Canadian News

An MLA and former minister just removed from the United Conservative Party caucus alleges the health minister — and possibly the premier — withheld information from cabinet ministers who were deciding the fate of the Alberta Health Services board of directors.

The owners of Love Jewels said they're out millions of dollars following the break-in after the thieves stole watches, pendants, gold chains and other merchandise.

Ontario's auditor general separately found Infrastructure Ontario had failed to properly assess Therme's application in a report released at the end of last year.

Vancouver Rise FC defeated Calgary Wild FC 1-0 in the Northern Super League's inaugural match on Wednesday. Canadian women's national team midfielder Quinn entered lore by converting a penalty kick in the 22nd minute, scoring the first goal in league history.

After calling out his own party for how it was handing the investigation into multimillion-dollar health contracts, Peter Guthrie has been kicked out of the UCP caucus.

So much for Ontario Premier Doug Ford staying out of the federal election. Ford’s catty condemnation of federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s campaign was unhelpful not just to Poilievre, but to Conservatives generally — and even to Ford himself.

For weeks, Ford campaign manager Kory Teneycke has been banging on about how bad the federal Conservative campaign was, arguing that it should be all about American tariffs, just like the provincial campaign he ran in Ontario in February.

For those who believe Ford harbours ambitions of federal leadership, it would be easy to assume Teneycke was a proxy sent out to hurt Poilievre’s chances and pave the way for Ford to take his place as the next Conservative leader. Alternatively, Teneycke’s ego might simply have overwhelmed his discretion.

Either way, Ford still had plausible deniability as long as someone else was doing the talking. That ended Monday, when Ford said Teneycke was “the best campaign manager in the country. And to be very frank, if Kory was running that campaign I don’t think Mr. Poilievre would be in the position he’s in right now.

“It’s still a lot of time left. We still have debates. At the end of the day, the people will decide which way they want this country to move forward. But sometimes the truth hurts,” Ford said.

• 'The truth hurts': Poilievre wouldn't be losing if he had my campaign manager, Doug Ford says
• Randall Denley: Tax cuts are better tariff defence plan for Ontario than handouts

The right answer would have been something like, “Kory’s entitled to his professional opinion. I’m not taking sides in the election. Voters will decide who they want to run the federal government.”

If Ford does see himself as the next Conservative leader, he’s doing a poor job of laying the groundwork. Why would he think that Conservatives would choose a backstabber who’s never lifted a finger to help the party?

Sure, Ford has longstanding personal grievances about federal Conservatives not treating him with respect , but it’s petty to take revenge in the middle of an election campaign. Did the premier stop to consider that a lot of the people who voted for him in February are federal Conservative party supporters? He’s letting his own people down.

For Ontarians with conservative values, Ford’s three consecutive majority governments have been a sweet chocolate with a bitter centre. It’s great to have a party with the word “conservative” in its name running the government, but the hitch is that Ford isn’t much of a conservative.

At best, he’s a mildly blue Liberal. After winning his first election, it didn’t take Ford long to forget about balancing the budget, reining in the size of government or implementing the income tax cut he’d promised. Instead, he’s increased spending by about one-third since he took office, and run up the debt.

It’s not just Ford’s approach to spending that’s confounding to conservative Ontarians. It’s the way he shuns actual Conservatives and cosies up to Liberals.

One need not be a Conservative to understand that the federal Liberals under Justin Trudeau did a bad job of governing the country. They’ve admitted it themselves as they reversed their policies on housing, immigration and the carbon tax. And yet, with the exception of the carbon tax, Ford has been a great fan.

Ford was so eager to make nice with new Liberal Leader Mark Carney that the premier couldn’t even wait until Carney was sworn in. The two had breakfast together and Ford later said, “I can tell you one thing, Mark Carney (has an) extremely astute business mind. He understands numbers.”

Ford went on to speculate that Carney would “get along very well” with U.S. President Donald Trump because “they both come from the same financial sectors.”

It doesn’t end there. Ford invited prominent Liberal cabinet minister Chrystia Freeland to his new cabinet’s swearing in. It seemed like an odd choice for a Progressive Conservative political event.

To make things worse, the advice that Teneycke is giving Conservatives, endorsed by Ford, would help the Liberals, not the Conservatives.

An election about tariffs plays right into the Liberals’ chosen ballot issue and into Carney’s perceived strength. Poilievre is campaigning primarily on affordability and the economy, issues more durable than the tariff tussle with Trump.

Despite that, Conservatives are behind in the polls. A superficial examination suggests they must be doing something wrong. And yet, Poilievre’s poll support (at 38 per cent according to the latest Postmedia-Leger poll ) is just slightly less than the number that won Stephen Harper a Conservative majority in 2011.

