of Canadian exported spirits. “That’s kind of interesting … Eleven out of thirteen Canadian provinces banned the importation and the sale of American spirits … I wonder if the president has anything to say about that. I don’t know. We’ll find out … I think that gets into our head, in a lot of ways, and you know, not necessarily (a) positive. If Canada wants to ban American products, they can do that. And it’s more than alcohol. They ban other products as well.”

However, despite this, Hoekstra was quick to point out the value of trade with Canada among American business interests. With US$2.4 billion of trade crossing the border every day, he says, the U.S. has been asking American companies to sign up to say how they feel about the trade relationship. “Would you sign a statement that just says, hey, we really feel good about the trade relationship? I think we’re at over 500 companies that have signed on. We’re getting a lot more companies that are saying, ‘Yeah, absolutely.’”

He added: “But you know what? We’re not mad at Canada. We’re fine with Canada. We like Canada. We like doing business with Canada. You know, we don’t ban products. And we don’t pick up something and say, ‘Oh, made in Canada. Ooh, put that away.’ Which we hear Canadians do. We don’t have people or premiers or governors saying, ‘Hey, don’t travel to America.’ We like Canada.”

Finally, Hoekstra listed a series of areas where Canada and the U.S. can further ties, including: mining, shipbuilding, artificial intelligence, digital technology, nuclear energy and critical minerals.

“And when Canada decides it wants to partner with the United States in those areas … we’re here to work on deals that will be good for Canada and America. You’ve been a very critical partner.”

• What is going to happen to CUSMA on July 1? Here's what we know
• 'Make your case,' the U.S. tells Canada on trade. Here's what that could look like

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.

As the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary of declaring independence of our common mother country, Canadians remain uneasy siblings with Americans, a new poll suggests.

A new Postmedia-Leger poll shows 64 per cent of us think we’re nicer than Americans; another 54 per cent think we’re more cultured. Two-thirds find Americans more arrogant, while 82 per cent think we’re more admired in the world.

“From the data I would say we have a sense of superiority over Americans in a number of areas — Canadians believe they are more humble, cultured and generally nicer,” said Andrew Enns, Leger’s executive vice-president.

“I’d add that the majority of Canadians are of a view that the world likes us better.”

The poll found Canadians have stronger, generally more negative views about Americans versus Americans about us. More than a third of Canadians say they do not admire the U.S. at all.

The poll, conducted on both sides of the border, found two-thirds of Canadians associate Americans with arrogance while only nine per cent of our U.S. neighbours would say the same of us.

While Canadians are more likely to say this country offers better opportunities for someone willing to work hard (37 per cent), over one fifth of us (22 per cent) said the opportunities in the United States are better, and 32 per cent said the two countries are about the same in that respect, according to the new poll.

“If this poll was exclusively conducted in Western Canada, the results would have been very different,” said Donald Abelson, a professor of political science at McMaster University whose focus is on American politics. “Western Canadians tend to admire that spirit of American entrepreneurship.”

Same goes for richer Canadians, he said.

“People who are wealthier in Canada and resent paying the kind of taxes that they do here often look to the United States,” Abelson said. “It’s a very, very familiar move.”

A third of American respondents (33 per cent) said the U.S. offered better opportunities for those willing to work hard, while 16 per cent of them chose Canada in that regard, and 31 per cent indicated they see no difference.

The poll comes in the wake of the July 1 deadline for the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to review and confirm their intentions regarding the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The U.S. declined to agree to renew the deal in its “current form.”

When Donald Trump became president in 2017 and again in 2024, “there were a lot of Canadians who viewed the United States as being incredibly arrogant given the number of times the Trump administration put a target on our back, the number of times that offensive comments were made to our leaders, most recently about becoming the 51st state of the United States,” said Abelson.

“I think Canadians are generally seeing the Americans as being more aggressive, more arrogant in the belief that they can do anything they want without any kind of repercussions.”

There’s a “silver lining” to Trump’s offensive remarks, Abelson said.

“He really gave us a wakeup call to kind of lull us out of this complacency that we receive preferential treatment from the United States, that we have this special bond, this special relationship,” he said. “And we don’t. Things have changed that dramatically.”

Lisa Raitt, a former Conservative MP who served in Stephen Harper’s cabinet, says anti-Americanism is not dissipating in Canada.

“In fact, it’s kind of entrenching itself,” said Raitt, who Prime Minister Mark Carney appointed to the Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations.

On the Canadians who see better opportunities south of the border, Raitt blames social media for portraying an “idealized look of day-to-day life in the United States because influencers are putting their best foot forward, not their worst foot forward, and I can see why people think that life is better — there’s more opportunity for you on the other side.”

Lower taxes, cheaper food and houses in the U.S. “used to all be countered with yes, but we have excellent health care,” Raitt said. “But we don’t anymore, so that kind of flies out the window.”

A slim majority of Canadians (51 per cent) said the two populations are not similar, while 44 per cent said they are.

The vast majority of Americans (69 per cent) said they’re similar to Canadians, with only 20 per cent responding that they are not.

Thirty-four per cent of Canadians told the pollster they do not admire the U.S. at all, while 29 per cent said they somewhat admire it, and another 26 per cent indicated they admire it “a little.”

Admiration is higher among Conservative Canadian voters, with 21 per cent of Tories indicating they admire the U.S. “a great deal,” and 38 per cent saying they admire Americans “somewhat.”

Meanwhile, 38 per cent of Liberals, 60 per cent of New Democrats and 46 per cent of Bloc voters expressed no admiration at all for our neighbours to the south.

