If the Parti Québécois is elected this fall, it says it will try to redraft a pending energy deal with Newfoundland and Labrador to further develop Churchill Falls. But only if it involves compensation for Quebec’s loss of Labrador nearly a century ago.

In an interview with National Post, the party’s energy critic Pascal Paradis said a PQ government would be willing to sit down and discuss new terms to update the 1969 energy deal that is loathed in Newfoundland and Labrador, but only with the “right approach” for Quebec.

“The right approach is not to substantiate the theory according to which the 1969 deal for the development of Churchill Falls is an illegitimate or unjust deal,” he said.

The power contract signed between Hydro-Québec and the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation ensured that hydroelectricity produced at the Churchill Falls site would be sold to Hydro-Québec at a very low price until 2041.

The deal has caused generations of resentment in Newfoundland and Labrador, where citizens feel their resources have been taken advantage and enriched Quebec’s hydroelectric cash cow.

But Paradis said Quebec took “enormous financial risks” to develop Churchill Falls at a time when Newfoundland and Labrador did not have the means to do so itself, noting that subsequent legal challenges to change the terms of the contract failed.

That deal was later ripped up — literally — by former Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey in 2024 when he signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Quebec which would have replaced the contentious 1969 agreement.

That MOU would have seen billions more flow to the province, as Hydro-Québec is looking to double its electricity production by 2050 to keep up with demand.

A new Progressive Conservative government was elected in 2025, promising to review the deal. An independent review ultimately concluded the MOU was not in Newfoundland and Labrador’s best interests, and negotiations with Quebec restarted last month.

Paradis said the “real injustice” on this file was the 1927 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London to grant the disputed territory of Labrador to Newfoundland, then a British Dominion.

He said the province should be compensated for it.

Paradis said that while the decision did take place nearly a century ago, the PQ does not intend to abandon the province’s “historic position” on the matter.

“Given this injustice, compensation should be negotiated,” he said. “And that of course has a direct link with the negotiations on Churchill Falls.”

The boundary between Quebec and Labrador has been a longstanding irritant for Quebec governments for decades, but the PQ took it a step further in its “blue book” released last month, which fleshes out what an independent Quebec would look like.

The PQ’s 524-page document states that the “only way to repair this injustice would be to propose a political settlement, or even financial compensation.”

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Tony Wakeham outright dismissed the idea when asked by reporters last week. “This issue was settled a long time ago,” he said.

Gregory Kelley, natural resources critic for Quebec’s Liberal party, said that while he agrees most Quebec governments have never officially accepted the border with Labrador, picking up a fight with another province should not be a priority.

“I just sort of see it as the classic Parti Québécois finding ways, on a file that is really between two provinces, to maybe try and bring in a whole question of the history of Canada and the injustices of Canada,” Kelley said in an interview.

He added it is more important, at the moment, to come to an agreement to help produce more energy that businesses can rely on moving forward in the future.

Wakeham met on Tuesday with Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette at the Council of the Federation in Charlottetown to discuss the status of negotiations on a new energy deal.

Representatives of Hydro-Québec and N.L. Hydro were not in attendance at this meeting, according to Wakeham’s press secretary Ashley Jackson-Politi.

Time is running out for Fréchette to come to a deal, as she will soon be facing an uphill battle in the provincial election slated for Oct. 5. Her party, the Coalition Avenir Québec, is currently in third place in the polls, while the PQ is poised to form government.

Despite this, her team believes it is possible for Quebec to arrive at a revised MOU with Newfoundland and Labrador that will benefit both parties.

“Discussions are ongoing; we remain confident to arrive at an agreement,” said Fréchette’s press secretary, Élodie Masson, in a written statement.

Hydro-Québec echoed that statement, adding: “ Our focus is on continuing those discussions, and it would be premature to comment on subsequent steps,” said spokeswoman Lynn St-Laurent in an email.

Opposition parties in Quebec agree that Fréchette should not rush into an agreement on Churchill Falls with an election fast approaching. Or, if she does, they believe it should be submitted to the National Assembly of Quebec for review.

“We would ultimately like to see an agreement go through on Churchill Falls, but it’s important also to put things into context that Madame Fréchette doesn’t have carte blanche to sign anything either,” Kelley said.

“We’re of the view that the original offer made by Hydro-Québec and the government of Quebec was extremely generous,” he added.

Paradis said Fréchette simply does not have the “legitimacy” to sign an agreement in the dying days of her mandate and fears she might make too many concessions to wrap up the negotiations quickly.

“The first ones to judge will be Quebecers during the elections in October.”

National Post
calevesque@postmedia.com

• Ottawa ready to help broker Churchill Falls deal with Quebec and Newfoundland
• Jack Jedwab: PQ dream of becoming a NATO member state is nothing but a fantasy

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

CHARLOTTETOWN — Eight premiers said Tuesday they would start allowing people in their provinces to buy alcohol directly from producers anywhere in the country.