It’s difficult for the Conservative party to get more than 40 per cent of the vote. That’s enough to win when the Liberals and NDP split the rest, but NDP support has collapsed into the single digits. That’s why Poilievre is behind the Liberals.

Even men as wise as Doug Ford and Kory Teneycke would find it difficult to overcome that problem.

National Post

randalldenley1@gmail.com

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

The westbound Queensway was backed up Wednesday afternoon following a single-vehicle collision at about 1 p.m. near Parkdale Avenue. Read More

Toronto police are searching for a 23-year-old man who investigators believe tried to run over someone with a vehicle at Toronto Metropolitan University and wound up striking four people during a shocking incident on Tuesday afternoon. 

Critics are once again slamming the provincial government’s plan to build a luxury spa on the former site of Ontario Place — this time over allegations that the company set to run the multi-billion-dollar project misrepresented itself and exaggerated its experience in order to secure the deal.

For an issue that has long dominated public discourse, it is disappointing that the health-care crisis that has left millions without a family doctor has been ignored on the campaign trail. Until now, three weeks out. Read More

MONTREAL — Liberal Leader Mark Carney played defence against NDP, Bloc Québécois and Conservative leaders during a French-language debate that alternated between jabs and jokes but competed with the Montreal Canadiens for francophones’ attention.

The first of two federal campaign debates in Montreal began with moderator Patrice Roy exhorting the Montreal Canadiens to win a do-or-die playoff qualification game that forced organizers to change the event’s start time at the last minute.

During the two-hour affair, leaders debated their proposals on the cost of living, energy and climate, the trade war with the U.S., identity and sovereignty as well as immigration and foreign affairs.

But knives started flying fast between Carney , Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre , Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh as they debated how they could deal with U.S. President Donald Trump.

After Carney boasted of launching negotiations with the European Union days after becoming prime minister, Blanchet accused him of being an expert in “tax shelters.” He was referring to reports that multiple green investment funds he oversaw at Brookfield Asset management were set up in offshore tax havens.

Singh also took shots at Carney and Poilievre early on. He accused Carney of meeting the king of England (referring to Charles, also king of Canada) instead of increasing aid to families and workers, and Poilievre of wanting to bend the knee to U.S. President Donald Trump and “Americanize” Canada.

Poilievre frequently went after his main opponent Carney, repeating his well-used accusations of Carney having a key role in the “lost Liberal decade” for having worked with the Liberal government under former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Carney, who was the least comfortable in French of the four leaders, was far less biting and focused on promoting his response to Trump since becoming prime minister in mid-March, picked by the party to replace Trudeau.

He remained on the defensive throughout the evening and focused on his campaign commitment and promoting actions he’s taken or promised during his one month as prime minister.

But the verbal jousting was occasionally interrupted by moments of levity, particularly in response to a question about what American products they ceased purchasing since Trump’s tariffs on Canada. Carney’s opponents emphasized they buy their own groceries, something he admitted in the Liberal leadership that he didn’t do.

Blanchet, Singh and Poilievre realizing they had all stopped buying American strawberries specifically earned a laugh from the group.

“It’s a delicious conversation,” chuckled Poilievre.

During a debate on the cost of living, Singh accused Poilievre of only overseeing the building of six homes when he was the minister responsible for housing in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. Poilievre countered that it was in fact 200,000 and that he was proud of his work.

Moderator Patrice Roy occasionally slipped an editorial comment into his questions, at one point asking leaders what they had to “hide” by making the “totally irresponsible” decision not to publish their costed platforms before the debates.

Only the Bloc Québécois has published its full platform but has not published independent costing estimates of some of its commitments.

Poilievre, Carney and Singh all dodged the question but promised their costed platforms would be published in coming days, suggesting it would only be after the two debates. They also said they would be fiscally responsible all the while cutting taxes and supporting Canadians.

“These are Harry Potter budgets… they want to do magic. They want to spend more money but cut at the same time,” Blanchet said of the other leaders’ platforms.

Most leaders were equally evasive when responding to questions about energy development and their views on pipelines. Only Poilievre unequivocally stated support for more pipelines and the development of nuclear energy all the while opposing to the Liberals’ electric vehicle mandate beginning 2030.

Carney said he supported pipeline development but also said he would respect a province or a First Nation’s opposition. He argued that Canada needed to focus on low-risk and low-carbon oil and gas.

Singh said he would prefer that public money be invested in clean energy. Blanchet insisted that any new pipelines would have to be approved by Quebec all the while casting doubt on the province’s apparent newfound interest in oil and gas development.