Canadians’ disdain for their neighbour isn’t necessarily reciprocated. A full 32 per cent of Americans polled said Canadians are nicer. Another 23 per cent of them said Canadians are more cultured.

“Everybody in the world says that we’re polite, and we are. We’re extremely polite,” Raitt said. “We’re very nice to you, but you push us too far and you’re going to see us turn into that Canada goose.”

While she’s pleased to see Americans think we’re nice, Raitt hopes that doesn’t mean Canadians are seen as a soft touch in Washington.

“Yes, they trust us, but do they also think they can beat us in business, kind of thing? Are we naïve?” Raitt said.

“I don’t think they think we’re very sharp,” she said. “It’s almost like we’re their Golden Retriever. We’re the ones that will hold the flashlight when you’re robbing us.”

Majorities in both countries – 56 per cent of Canadians and 54 per cent of Americans — described the relationship between the two nations as neighbourly.

But Americans are more likely to describe the two countries as close friends, with 20 per cent of them settling on that definition, while only eight per cent of Canadians did the same. And 13 per cent of Canadians see the relationship as a rivalry, versus just six per cent of Americans.

Canadians believe this country has the better global reputation (82 per cent) while only six per cent said the same of the U.S.

In the U.S., Canada came out ahead on that measure (43 per cent), with only 26 per cent of Americans indicating their country has the better reputation.

“Keep in mind the U.S. is embroiled in a pretty active war,” Enns said of the U.S. conflict with Iran.

“Even the American public is cognizant of some of the reputational challenges that some of Mr. Trump’s policies are creating.”

Most Canadians (56 per cent) said they would trust a stranger from the U.S. “about the same” as they would trust a Canadian stranger. The poll also found that four per cent would trust and American stranger more, while 28 per cent indicated they would trust an American stranger less.

Meanwhile, 62 per cent of Americans said they would trust a Canadian stranger about the same as one of their own, and 17 per cent said they would trust a Canadian stranger more than one of the homegrown variety. Six per cent said they would trust a Canadian stranger less than an American one.

“There’s probably a perception amongst Americans that we’re probably generally a little bit of a safer society,” Enns said. “Certainly, we don’t dominate the headlines with mass shootings.”

The online survey, conducted from June 19 to 21, polled 1,528 Canadians and 1,015 Americans. A margin of error cannot be associated with a non-probability sample in a panel survey. A probability sample of this size would yield a margin of error no greater than plus or minus 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20, for the Canadian sample and plus or minus 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20, for the American sample.

• Poll finds Americans see Canada as more reliable than Trump on trade
• One in four Canadians aren't confident that Canada will still be a country in 50 years

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 — It wasn’t a political speech or a visionary manifesto that galvanized Canadian nationalism near the start of this century, just a few years after a close-call separation referendum in Quebec and during a period of endless debate about national identity.

It was a 60-second television beer commercial that captured the Canadian soul , or at least the English-speaking part of it. The Molson Canadian ad, officially called “The Rant,” offered a new, updated and self-effacing version of how Canadians view themselves.

Featuring actor Jeff Douglas playing the role of Joe, the average, flannel-wearing Canadian guy, the commercial tipped a hat — or perhaps a tuque — to bilingualism, diversity, peacekeeping, the beaver, hockey and other Canuck touch points, before closing with the triumphant tag line “I am Canadian!” that twinned patriotism with Molson’s signature lager.

The spot, widely known as the “Joe Canadian” ad, was widely seen as a fresh take on who we are. But it also used scalpel-like precision to expose the complexity and nuance of Canadians’ relationship with the country’s immensely powerful and sole neighbour to offer a clear take on who we aren’t. “A tuque is a hat, a chesterfield is a couch, and it is pronounced zed — not zee — zed!”

It was wildly popular and sold tons of beer.

“That beer ad spoke to a lot of myths, grounded in some truths,” said Asa McKercher, a Canada-U.S. relations specialist at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, N.S.

Fast forward a generation or so to today, with U.S. President Donald Trump returning to one of his go-to moves of threatening Canadian sovereignty, blocking the opening of a new cross-border bridge paid for by Canada, and his administration refusing to renew a free-trade deal the president signed just eight years ago.

Perhaps not coincidentally, a recent Leger-Postmedia poll finds Liberal support nationally continues to hover around the 50 per cent mark . That is rarefied air, especially with the economy sluggish and inflation up.

In fact, the last time a political party had the support of at least half of the country? More than 20 years ago, in 2003, after then prime minister Jean Chrétien famously turned down an American request to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a war now widely seen as both misguided and based on faulty intelligence.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau was criticized for defining Canada in opposition to the States. “One of the ways we define ourself most easily is, well, we’re not American,” he said last year. It’s true, at least, that we don’t see ourselves as very similar: A new Leger-Postmedia poll finds 51 per cent of Canadians say we’re either not very or not at all similar. Sixty-four per cent of us think Canadians are nicer than Americans. And 54 per cent think we’re more cultured.

Sixty-six per cent of Canadians, meanwhile, say they think it’s the Americans who are more “arrogant.”

Like the beer commercial, analysts say the data points are windows that expose part of the national psyche, particularly how we attitudinize relative our world-dominating neighbour.

Is there a permanent element of anti-Americanism in the Canadian psyche, or at least in the national political culture — or is it just the Trump factor and normal expressions of patriotism?

Or maybe Canadians, no matter what they say, have a secret dislike or grudge against Americans.

If so, that runs counter to the common narrative about the world’s longest undefended border, the many common cross-border traits, and how the two countries are such close friends that we’re like family.

Maybe frenemies is more like it.

Are Canadians anti-American — just a little?