“We’re thrilled today that other provinces have joined us,” said New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt, whose province amended its laws to allow residents to order alcohol directly from elsewhere in Canada last year.

Holt’s province will be joined by Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and Newfoundland and Labrador in allowing direct-to-consumer shipping from out of province.

“Now New Brunswick’s world-class craft-beer products, craft spirits, and wines can reach markets like Ontario and Quebec and B.C.,” she said. “And Canadians can get the benefits of these products, strengthening internal trade, being our own best customer at a time when it really matters.”

Holt made the announcement at a first ministers conference in Charlottetown. Last July, all 10 provinces signed a commitment to allow direct-to-consumer sales, but until now, most failed to follow through.

Quebec and the Yukon are still developing their enabling legislation to fulfill the agreement and B.C. has committed to implementing direct-to-consumer purchasing by February 2027.

The change comes after years of provinces being reluctant to open up competition for local alcohol producers, but the premiers said it was part of a broader commitment to reduce internal trade barriers, according to a released statement.

Internal Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc issued a statement i n May expressing concerns about the failure of provinces to meet the commitment they had made last July. He noted that the federal government has done its part by opening up the market by amending the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act and extending alcohol excise duty relief for brewers, distillers and wineries.

“Direct-to-consumer alcohol sales is a prime example of how we can make progress by giving Canadians the option to purchase their favourite wine, beer, or spirits directly from producers in other provinces,” LeBlanc wrote. “Canadians expect all orders of government to show leadership to realize this vision, and it’s time to deliver.”

Tuesday’s agreement stops short of opening up more shelf space in provincially run liquor stores for all out-of-province producers. But Holt said the direct-to-consumer approach will benefit smaller producers who can’t get their bottles and cans into large provincial liquor store operations, such as the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which require minimum sales thresholds.

“It really helps some of our smallest enterprises for whom getting listed somewhere like Ontario or Quebec can be really challenging,” said Holt.

• Governments get good marks for prioritizing provincial trade barriers, but must 'step up' on results: CFIB
• ‘We really make it easy to become trade targets’: Internal trade barriers still limiting Canadian booze sales between provinces

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 — Canada will not be taking part in cross-border celebrations to highlight the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge next week, the government has announced.

“In light of trade action threatened by the United States earlier this week, it would be inappropriate to proceed with a celebratory event between the two countries,” said Jenna Ghassabeh, director of communications for the minister of housing and infrastructure, in a statement sent late Tuesday afternoon.

The bridge is scheduled to open to vehicle traffic on Monday, July 27.

This is the first snub from Canada after the Trump administration announced Monday its intention to apply a 50 per cent tariff on certain Canadian goods starting a month from now to respond to what it views as Canada’s unfair trade practices when it comes to dairy quotas, U.S. alcohol bans in some provinces and tariff quotas on American autos.

“The Gordie Howe International Bridge remains a vital infrastructure project that reflects years of hard work and will be a major economic driver in the region, expanding options for commuters, tourists, businesses, and families,” Ghassabeh said.

She added that while Canada remains “committed” to opening the bridge on July 27, as planned, Canadians will be celebrating this milestone among themselves on Friday, July 24.

An invitation to Friday’s Gordie Howe Bridge inauguration in Windsor circulating this week shows that it is intended for “key supporters” of the project. The event will feature “government, bridge leaders and other guests” who will be “celebrating” its opening.

The Gordie Howe Bridge began construction in 2018 to address the congestion of the privately-owned Ambassador Bridge. Canada financed the new connector at a cost of $6.4 billion, and an agreement was struck at the time with Michigan to allow Canada to receive all the revenue until it could recover its costs.

But in February, U.S. President Donald Trump said he did not agree with the terms of the deal and blocked an opening ceremony that was scheduled to take place in June.

After some negotiation behind closed doors, the Canadian government announced earlier this month that a new agreement had been reached to open the bridge on July 27.

The details of the new agreement struck with the Trump administration however are murky , which has led to opposition parties asking to release the deal publicly.

— With files from Jordan Gowling.

National Post
calevesque@postmedia.com

• Carney won't rule out retaliation to latest tariff threat: ‘We will do whatever it takes’
• Ontario, B.C. premiers call for reprisals against U.S. for Trump's latest tariffs

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.

CHARLOTTETOWN — Canada “can’t keep rolling over for President Trump,” Ontario Premier Doug Ford told reporters in Charlottetown as he entered a meeting with his fellow premiers. He was responding to the announcement of plans for new tariffs from U.S. President Trump on Monday .

“We can’t back down. We need a full Team Canada approach. Everything is on the table, but Ontario can’t do it alone. We need the support,” Ford insisted.

“I’m tired of the bully trying to take our lunch money all the time. We always seem to be on our back heels. We need to be on the offence … We need to stand up to the bully, and we need to hit him tariff to tariff — all the way across the board. And that’s my message to the prime minister. We need a plan moving forward.”