Madelaine Drohan, a Canadian author whose recent book He Did Not Conquer documents Benjamin Franklin’s many failures to annex Canada, said the narrative of bosom buddies isn’t an accurate reflection of the reality.

“What gets in the way is this idea that we’re friends,” she said.

Canadian political culture, Drohan said, has included an element of anti-Americanism for centuries, and for good reason. Americans invaded what is now Canada twice — The Invasion of Quebec 1775-76 and The War of 1812 — and prominent Americans, such as Franklin, long believed that the U.S. should expand north.

“Why wouldn’t we be anti-American?” Drohan said. “It’s self-preservation.”

People on both sides of the border don’t realize that the residents of what became the United States and Canada had largely hostile relations for many years, until the tension mostly dissipated during the period after the Second World War, said Drohan, also a former Canadian correspondent for The Economist.

Prior to that war, Drohan said, both countries maintained invasion plans, although the Canadian version was more of a defensive strategy .

The romantic notion of Canada and the U.S. being the best of friends isn’t without merit, she said, but that recent alliance was largely based on having common interests internationally during and after the Cold War, and usually being able to work out bilateral matters cordially. But there’s nothing new about Canada, like most countries, feeling the need to keep its guard up, Drohan said.

“Every country sticks up for its own interests,” she said.

One thing is clear in trying to dissect Canadians’ relationship with their American neighbours: it’s complicated.

Analysts say it’s important to make a distinction between political events and tension between the two countries and the countless, friendly daily encounters and relationships between Canadians and Americans.

But they also emphasize that there are also important psychological elements to Canadians’ “un-American” sentiments too.

McKercher said Canadians aren’t intrinsically anti-American; it’s more that they like to emphasize their “un-American” characteristics and habits — such as those identified in the beer commercial — that make them feel different from their more famous neighbours.

Drohan said some Canadians harbour resentment that Americans don’t know more about Canada, while others have difficulty “living in their shadow.” The U.S. is a global superpower with its military, culture, technology, sports and more, which its citizens aren’t shy about pointing out.

Some Canadians have a “chip on their shoulder” when it comes to the U.S., which was reflected in the reaction to the famous “Joe Canadian” beer commercial, said David Haglund, a politics professor specializing in U.S.-Canada relations at Queen’s University.

Canadians like to compare themselves favourably to Americans, he said, an ontological exercise that can make some people feel better about themselves. In this regard, he said, Trump has been a gift to Canadians. Especially incumbent politicians.

Trump makes it too easy

Canadians’ anti- or un-American sentiments about the U.S. have clearly been higher than usual since the start of Trump’s second term in January 2025 and his barrage of insults, tariffs and references to Canada becoming the 51st state. Trips from Canada to the U.S. are down considerably (although it’s still the No. 1 destination), American booze is off shelves in most provinces (though not Saskatchewan and Alberta), and Canadians’ attitudes toward their southern neighbour have chilled.

According to a February Nanos poll, about three-quarters of Canadian respondents rejected the idea that the U.S. should be considered a trustworthy ally , which the polling firm describes as “a stark reversal of decades of continental confidence.” About two-thirds of respondents, meanwhile, said they were concerned that Canada’s security is threatened by the U.S. under Trump, while almost one in five Canadians say they believe an American invasion is likely.

While Trump may infuriate millions of Canadians, he’s been a political windfall for some Canadian politicians who have been given the chance to wrap themselves in the flag and to stand up to his rhetoric.

Haglund said Prime Minister Mark Carney, for example, likely wouldn’t even be in power if not for Trump and his various threats. Carney campaigned for his first election last year largely on the idea that the country’s sovereignty was under threat from the U.S. Reviving a Liberal party that under his predecessor had become intolerable to most Canadians, Carney seemed to get a boost in the polls every time Trump mentioned Canada in an insulting way. (By contrast, some analysts said Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre lost some votes in the last election because his side didn’t gauge the public’s view of Trump well enough, and wasn’t seen by some as staunch enough in standing up for Canadian interests. Poilievre’s opposition to most things Trump has since become much more vocal.)

Despite the fact that Carney campaigned on being able to manage Trump , he’s discovered that the more hostile things get, the more Canadians lap it up. People like to cheer for the underdog — especially if it’s us.

What about the other way?

But what are Americans thinking about Canadians?

If you listen to the current president or his ambassador to Canada, there seems to be some animus.

Beyond the threats to Canadian sovereignty and the tariffs that have hurt key industries, many Canadians feel betrayed by the disrespect from Washington. As recently as last month, Trump reposted disappointing news about the Canadian economy with a comment about the “51st state.”

U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra has echoed Trump’s tone and made comments that suggest he can’t understand why Canadians are so agitated . He said he does, however, understand why Trump sees Canada’s response, with tactics like boycotts, as “nasty and mean.”

But that doesn’t mean that those feelings are widely held.

Polls show that the American public doesn’t know nearly as much about Canada as the quantity of information that flows the other way. That’s to be expected. The U.S. has a population more than eight times as large as Canada’s; it’s the cultural colossus of the English-speaking world, and an estimated 90 per cent of Canadians live within 160 kilometres of the U.S. border.

Canada is also much more economically dependent on the U.S., with more than three-quarters of its exports heading across the border. About 15 per cent of American exports head north, which makes Canada either the first or second most important market for American goods and services, depending on the year and methodology.

Although Americans may not think about their neighbours to the north nearly as much as the other way around, most of the thoughts they have are still positive. Polls show that Americans rank Canadians in their first tier of international friends and allies, citing shared values, a good, peaceful neighbour and cultural and economic ties. Even when there’s a trade or economic dispute, Americans don’t tend to direct any ill will towards Canadians.

A recent Gallup poll found that a strong majority of Americans (80 per cent) still hold positive views of Canada , although that number has dropped about nine per cent over the last year and now represents the lowest mark since the company started asking Americans about their feelings about Canada and other countries more than 40 years ago.

Gallup found that Republicans accounted for much of that drop, with 62 per cent of that party’s supporters, down 23 points, saying they have a positive view of their neighbour to the north. There was little change among Democrats and independents.

Julie Ray, Gallup’s lead on its global polling, said the drop in Americans’ views of Canada is in line with the change in their views of other NATO countries, with some countries now posting favourability ratings as low as 15 per cent. The poll results on Canada reflected a similar drop in respondents’ views of another longtime close ally, the United Kingdom, Ray said, down eight per cent to 88 per cent over the last year.

But there are a lot of incentives for Canadian politicians and the Trump administration to keep tensions simmering. And they seem bound to: On Wednesday, the U.S. confirmed it would not renew its free-trade deal with Canada and Mexico, meaning there will be annual reviews for the next decade — or until at some point all three countries agree to renew it. That could mean years more yet of uncertainty, confrontation, boycotts, insults and threats.

Last year, Douglas made a sequel to “The Rant” ad for YouTube, featuring the same actor, Douglas, as Joe Canadian.

“It’s in our nature to cut a guy some slack,” ranted Douglas. But these days the Americans “make a lot of mistakes,” he said. “They mistake our modesty for meekness, our kindness for consent, our nation for another star on their flag.”

“They think they can bully us, threaten us. and push us around, but they do not know us. That ‘artificially drawn line’ they keep talking about? Not artificial. And it’s not on a map. It’s right here,” he says in the ad, pointing to his heart, before launching into a celebration of not just cultural touchstones, but bench-clearing brawls and Chrétien’s famous “Shawinigan handshake,” in which the former prime minister violently manhandled a protester.

Maybe this antagonistic version of Joe Canadian won’t outlast Trump.

Or maybe we’ll discover we’re enjoying it too much to quit.

National Post

SIDEBAR: Best of friends? Not always

1773: Changes to British governance of their North American colonies trigger the Boston Tea Party. But it was also the so-called “Intolerable Acts,” including the Quebec Act of 1774, which was designed to allow expansion of Canadian territories and protection for Catholic and French-language rights, that instigated American colonists to revolt.

1775-76: Americans invade what is now Quebec in an effort to get French-speaking residents to join forces in the American Revolution against the British. The invaders captured Montreal but failed to take Quebec City and later went home.

1782: Benjamin Franklin, lead American negotiator at the 1782 peace negotiations with Britain in Paris and an advocate for America’s northward expansion, is forced to abandon his efforts to annex Canada because of poor health and a change in America’s post-independence priorities.

1783: The Americans and British sign the Treaty of Paris, which ends the American Revolution and establishes a border between the newly created United States of America and the British colonies that would later become Canada.

1812-15: The War of 1812 includes as many as 10 American invasions or incursions into Upper and Lower Canada as the American government considered annexing its northern neighbour a priority.

1837-38: The Patriot War, a series of raids along the Canada-U.S. border, cements British control over what is now Ontario and Quebec.

1949: Canada and the U.S. become founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a key plank in the two countries’ close relationship throughout much of the Cold War era.

1989: Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement kicks off period of closer economic integration and growth.

1994: North American Free Trade Agreement adds Mexico.

2018: After campaigning against NAFTA, U.S. President Donald Trump declares his plan to exit the pact in his first term and negotiates a revised Canada-U.S.-Mexico (CUSMA) trade deal.

2025: Trump begins a second term and quickly begins threats to Canadian sovereignty and implements a wide range of tariffs, including against key Canadian industries not covered by CUSMA.

July 1, 2026: The Trump administration refuses to renew CUSMA, setting off annual reviews of the deal for the next decade.

• July festivities decline in border towns, with U.S.-Canada ties still strained
• Canadians hate being called the 51st state. But they don't mind moving south of the border: study

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.

Gazans who tried to mount a mass protest “Day of Rage” against Hamas on June 26, demanding that the terror group disarm and step down, say their plans were crushed before they could reach the streets.

Multiple dissidents said in phone interviews with National Post that smaller protests went ahead in some areas, but the terror group forced participants to disperse, warning organizers and would-be demonstrators that anyone attempting to join would face violent reprisals.

“What the world doesn’t really know, is that there is a strong opposition movement inside Gaza today that’s developing against Hamas,” said Hadeel Oueis, a U.S.-based Syrian-born journalist and editor of Jusoor News, an Arabic-language outlet that reports on Middle East news.

They maintain a network of contacts in the Strip, and she helped National Post arrange interviews with dissident Gazans.

“A lot of people are fed up from the war, fed up from Hamas’s wrong choices, and they want to protest,” demanding that Hamas disarm, and leave the Strip “in order to stop the war, to stop the Israeli attacks, and to rebuild Gaza.”

One of the organizers for small local groups in the region of Deir al-Balah, Mohammad Hussein Lafi, said he arrived at a designated gathering point in central Gaza, only to see “it was already filled with Hamas security forces openly displaying their weapons.”

The 22-year-old told National Post that “Hamas was much better prepared than we were,” having been tipped off.

He said he was told that cell phones were confiscated from anyone suspected of ties to the protests, and some were also physically assaulted and detained. Hamas has “the weapons, the force and the means to intimidate people. They threatened families, and reportedly paid money to influential clan leaders to publicly announce that they would disown any family member who participated in the demonstrations,” he said.