Ford was the only premier to provide an estimate for the economic impact of the tariffs: “What I understand, it’s $28 billion across the country.” Ontario will be hit the hardest, he added.

The premiers were meeting Tuesday for the start of a first ministers conference, which will include the prime minister and Indigenous leaders.

The Trump administration said the tariffs would come next month under Section 338 of the Tariff Act as payback for Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. autos, boycotts by provincial liquor boards of U.S. alcohol, and lack of access for U.S. exporters to Canada’s dairy market. Section 338 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs on countries deemed to be discriminating against American commercial interests.

Ford said Canada needs to retaliate harder.

“We need a plan from a prime minister to come in, and if these talks fail in 29 days, we need to hit them back as hard as we can,” said Ford.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday that he and Trump had agreed to “intensify” trade negotiations after the new tariffs were announced. He did not rule out further actions against American imports.

“We have a situation where the American tariffs, the 338 tariffs, will come into effect in 29 days, and we will look at all options in terms of how we would respond if they do come into effect,” Carney told reporters in Ottawa on Tuesday.

Negotiations with the U.S. are now centred on whether to preserve the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, which Washington declined to renew by the deadline on July 1. The deal is now subject to annual reviews and negotiations until 2036, after which it expires, unless the three countries agree to fully renew it at any point.

B.C.’s David Eby said he agreed with Ford about fighting back.

“There is not a chance in hell that U.S. alcohol is going back on a shelf in British Columbia. And I’m proud of that, and I know the British Columbians support that. And the idea of the president that he can bully us into whatever he wishes is incorrect.”

While conceding more tariffs and trade action will hurt companies and families in B.C., he said he shared Ford’s assessment of Trump trying to bully Canada.

“This attempt by the president to hurt Canadians to, for some reason, attack our country, was entirely predictable. (He) will probably do it again. And there’s no reason to believe that this is the bottom in terms of where he’s willing to go.”

Not all the premiers agreed with Ford that Canada needed to hit the U.S. harder.

“It most certainly is time for us to intensify our negotiations, be very ambitious,” said Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. “The ultimate goal isn’t to counter-tariff and further weaken the North American economy. The ultimate goal is to get to a renewed agreement, a trade agreement that is going to build and ensure that our North American economy is more competitive moving forward.”

This latest round of tariffs differs from previous rounds in that they will not exempt goods covered by CUSMA.

Eby insists that this move cannot foreshadow the end of CUSMA.

“The end of the trade agreement between the United States and Canada would be devastating for Americans and for Canadians alike. The extent of that self-inflicted injury on the United States would be profound. U.S. business will be very clear with the president about that.”

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she hopes the intensified negotiations will finally bring some closure to what has been a fluctuating and worsening trade situation between Canada and the U.S.

“I think that there’s a real desire on the part of Canada, and certainly on the part of all the premiers to get to an agreement, so that we are able to move forward,” Smith told reporters. “I think that that’s what we’ve been looking for, is that there’ll be some kind of intensity that will ramp up, where we’ll be able to get all of the issues on the table. And so what we’re hoping is that we’ll see a deal on autos, steel, on softwood, on aluminum, on all of the new issues that have been raised.”

The prime minister said he planned to host a call with the premiers Tuesday before travelling to meet them in person in Charlottetown later this week.

He said Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc will convene the Canada-U.S. Advisory Council this afternoon.

• Carney won't rule out retaliation to latest tariff threat
• Trump announces new 50% tariff on Canadian goods citing alcohol, dairy disputes

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 – Prime Minister Mark Carney did not rule out retaliation in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest tariff threat on a number of Canadian goods, part of the latest escalation of the U.S.-Canada trade conflict.

“We have a situation where the American tariffs, the 338 tariffs, will come into effect in 29 days, and we will look at all options in terms of how we would respond if they do come into effect,” Carney told reporters in Ottawa on Tuesday.

“When I say we will do whatever it takes, and keep all options, obviously it’s a comprehensive point,” the prime minister added.

On Monday, the U.S. administration announced it intends to apply a 50 per cent tariff on certain Canadian goods in response to what it views as Canada’s unfair trade practices when it comes to dairy quotas, U.S. alcohol bans in some provinces, and tariff quotas on American autos.

U.S. President Donald Trump used Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, with the levies set to take effect on Aug. 19. The new tariffs will not apply to potash, energy, fish, or other goods already facing separate sector-specific tariffs. The Section 338 tariffs will also apply to CUSMA-compliant goods.

Carney said he spoke with the president on Tuesday morning, and they agreed to “intensify negotiations in the coming weeks.”

The prime minister said Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc would convene the Canada-U.S. Advisory Council Tuesday afternoon.

Carney also hosted a call with the premiers Tuesday to discuss Trump’s latest trade action and will be meeting with them in-person on Thursday for the first ministers’ meeting in Charlottetown.