Lafi was about to graduate from the faculty of physical education at Aqsa University in Gaza when Hamas launched the October 7 attacks on southern Israel in 2023. That started a war between Israel and Hamas that killed tens of thousands of Gazans, including terrorist combatants and civilians. He now lives in a school-turned-shelter.

Roughly a year ago, Hamas arrested him, accusing him of speaking out against the October 7 attacks to his friends – something he said many Gazans do privately. After being “severely beaten and tortured during detention,” he said he became convinced Hamas’s rule had to come to an end.

The opposition movement wants Hamas to disarm, “so that reconstruction can begin …(and) living conditions can improve,” he said.

The public show of defiance officially shifted to a more discreet “soft protest.” At 10 p.m. on Friday, Gazans banged pots and pans and whistled for about an hour from inside displacement camps and tents, responding to an online call by organizers, according to Lafi.

Others, independent of the organized plans, corralled an ad hoc demonstration the following day. Video footage embedded in a Times of Israel story showed a funeral procession near planned protest sites, and Lafi told National Post that mourners carried signs that read “God willing, Hamas out,” “We are not pawns,” with chants of “enough with the destruction.”

Mustafa Asfour, a Gazan activist who has lived in the United Kingdom for four years, and was one of the June 26 demonstration organizers, said in an interview that Hamas “launched a media campaign to discredit the movement, accusing it of betrayal, and targeting anyone” who participated.

Two days before the planned protest, his contacts told him that Hamas pressured prominent families “to hold press conferences denouncing the June 26 movement,” and pro‑Hamas media then circulated statements in the names of major clans — including the Al‑Buhaisi, Daghmash, Abdul Aal, Al‑Najjar, Al‑Bureim, Miqdad, Asfour families and the Tarabin tribe — claiming they opposed the protests.

“Many of these families later issued official statements saying they had never released such declarations and rejecting the statements attributed to them,” he said.

Families received threatening phone calls warning them not to allow their children to participate, and displaced people were told that anyone who joined the protests would be expelled from the camps, he said. “The repression started before the protests, continued as they began, persisted afterwards and is still ongoing,” Asfour said.

Asfour argued that NGO silence has only emboldened Hamas. He says he and others reached out to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, to draw attention to the planned protests, and warn against repression.

There was no response, he said, except for the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. The National Post was shown the letter in Arabic, a stock response of four lines acknowledging receipt of the complaint, saying the “matter raised by you is under follow‑up” by the center.

Oueis says Jusoor News has documented graffiti on Gaza walls declaring support for the June 26 movement, and calling for Hamas’s ouster.

According to Oueis’ sources, at least half of Gazans want Hamas out, “so they can get a better future, a better life.” That same number, she claimed, were in retrospect “unhappy with the Oct. 7 attacks.”

Oueis accuses Hamas of worsening everyday life through diversion of aid, heavy taxation and a harsh crackdown on dissent.

During “the worst days of hunger and lack of food in Gaza,” Oueis said, Jusoor interviewed residents who alleged that Hamas “hijacked every truck that came with food to Gaza, stored it in its own storage, stole this aid that’s coming from international organizations, and kept it.” They claimed the aid was then handed out selectively “only to their soldiers” and to pro‑Hamas communities, while those without a fighter in the family “won’t get aid.”

She said “any merchandise that’s entering Gaza, Hamas is taxing it,” driving up prices on basic goods at a time when most people can least afford it.

Since the start of the ceasefire last fall, Hamas has “captured and arrested” almost 200 activists and dissidents, she said, many accused of collaborating with Israel and some tortured to death. One of Jusoor’s own reporters, she said, was arrested, beaten “very badly,” and left unable to walk. “He’s paralyzed because he made this coverage, anti‑Hamas coverage from Gaza.” Her team interviewed Gazans who were tortured for posting criticism of Hamas on Facebook, she said.

Oueis said “most of the Islamists of Gaza are pro‑Hamas,” but insists that “many deeply religious Muslims” are among those calling for change, and that “a lot of the people who are going to protest and taking initiative in spreading the word against Hamas are religious Muslims” who reject Islamist politics. Many, she added, are “frustrated young people” who may have loose affiliations with the opposition Fatah party.

Some Gazans, she said, even openly argue that “it’s time to stop the wars between Israel and Palestinians, and it’s time to have peace with Israel.” They recall the period before October 7 when tens of thousands of Gazans worked inside Israel for “very good high salaries,” and say they “definitely want these things to go back.”

Kareem Joudeh, 30, told National Post that his own motivation for helping with demonstrations was based on the “belief that civilians in Gaza have the right to express their voices peacefully, and to demand dignity, safety, and a better future.” He wants the world to know that they demand “accountability, and the right of people to have a voice in decisions affecting their lives.”

Formerly of northern Gaza, now displaced to central Gaza, he works with World Central Kitchen’s humanitarian efforts.

“I lost my home during the war, like many other families in Gaza. My experience, like many Palestinians here, has been shaped by years of difficult circumstances, but also by a strong sense of community and the desire to build a better future.”

• Nakba exhibit 'should be rectified,' Heritage Minister Marc Miller says
• 'Historic' Israel-Lebanon framework a 'massive blow' to Hezbollah and Iran, says Netanyahu

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.

When Lauren Skinner Buksevics first got a taste last year of the political momentum towards Canada finally removing interprovincial trade barriers , she thought the time was ripe for her family’s winery to go national.

The tariffs and sovereignty threats from U.S. President Donald Trump had created national anxiety over the future of the Canadian economy, specifically the continued ability to export to the country’s most important market. That quickly led to a wave of support for Canadian producers and sellers.