“I would say as well that throughout this time, we have made a series of comprehensive and detailed proposals about how to modernize CUSMA, recognizing the transition that the U.S. (has) underway … with all its trading relationships, including with Canada and Mexico,” said Carney.

Asked whether his government plans to make more concessions to move the CUSMA discussions forward, the prime minister said Canada’s sticking point in its negotiations with the Americans remains the Section 232 tariffs that apply to Canadian aluminum, forest products, steel, automobiles and pharmaceuticals.

“Those first four being the most important for the Canadian economy, and that we don’t want a partial agreement,” said Carney. “We want something that addresses those sectors as well, so that it’s a viable approach going forward.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Trump said Canada has been very tough on the U.S. for many years and no president has done anything about it.

“They need us to survive,” the president said in the Oval Office. “Without us there’s no way they can survive.”

William Pellerin, international trade partner at McMillan LLP, said this will change how Canada approaches the negotiations with the Americans.

“I think this does provide a big reset to the negotiation agenda and will force Canada into difficult decisions in the coming 29 days,” he said.

The list of products that will be subject to the new Section 338 tariffs includes cement, dairy products, wood products, alcoholic beverages, paper products, sporting equipment, jewellery, glass products, salt, essential oils, clothing, swimming pools, gaming consoles, smartphones, lamps and furniture products.

Pellerin said the biggest escalation is the new tariff will apply to goods previously exempted under CUSMA.

“What we’re hearing from our clients right now is those that are hit, that are caught by this list, their export sales are going to go to zero, and this is actually quite catastrophic,” he said. “Because the 50 per cent tariff is very, very high, and no one else in the world has to pay that. Right? This is a new tariff unique to Canada.”

Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said Trump’s latest trade move is a negotiating weapon tied to CUSMA leverage because the president could’ve used Section 338 as more of a blanket tool for tariffs across far more products.

“This is probably more of a way to get negotiating leverage over Canada,” he said. “The amount of Canadian exports to the U.S. affected … is only about five per cent.”

Trump and members of the U.S. administration have been very vocal about their opposition to the boycott of U.S. alcoholic products by provincial liquor commissions in every province except Saskatchewan and Alberta. A White House fact sheet published Monday said Canadian imports of U.S. alcohol have decreased by 81 per cent between March 2025 to February 2026.

On Monday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and B.C. Premier David Eby were adamant about keeping the boycotts in their provinces in place, unless there is movement on U.S. tariffs.

Carney said it is up to provinces to decide when to lift those bans.

“The decision to change that first and foremost would be taken by the provinces themselves, each individually, and should only be taken, in my judgment, as part of an overall agreement, and that’s what we’re working with,” he added.

Pellerin said Canada still has leverage to use in the negotiations, as it relates to a number of Canadian industries.

“But there are certainly things that Canada can do to appease the United States on defence and critical minerals and agriculture and a number of other issues where we have a little bit more to give,” he said.

In a statement on Tuesday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called Trump’s latest tariffs unjustified and said the federal government needs to come up with a plan to avoid the tariffs from coming into effect next month.

“That is why Conservatives are calling for the International Trade Committee to convene to hear the government’s plan to prevent these new tariffs from taking effect and to fight for tariff-free trade,” he said. “We are also seeking a meeting of the Government Operations Committee on the recent deal to share toll revenues on the Gordie Howe Bridge.”

Meanwhile, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet called on the federal government to provide more measures to help the Quebec economy, as it faces impacts by U.S. tariffs.

National Post

• Trump announces new 50% tariff on Canadian goods citing alcohol, dairy disputes
• Trump administration staying out of Alberta separation referendum, ambassador says

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

Non‑Jewish Canadians hold less favourable views of Jews today than they did just two years ago, and their attitudes toward Israel have soured even more over the same period. Those are the findings of the Canadian Jewish Barometer 2026, a new national survey, and its authors pose several reasons for the decline.

Diversity, inclusion and equity (DEI) programs have not been helpful in addressing the rise in antisemitism despite their goal to eradicate discrimination, says Rhonda Lenton. According to the former president of York University, and co-author of the study, “these programs often fail to identify antisemitism. If your DEI lens only recognizes race-based disadvantage, and cannot grapple with religious, cultural and national dimensions, then Jews – who are the most targeted group on the country – are effectively rendered invisible.“

She said it was “ironic” that these programs are “often structurally incapable of even seeing antisemitism, let alone addressing it,” she said. “If your DEI lens only recognizes race‑based disadvantage, and cannot grapple with religious, cultural, economic and national dimensions, then Jews — who are the most targeted group in the country — are effectively rendered invisible.”

The Canadian Jewish Barometer (CJB), compiled by Lenton and sociologist Robert Brym of the University of Toronto, is based on a web‑panel survey of 3,062 Canadian adults, conducted from mid‑January to mid‑February this year, including oversampling polls of Jews, Muslims and Quebecers, to allow detailed subgroup analysis.