One of the signature pieces of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s response was to finally get rid of the costly interprovincial trade barriers that have been hampering the Canadian economy since Confederation and remain a major obstacle to growth.

The then recently re-elected Liberal government passed the One Canadian Economy Act last June, which included a promise for Ottawa to remove the federal portion of those internal barriers by July 1, 2026.

A year later, while the federal barriers — which were never really the big problem — have largely been removed, the broader goal of free trade within Canada has again largely stalled. And despite the national anxiety these days over international free trade agreements, interprovincial free trade agreements in 1995 and 2017, and a Constitution that states that products from one province shall “be admitted free into each of the other provinces,” Canadian governments continue to reject the benefits of economic union.

For business people such as Skinner Buksevics, the managing director of Painted Rock Estate Winery in Penticton, B.C., it’s a mystery what happened to all that momentum from a year ago. Despite all the talk and the countless interprovincial Zoom calls, she said it remains easier and cheaper for her winery to sell its signature Bordeaux-style red blend in foreign countries such as Germany than in other Canadian provinces.

Like many Canadians, Skinner Buksevics doesn’t understand how that’s possible, or how it makes sense for the country.

If the winery were allowed to sell barrier-free throughout Canada, she said the family-owned 27-acre vineyard could expand sales and help spread the Canadian wine brand. But the wine industry isn’t alone. It’s a similar story in big chunks of the economy, including building materials, agriculture, and a long list of professions.

“Canadians want to be able to buy Canadian products,” said Skinner Buksevics.

And perhaps worst of all, the vintner worries that the country may have missed its window to finally become an economic union. “I really do not want this moment to be missed,,” she said.

Don Drummond, formerly chief economist at TD Bank and before that the Department of Finance, said there’s been limited progress in recent months towards the promise of eliminating provincial trade barriers — and limited “heat” on the provincial politicians who seem willing to let the moment pass.

Canadians are understandably concerned about free trade barriers with the U.S. and other countries, he said, but are complacent about the absence of an actual economic union within Canada.

“It makes no sense,” said Drummond, now a fellow in residence at the C.D. Howe Institute think tank. “Global uncertainly should surely be a sufficient catalyst, and yet it is not.”

The Carney government agrees. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc met Monday with his provincial and territorial counterparts and later released a statement that emphasized the importance of dropping barriers, moving faster, and meeting the commitments made earlier in the year. Those commitments, which have largely not been met, included aligning approval processes for building materials and implementing digital public registries to speed up credential verification. The ministers plan to meet again in August in Iqaluit, Nvt.

SeoRhin Yoo, senior policy analyst for interprovincial affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said there have been bilateral deals between some provinces that have inched things forward, but that the political will seems to have waned over the last year.

“It seems like governments are starting to fizzle out on internal trade,” she said.

For example, all 10 provinces and the Yukon were supposed to have a signed agreement on direct-to-consumer alcohol shipments by the end of May, but there’s been little to no progress by any jurisdiction other than New Brunswick. That the deadline passed with little fanfare doesn’t bode well for future deadlines, Yoo said, or the provinces’ interest in meeting the broader goals.

LeBlanc called the missed deadline “disappointing” but said there is still hope that it will be implemented later this summer.

What is the actual cost of all these barriers?

There is some debate among economists about how much of an economic boost would be triggered by the elimination of provincial trade barriers, but there’s no doubt we’re leaving money, jobs and good wine on the table.

Most studies have concluded that interprovincial trade barriers cost the Canadian economy between $50 billion and $130 billion a year in economic activity, or about 1.9 to 4.9 per cent of the gross domestic product. The International Monetary Fund recently estimated that Canada could boost its economy by seven per cent if it removed internal trade barriers. A recent analysis by Deloitte Canada estimated that a full elimination of the barriers could increase the Canadian economy by $881 billion over time.

No matter the actual number, the elimination or lowering of trade barriers would mean greater competition, which almost always means lower prices and better service for buyers. It also means that some domestic companies, such as vintners, would benefit from expanding their markets within Canada, which would allow them to expand, take advantage of economies of scale, and then perhaps sell more overseas, further benefitting the Canadian economy.

And as with any sales increase, that is usually accompanied by more investment and hiring, which further benefits government coffers and the communities where those companies operate.

The problem, and the reason for concern among some provincial politicians, is that some out-of-province competitors would offer better prices or products than the locals, cutting into sales for those benefitting from a lack of competition. And sometimes those companies have some pull in provincial politics.

In many cases, however, such as wineries from B.C., Ontario and Nova Scotia, it would often mean they’d be taking market share and shelf space not from local producers, but from South American, Australian or European competitors.

And yet many provinces treat beer, wine and other alcohol from other parts of Canada as if they’re imported from abroad. Provincial liquor boards, which often have monopolies or near-monopolies on the bulk purchase of booze, will typically apply higher markups for out-of-province products, or give preferential treatment for product from their own province through exemptions and rebates not available to out-of-province goods.

While the barriers are almost exclusively provincial, no federal government over the years has been willing to spend the political capital to provide the provinces with extra motivation, through incentives or penalties, to bust the barriers.

Analysts emphasize that it’s not just goods that face costly provincial barriers, but people too.

A number of professions and skills face red tape and other obstacles in simply trying to cross a provincial border for work. The barriers can affect just about any profession that requires provincial licensing or certification, including:

• dentists, pharmacists and other health and medical professionals;

• truck drivers, pilots, heavy-vehicle operators and others in transportation;

• accountants, lawyers, financial planners, real estate agents, insurance brokers and others in professional services;

• electricians, carpenters, plumbers, and other skilled trades;

• engineers, architects and others in construction;

• hairstylists, barbers, early childhood workers and nail technicians.