The sample was drawn from the Leger Opinion Panel and the data were collected by Léger .

Compared with a similar survey they conducted in early 2024, the authors find that positive sentiment toward Jews has dropped, while agreement with negatively worded statements about Jews has risen by roughly five percentage points on average — changes large enough to be statistically significant.

The share of non‑Jewish Canadians with the most favourable view of Jews fell by eight percentage points in just two years, and those with slightly positive views dropped by 15 points. Middle‑of‑the‑road and mildly negative attitudes have filled that vacuum, suggesting as authors purport that the “golden age” of Canadian Jewry — running from the 1960s to the early 2020s — is giving way to a more hostile environment.

Since the Israel-Hamas war, the Barometer notes that Jews now suffer more police‑recorded hate crimes per capita than any other ethnic, racial or religious group in Canada. In 2024 there was one anti‑Jewish hate crime for every 366 Jews (of roughly 335,000 Jews), a rate far higher than that for Black or Muslim Canadians.

Inside the Jewish community, the rising incidents have caused the psychological toll to worsen, authors submit. In 2024, 63 per cent of Jews said they felt less safe in Canada than five years earlier; by 2026 that figure had jumped to 88 per cent. Nearly seven in 10 Jewish parents now worry about their children’s safety at school.

Those shifts are being felt acutely inside the Jewish community, where fear, discomfort and talk — however tentative — of emigration are now measurable trends, say the researchers. One in four Jews has seriously considered leaving Canada, or made plans to do so, in response to the rising antisemitism.

“That 25 per cent is not people packing suitcases; it’s a measure of lost trust,” Brym qualified. “They are questioning whether Canada is still living up to its commitments on multiculturalism and minority rights. When that many members of a historically successful minority are thinking in those terms, it’s not just a ‘Jewish problem.’ It’s a warning light for every minority in this country.”

Non‑Jewish Canadians are now markedly more critical of Israel, says the report: strong and moderate support has declined, while weak support, outright opposition and uncertainty have all grown. When asked directly, more Canadians describe their view of Israel as unfavourable than favourable, and a majority say the Gaza campaign amounts to “genocide.”

Brym argues that intense anti‑Zionism has bled into Jew-hatred. “We’re finding that strong negative attitudes toward Israel’s very right to exist have bred a great deal of antisemitism in recent years,” he said. “They’re different focal points — Jews on the one hand, Israel on the other — but they have become closely linked forms of antipathy.”

Lenton stressed that Israeli government and military policy alone cannot be used as the explanatory factor. “There is a moderate to strong correlation between attitudes toward Israel and attitudes toward Jews, particularly among Muslims,” she noted. “But even after you account for that, a lot of hostility toward Jews remains unexplained. Changing Israeli policy, by itself, will not ‘solve’ antisemitism.”

A more critical look at contemporary equity, diversity and inclusion policies within Canada’s government and institutions, may be the key to reversing the damage, contends Lenton.

“Some of the research shows an inherent tension between DEI frameworks, and the ability to understand antisemitism,” Lenton said. “When DEI is framed almost exclusively around systemic barriers defined by race, it cannot grapple with how antisemitism operates along religious, cultural, economic and national lines. The result is that antisemitism is frequently not mentioned at all in institutional DEI policies, or, when it is, the national dimension of Jewish identity is explicitly excluded.”

Brym added: “A program designed to be inclusive ends up being exclusive of the group that experiences the highest rate of hate crimes in the country,” he said. “The only ‘good Jew,’ in many DEI framings, is a Jew without any national ambitions for the Jewish people. That’s completely out of step with the reality… (nearly all) Canadian Jews see support for Israel as an important or essential part of their identity.”

Lenton argued that universities and other organizations now need to retool how DEI is operationalized — in hiring, promotion, admissions, and student recruitment — to identify where anti‑Jewish bias is being inadvertently baked into policy.

“That includes revisiting definitions, metrics and recommended strategies, and making sure that Jews are recognized as a vulnerable minority in all the dimensions in which they are targeted.”

One of the more sobering findings concerns the limits of Holocaust education, said Brym. The Barometer shows that more hours of classroom teaching do correlate with slightly more positive attitudes toward Jews, but the effect size is small. In Quebec in particular, many non‑Jewish respondents significantly underestimate the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust, and average classroom time on the subject is lower than in the rest of Canada.

Brym suggested broadening the lens. “Right now Holocaust education tends to focus almost exclusively on Jews,” he says. “What if, in K‑12, we talked systematically about other mass killings and let different groups share their histories with each other? Recognizing the commonalities in suffering could build empathy across communities, not just toward Jews.”

He also pointed to the relationship between Jews and Muslims as a crucial front. “Our data from previous work show that it’s largely the same Canadians who harbour strong antipathy toward both Jews and Muslims,” Brym noted. “We have more in common than either community might think. The Jewish community needs to initiate far more structured dialogue with Muslim organizations to develop mutual empathy. Right now, the relationship is deeply antagonistic, and that serves no one.”

When Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion at Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple on June 1, Brym inferred that it would be informed by academic research as well as political and community input. As such, Brym and Lenton have already forwarded their findings to those committee members, including cabinet minister Marc Miller and Senator Marc Gold, and offered to assist in further research.

“So far, we’ve seen very little evidence that the committee is engaging seriously with academic work,” Lenton said. “They announced that they were prepared to act, but there has been far more signalling than substance. If the government — and that committee specifically — does not embrace and promote rigorous research, it will not be able to see where policy can actually change attitudes, and where it cannot.”

• Don Braid: Nenshi's slavish apology for his photo with the Israeli ambassador
• Report finds NGOs rife with 'hostile behaviour related to Jews, Israel'

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.

A gym in Windsor, Ont., has become a talking point online after a Sikh man posted a video of an employee asking him to leave for wearing a kirpan. Here’s what to know.

What was the incident?

In a video posted to TikTok by a Sikh fitness influencer posting under the name “dreambodygurp,” an unseen female employee at a GoodLife Fitness Centre in Windsor talks with the man, who says: “You’re scared that I’m going to take this religious symbol and kill somebody.”

The woman replies: “What I’m saying is that you have a weapon on your person, a member has brought it to my attention, and for the safety of me and everybody else in the gym, I’m asking you to leave.” She adds: “We’re a private gym and we’re allowed to deny access.”

What is a kirpan?

Although not visible in the video, a kirpan is a ceremonial dagger and an article of faith worn by observant Sikhs. It is one of the “five Ks,” alongside kesh (uncut hair and beard), kangha (a wooden comb), kara (a steel bracelet) and kachhera (an undergarment).

What does the law say about the kirpan?

Because it is both a symbol of faith and a potential weapon, the kirpan has been the subject of debate and bans over the years.

However, in 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a total ban on kirpans violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , and that Canadian institutions had a duty to accommodate Sikhs who chose to wear one.

Similarly, a 2012 Ontario Human Rights Commission ruling allowed kirpans to be worn in Toronto courthouses, after complaints from people who arrived for a trial or jury duty and were told to remove it.

Organizations will sometimes balance these rights with limits, however. As an example, the policy at Humber Polytechnic is to allow students and teachers to wear a kirpan, but notes: they may be asked to present a letter confirming their faith; the kirpan may not be longer than seven inches; and it must be worn under clothing, not visibly.

The college also notes: “The right to wear the kirpan may be suspended if it is misused by the wearer.”

The seven-inch rule can be found in other documents. In videos in which the man’s kirpan is visible, it appears to exceed that length.

What’s the Quebec situation?

Quebec’s Bill 21 prohibits the wearing of religious symbols by public school teachers and other authority figures while on the job. That includes the kirpan.

What was GoodLife’s response?

In an email to National Post, Tracy Matthews, senior vice-president of experience and safety at GoodLife Fitness, said: “Regarding the wearing of the kirpan in businesses, the Ontario government is responsible for drafting and passing human rights laws for the province, which businesses like GoodLife are required to follow.”

She added: “The Ontario Human Rights Commission provides guidance regarding the interpretation and application of Human Rights laws in Ontario, including topics like this.”

Matthews also responded to online rumours that the female employee had lost her job. “No one has been, nor will be, terminated as a result of the interaction in our Windsor club,” she said. “Information to the contrary is false.”

She added: “We continue to support our employees and the entire GoodLife community. GoodLife Fitness provides a welcoming and safe community, and we will continue to strive to maintain that environment for everyone who comes to our clubs.”

Meanwhile, a letter posted to TikTok by the man from the gym, and purported to be from Kelly Musovic, senior director of experience and safety at GoodLife, offers an apology and says in part: “What happened to you was not okay, and was not a reflection of our policies and values.”

It continues: “Our policy states, verbatim; ‘The Kirpan is a knife carried by some Associates or Members who practice Sikhism. Sikh Associates or Members can carry a Kirpan on their person because it is a requirement of their religion.'”

GoodLife’s website does not include that policy, but does state : “We promote equitable opportunities and treatment for all people, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, physical or mental ability, disability, physical appearance, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or nationality. We believe in treating everyone with respect and consideration.”

National Post has reached out to Musovic for more information.

• John Ivison: How I changed my mind about the Liberals ending religious exemptions for hate speech
• Justice minister says he will 'personally' try to understand concerns over religious defences removal in anti-hate bill

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

The Trump administration is staying out of the upcoming referendum on Alberta’s future in Canada, the U.S. ambassador to Canada says.