In the vast majority of cases, analysts say, it’s not a question of whether the skills are up to par, but just that each province has its own set of rules and qualifications to evaluate different professions. Yoo said Alberta, for example, doesn’t allow podiatrists from Saskatchewan to practise right away in their province because they view differences in the scope of practice. Those podiatrists can’t even begin to register to practice in Alberta while completing the additional education.

In some cases, provinces have aligned their rules on matters such as trucking to harmonize with nearby American states, in line with their heaviest commercial traffic flows.

But in most cases, analysts say, the interprovincial obstacles are about protecting local interests, but lead to wasted time and money. New Brunswick doesn’t allow certified hairstylists from another province to use the titles “hairstylist” or “hairdresser” without first registering with that province’s cosmetology association, Yoo said. That means taking an exam, filling out paperwork and paying a fee of hundreds of dollars.

These barriers are not just annoying and costly for individual Canadians who want to work elsewhere in the country, but it’s also costly to the economy. When workers can move freely and their licensing and certifications are recognized across the country, it means more people are working and labour shortages are filled more easily.

While some unions and provincial governments may prefer the narrow gains from reduced competition and sheltered businesses, economists say the broader effects of the artificial barriers are higher prices, unemployment and skills not being used where they are most needed. Provinces that celebrated Canada’s birthday this week, and say the usual things about buying Canadian products and travelling domestically, are still awkward about the notion of free trade within Canada.

For Skinner Buksevics and other wineries from the Okanagan Valley and across the country, that means they’ll continue to focus their energies and sales efforts largely on their smaller, home markets, and foreign markets such as Germany.

National Post

stuck@postmedia.com

• Internal trade barriers still limiting Canadian booze sales between provinces
• Time to move past Trump's tariffs and focus on boosting growth, Chamber of Commerce tells Liberals

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.

North America’s busiest international trade corridor, linking Windsor, Ont. to Detroit, Mich., has a shiny new bridge for tourists and commercial traffic.

Only, none of them can use it right now.

The Gordie Howe Bridge, with its six lanes and modern technology, promises to ease cross-border bottlenecks. The idea is no more border holdups, except, there is one big holdup: Donald Trump. The U.S. president has blocked the bridge’s grand opening, which had been scheduled for last month. He is demanding trade concessions, including ownership of a bridge that is already jointly owned by Canada and Michigan and was fully financed by Canada.

In early June, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the bridge would open but then issued a delay to “resolve outstanding issues.” To get a local perspective on the controversy, we spoke with Windsor Mayor Drew Dilkens about the politics at play.

What is the latest direct communication you or Windsor officials have had with Ottawa or Washington about the Gordie Howe Bridge?

Drew Dilkens: There’s been no communication that I’m aware of since the event was cancelled a few weeks back. I know just what I’m reading in the newspapers. It sounds like (Commerce) Secretary (Howard) Lutnick is the hold-up here, trying to get some money for the United States as a function of the opening of the bridge.

This is entirely wrapped up with our federal government and the United States federal government.

Since the bridge is ready to open, what is the economic cost to Windsor and the region for every week that it remains closed?

The reality is that the Ambassador Bridge has been there since 1929. Trade between our two countries is down as a function of Donald Trump’s tariff war against Canada.

So the Ambassador Bridge and the Blue Water Bridge in Sarnia (Ontario) are handling the capacity, and there are no backups. So the real issue here is that the Gordie Howe Bridge provides more efficiency. It is a direct highway-to-highway connected bridge, and it’ll have the greatest amount of technology embedded in it such that it should be able to clear trucks much faster than any other crossing.

So it really is a function of not being able to operate as efficiently as you could operate if the bridge were open. But right now, the existing bridge is handling the capacity, and there are no backups or delays in the city of Windsor.

From the city’s perspective, what terms or conditions would make a deal to open the bridge unacceptable?

I have been very clear to say, “Please, Mark Carney, do not make a bad deal. We will get through. This bridge is constructed. Play the long game on this.”

It was already delayed a couple of years because of COVID and other delays, and so if we have to wait a little longer for this bridge to open, we can do it. But don’t go on bent knee to the United States and accept a bad deal to get this bridge open. We will get through this. We will wait, and we will be patient.

We have been good actors and good players in this every step of the way, such that Canada funded the entire cost of construction . We have a partnership agreement, between Canada and the state of Michigan, whereby once the bridge is paid for through tolls, the tolls will be split equally between the parties. We have no reason to go on bent knee to the United States at this point.

Don’t let them use this bridge as leverage in any way, shape, or form if it means Canada has to take a bad deal. I’d hate to see that happen.

Do you believe a privately funded lobbying effort tied to competing bridge interests has shaped federal policy on the bridge opening? (Such as from the Maroun family that owns the Ambassador Bridge.)

There is absolutely no doubt that the private interests or the interests of the private operator of the Ambassador Bridge are completely in play with respect to the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge.

I have lived my entire life in the city of Windsor, so for the last 25 years when this bridge has been discussed, there have been twists and turns and ups and downs and lawsuits filed, mostly driven by the interests of the private owner of the Ambassador Bridge.

Here we are at fourth and goal, at the 11th hour — really the 59th minute — of the bridge opening, and we learn that Mr. (Matthew) Moroun met with Secretary Lutnick . Within a couple of hours, Donald Trump put a Truth Social post out saying he won’t let the Gordie Howe Bridge open because somehow the Americans have been treated unfairly, which makes no sense whatsoever.

But there is absolutely no doubt that those interests are in play and a big part of the delay. I’m not sure how that will get resolved. But I have also said, “Let me charge tolls on Huron Church Road leading up to the Ambassador Bridge.”

The (Ontario) premier was in Windsor, and he said, “I’m not a person who’s in favour of tolls, but in this situation I might consider it.”

So the longer this goes on, I think people start looking at what their options are to apply some pressure to get the bridge open.

That’s our ultimate goal here. It’s not to charge tolls. It’s not to impede business or commerce, or add more expense to their bottom line. It’s actually just to get the Gordie Howe Bridge open to allow business to operate more efficiently.

In cities like Windsor and Detroit, where we’re our respective countries’ automotive capitals, the entire industry operates on a just-in-time delivery basis. So efficiency and certainty that goods, once they leave the plant, can get to the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) facility in real time — in time to be put into a final assembly in a vehicle, is of paramount importance. We saw what happens when there are issues where the borders close, like during the Freedom Convoy. It took less than 60 minutes before the OEMs were calling, saying, “What the heck is going on at the Ambassador Bridge?”

They feel it that quickly.

Are there any legal or diplomatic options that you’re urging Ottawa to pursue if the U.S. continues to block the opening? Should Canada give Trump any sort of political win to unlock the bridge, or is that the wrong way to handle it?

I’m a lawyer by trade, and I’ve said from the beginning it would be unconscionable to think that when Canada entered into an agreement and received a presidential permit to construct a bridge connecting our two countries, that there wouldn’t be a simple operating clause inserted into the agreement that says, “Both parties agree to open and operate the bridge given 60 or 90 days notice of completion.”

That would be a standard clause included in any agreement. I can’t believe it’s not there, so let’s assume that it is. How do you enforce your rights? You’d have to go to court. So then the question for the federal government is, are you prepared to go to court and fight the United States and create another point of friction?

I’m sure our federal government is taking a very cautious, measured, and calculated approach to decide how to proceed at this particular time. I absolutely respect that. Our primary interest is to support the federal government in getting a good deal on a renegotiated USMCA or CUSMA agreement that will be a whole lot better long-term than worrying about the Gordie Howe Bridge in the short term.

So … if taking them to court and enforcing some legal right is going to be a flare that’s going to work against the advantage of Canada, then I certainly respect that there’s lots of things to consider.

Regarding both the bridge and broader trade issues, how are the businesses and cross-border supply chains in your area adapting to all the uncertainty of the past year? What are you hearing from local industry leaders?

It’s going to be a problem because, from day to day, folks don’t know what to expect. They could show up at the border and be told that the rules have changed, and they’re unprepared for that.

What business is saying is, “Just tell us what the rules are, and we’ll take it from there. Just give us the certainty of what the landscape looks like, and we’ll figure it out.”

We’ve always said that a tariff on Canada is a tax on American consumers, and that, in many ways, is playing out. So when it comes to tool, die, and mould as an example, where Windsor-Essex is the North American leader … folks who need those products that we make here really aren’t going to China. They can’t really import them any cheaper from overseas because the tariff rates there are even higher. So they’re forced just to suck it up and pay what the price is, inclusive of the tariff, and buy it from the supplier in Windsor-Essex. Therefore, the cost is higher, and that cost through the supply chain gets passed on to the consumer, which is part of the reason why you see 3.8 per cent inflation.

Folks are figuring that out, but the uncertainty is good for no one’s business. And it’s impacting different businesses in different ways.

What message does a delayed opening of the completed binational bridge send to residents, investors, and trading partners?

I think most sensible people are saying this is just another Donald Trump issue. It’s more chaos Donald Trump has put into the universe. They know where to assign their blame on this issue. Whether he’s being played by the private interests or the interests of the private owner of the Ambassador Bridge, or whether something else in play, we know Donald Trump can resolve this, and he hasn’t.

What role, if any, can Windsor play in pushing the Gordie Howe Bridge to completion, and where do you see the real pressure points — especially on the U.S. side?

It’s not really up to us, because we’re not the operator. We don’t get anything as a result of the Gordie Howe Bridge opening, except an opportunity to leverage it … by saying we’re home to the busiest commercial border crossing. But there’s no direct gain to the municipality when the Gordie Howe Bridge opens. This is really a decision of the federal government to decide what they’re prepared to do to get this bridge open. I’m trying to give them some amount of cover to say, “Don’t make a bad deal, because we’re going to be fine down here.”

I want it open as bad as the next guy in this city. I’ve watched it happen. I’ve been part of this process for 20 years, and I’ve watched it play out for 25 … We have funded the entire cost of this. We have very clean hands in this process. We have worked diligently with the United States to secure the presidential permit required. We brought Michigan in as a 50 per cent equity partner.

Donald Trump has a midterm election in November. Michigan was a swing state that swung in his favor. There were 8,000 people from Michigan who helped build the bridge and the plaza with Michigan — with American steel, with American building products on the U.S. side. They’re watching this as well. They have eager anticipation just like we do in Windsor to see this bridge open because there isn’t a place in Windsor you can go where you don’t see the vista and the pillars of the bridge rising up, and it’s the same on the Detroit side.

So there’s eager anticipation on both sides of the border, and I would submit that … people are watching in Michigan, and (Trump has) got a lot to lose if he wants to play games with a vital crossing that means positive things for the economies on both sides of the border.

National Post

tmoran@postmedia.com

• Canada paying to construct Gordie Howe Bridge is 'big myth': U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra
• The billionaire donor family said to be behind Trump's delay in opening Gordie Howe Bridge

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.