Ambassador Pete Hoekstra said during a podcast interview in Edmonton on Monday that the Oct. 19 referendum vote is a matter for Albertans alone to decide.

“The vote that’s going to happen in October is a decision for the people of Alberta,” Hoekstra told local talk show host Ryan Jespersen.

“If (the referendum) is going to be influenced by governments, it’s going to be influenced by the government of Alberta and by the federal government, and maybe the other provinces, but not by the United States government,” he said.

Hoekstra said he had “clear direction from Washington” not to try to influence the referendum.

The U.S. ambassador was in Alberta’s capital city to speak at the Pacific Northwest Economic Region’s annual summit.

The visit comes three months ahead of a referendum in which Albertans will be asked whether the province should stay in Canada or start the legal process to hold a binding independence referendum.

Some Alberta separatists say they have made multiple trips to Washington, D.C . over the past 15 months to meet with contacts in the U.S. government. Some critics have implied the Trump administration is engaging in “foreign interference” by meeting with separatists while intelligence watchers have warned there is a risk of disinformation campaigns from foreign powers. However, Premier Danielle Smith said in May she had seen “‘no credible evidence” of any state actors trying to manipulate the referendum debate.

Hoekstra said that, while he was aware of the purported Washington meetings, U.S. officials sitting down with Alberta separatists doesn’t in itself constitute foreign interference.

“(We) meet with people from all over,” said Hoekstra. “You get calls and request to meet with folks and… if they’re people that are working on issues that may have an impact on U.S. relations, there’s a good chance we’ll meet with them, just to get some kind of perspective.”

Hoekstra laughed sarcastically when Jespersen likened the meetings to a taxpayer-funded anti-tariff ad the Ontario government ran in the U.S. last fall, ahead of the 2025 off-year elections that led to the president suspending trade negotiations with Canada.

“Compared to a provincial government and Canadian taxpayers running (political) ads in the United States of America? You’re equating those two? C’mon, that’s not even close!” said Hoekstra.

“(U.S. President) Donald Trump and the administration hasn’t given me a pot of money that says, ‘hey Pete, if there’s an interesting election or by-election, here’s $50,000, go spend it,'” he added.

Hoekstra told Jespersen he thought the Ontario ad campaign was “outrageous,” calling it the first time in the U.S.’s 250-year history that a foreign government has tried to influence the outcome of upcoming elections.

The interview took place before Trump announced an executive orderimposing new 50 per cent tariffs on certain Canadian goods, set to begin Aug. 19.

The fall Alberta referendum could have implications for the American economy. The province exports roughly 1.24-billion barrels of oil to the U.S. annually, more than any other jurisdiction in the world.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in January that an independent Alberta would be a “natural partner” for his country.

National Post
rmohamed@postmedia.com

• Poilievre appoints Edmonton MP to lead party's pro-unity campaign ahead of Alberta separatism referendum
• Canadians support Alberta's non-separatism referendum questions that would give province more power: poll

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

Three Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States have pleaded guilty to being part of a crime organization that smuggled people from Mexico, Central and South America into Canada and then across the border into the U.S.

According to court documents, Ignacio Diaz-Perez, 37, Samuel Diaz-Perez, 27, and Salvador Diaz-Diaz, 34, were part of an alien smuggling organization (ASO) that brought hundreds of illegal migrants into the U.S.

“Once the illegal aliens were inside the U.S., the ASO employed drivers to pick them up and drive them further into the country,” the U.S. Department of Justice said in a press release . “The defendants personally participated in and coordinated smuggling events with other leaders of the ASO.”

The department noted that during one smuggling event in May 2023, a van carrying illegal migrants led border patrol agents on a high-speed chase in which the agents had to eventually stop due to the risk to the public. Ultimately the local sheriff’s department used a tire deflation device to stop the van.

The three men’s co-defendant, Edgar Sanchez-Solis, already pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit alien smuggling and five counts of alien smuggling for private financial gain on May 7. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 10.

Ignacio and Samuel Diaz-Perez each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit alien smuggling and six counts of aliens smuggling for financial gain, while Diaz-Diaz pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit alien smuggling and five counts of aliens smuggling for financial gain. They are scheduled to be sentenced on Nov 23, and face a penalty of between five and 15 years in prison.

“Human smuggling threatens our national security in multiple ways, including the risks to public safety that take place when alien smugglers further ignore our laws and lead agents on dangerous high-speed pursuits,” Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division said in a statement.

“These defendants undermined the integrity of our border, disobeyed our traffic and public safety laws, and put ordinary citizens at risk. In short, for their own greed, they jeopardized the safety of the public and the illegal aliens they were smuggling. They will now answer for these offences.”

The four men were arrested at multiple locations in the U.S. and charged on May 2 .

“These defendants illegally entered this country and then sought to smuggle hundreds of aliens per week to the United States from Mexico, Central America, and South America through the Canadian border,” said Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

“The defendants instructed smuggled aliens to make testimonial videos touting the enterprise’s services. In reality, the defendants imperiled their human cargo and innocent American lives when they repeatedly engaged in life-threatening conduct, including multiple high-speed getaways from law enforcement.”

• Mexican man pleads guilty to smuggling migrants into U.S. from Canada
• Two arrested in Montreal as human smuggling networks on the rise after closure of Roxham Road, RCMP says

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.

OTTAWA — The recently unveiled southern route for a proposed new West Coast oil pipeline is facing criticism from a surprising corner: provincial Conservatives in B.C.

They say that the southerly route, which cuts through B.C.’s highly fertile Fraser Valley , places an unnecessary strain on already dwindling prime farmland in the area.

The planned route, announced earlier this month by the federal and Alberta governments, will run some 1,200 kilometres from Bruderheim, Alta. southwest to Roberts Bank in Delta, B.C. The proposal was selected over an option to the B.C. north coast that was opposed by B.C. Premier David Eby.

B.C. Conservative agriculture critic Ian Paton says he’s especially concerned as the party’s MLA for Delta South, the riding where the proposed pipeline would end.

Paton said the pipeline would deal yet another blow to his community’s farmers, who’ve already lost plenty of farmland during the construction of multiple major transportation and resource projects.

“Over the years, ever since I was a kid, Delta farmland has been split up by this project or the other,” said Paton. “Do we need one more huge interruption going through our farmland in Delta?”

He pointed to a provincial highway project that bisected Delta farms to give drivers a quick route to the U.S., a 70-kilometre rail corridor connecting Roberts Bank to the broader North American rail network, the construction of a massive coal export facility at Roberts Bank and the stringing of towering high-voltage power lines in the community, among other projects.

B.C. Conservative Leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay, who represented part of Delta as a Conservative MP between 2011 and 2015, has also criticized the selection of the southern route, blaming Eby for blocking the northern route, which would have been shorter and closer to Asian export markets. The north option faced a moratorium on oil tanker traffic in the area imposed in 2019 by former prime minister Justin Trudeau, under pressure from environmental and First Nations activists who claimed it was ecologically unsafe. Carney initially indicated he might relax the moratorium, but ultimately agreed to keep it as part of a large infrastructure-spending deal with Eby in exchange for the premier promising not to oppose a new southern pipeline .

“(Eby is) actively forcing our energy sector into longer, costlier southern routes that will cut through vital farmland just to satisfy a room full of activists,” Findlay wrote last week in a social media post .

Delta, a city of just over 100,000 residents that sits in the southwest corner of the Fraser Valley, has historically been an agricultural powerhouse. The community sits on roughly a quarter of Metro Vancouver’s agricultural land base and produces almost 80 per cent of its cereal crops.

Paton said that, while he’s not necessarily anti-development, he’s also concerned by the rate at which local farmland is dwindling.

“The reason we’re called ‘Delta’ is because we’re on a flood plain of, like, million-year-old deposits … It’s some of the most beautiful, nutrient-rich soil in existence,” said Paton.

“Once that prime farmland is gone, it’s gone forever.”

The surrounding Fraser Valley, including several communities along the proposed pipeline’s route, is the most intensively farmed area in Canada.

Paton told National Post that farming in the area has already been disrupted by the recent Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to nearby Burnaby, B.C.

“The process of running pipe through is very disruptive to whoever’s farming and sets food production back by at least a full year,” said Paton.

He said that food growers in the area are just getting back to their normal rhythms.

Harman Bhangu, the Conservative MLA for nearby Langley-Abbotsford, said he’s received a few anxious emails from farmers in his riding about the proposed pipeline. Bhangu said they didn’t fully oppose the pipeline but didn’t trust the government to manage the publicly owned project.

Paton added that putting the terminus in Delta would mean building a new 260-hectare marine terminal on valuable farmland. This would include a massive new oil storage facility capable of holding 6.5 million barrels of oil.

“We’d be talking about, like, 15 of these massive white storage tanks somewhere on farmland, right on the edge of the ocean,” he said.

Paton said he was disappointed that the pipeline debate was dominated by concerns about sensitive ecosystems and marine life in northern B.C. but barely touched on his region’s food growing capacity.

Delta city councillor and mayoral candidate Dylan Kruger said he shares Paton’s concerns about local farmland but was willing to wait and see what benefits the pipeline proposal would bring the community.

“Farming is always going to be the core of who we are as a community but, at the same time, if the powers that be at the provincial and federal tables decide that this is the route, all we can do is work with higher levels of government,” said Kruger.

“We’re not the decision makers in Delta… but we can sit down with the decision makers and ask how we can make this the safest and best project with the most benefits to the community,” he said.

National Post
rmohamed@postmedia.com

• Carney was iffy on a pipeline. Now his government's building one itself. Here's what changed his mind
• Carney joins Smith as Alberta announces West Coast oil pipeline plan

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.