Poilievre told Blanchet that it the lack of an East-West pipeline in Canada means Albertan oil must pass through the U.S. before making it to Quebec, which poses a risk amid Trump’s increased protectionism. Blanchet countered that that was a strawman argument.

Another heated moment in the debate came during discussions on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Poilievre said that he would cease Canada’s funding of controversial organization United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) for its reported ties to terrorist organization Hamas.

The response earned a rebuke from Singh, who repeatedly called the argument “disgusting.” Carney said that to use the word “genocide” to describe the situation in Gaza was akin to politicizing the issue.

Late in the debate, Singh accused moderator Patrice Roy of treating him unfairly by cutting him off every time the NDP leader brought up health care during the debate. After the debate, he told reporters that his comments were made in the heat of the moment and that he wasn’t mad at Roy.

Green Party co-leader Jonathan Pedneault was expected to join the debate until the organizing commission gave him the boot on the morning of the event, saying the party wasn’t running enough candidates to be eligible .

The debate occurred just two days before the beginning of early voting on Friday and less than two weeks before election day on April 28.

Watch the full debate:

The French debate is a key platform for parties looking to shore up support in seat-rich Quebec. A new Postmedia-Leger poll published Wednesday suggests that with 40 per cent support in Quebec, Carney’s Liberals are dominating the Bloc Québécois (25 per cent) and the Conservatives (23 per cent).

But the Leger poll also suggests that the five leaders are fighting over a surprisingly small pool of undecided voters. Only 20 per cent of Quebec respondents said the debate would affect how they vote, a number that falls to 17 per cent nationally.

The leaders also faced off against the Montreal Canadiens NHL team for Quebecers’ attention in the second hour of the debate.

The French debate was originally scheduled for 8 p.m. but was moved forward two hours after the NDP and Bloc Québécois complained that the schedule conflicted with the Habs game at 7 p.m.

If the Canadiens win that game, the venerated team is guaranteed the last wildcard spot in the NHL playoffs.

Moderator Patrice Roy acknowledged the last-minute change at the start of the debate all the while imploring the Habs to win to make it all worth it.

The Canadiens won, earning the last wildcard spot in the NHL playoffs.

THE HABS ARE HEADED TO THE #STANLEYCUP PLAYOFFS!! ????⚪???? pic.twitter.com/tJFNZVso4k

— NHL (@NHL) April 17, 2025

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

• French language leaders' debate rescheduled to 6 p.m. Wednesday because of Habs game
• Poilievre says no timeline for defunding the CBC

MONTREAL — Federal party leaders alternated between jabs and jokes early as they sparred during the election campaign’s only French-language debate Wednesday.

The first of two federal campaign debates in Montreal began with moderator Patrice Roy exhorting the Montreal Canadiens to win a do-or-die game that forced organizers to change the event’s start time at the last minute.

But knives started flying fast between Liberal Leader Mark Carney , Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre , Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh as they debated how they could deal with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Leaders also debated their proposals on the cost of living, energy and climate, identity and sovereignty as well as immigration and foreign affairs.

After Carney boasted of launching negotiations with the European Union days after becoming prime minister, Blanchet accused him of being an expert in “tax shelters.” He was referring to reports that multiple green investment funds he oversaw at Brookfield Asset management were set up in offshore tax havens.

Singh also took shots at Carney and Poilievre early on. He accused the first of meeting the king of England (referring to Charles, also king of Canada) instead of increasing aid to families and workers, and the second of wanting to bend the knee to U.S. President Donald Trump and “Americanize” Canada.

• French language leaders' debate rescheduled to 6 p.m. Wednesday because of Habs game
• Poilievre says no timeline for defunding the CBC

Poilievre frequently went after his main opponent Carney, repeating his well-used accusations of Carney having a key role in the “lost Liberal decade” and contributing to the current cost of living issues that ail voters for having worked with the Liberal government under former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Carney, who was the least comfortable in French of the four leaders, was far less biting and focused on promoting his response to Trump since becoming prime minister in mid-March, picked by the party to replace Trudeau. Midway through the debate, he had yet to strongly attack another leader.

But the verbal jousting was occasionally interrupted by moments of levity, particularly in response to a question about what American products they ceased purchasing since Trump’s tariffs on Canada. Carney’s opponents emphasized they buy their own groceries, something he admitted in the Liberal leadership that he didn’t do.

Blanchet, Singh and Poilievre realizing they had all stopped buying American strawberries specifically earned a laugh from the group.

“It’s a delicious conversation,” chuckled Poilievre.

During a debate on the cost of living, Singh accused Poilievre of only overseeing the building of six homes when he was the minister responsible for housing in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. Poilievre countered that it was in fact 200,000 and that he was proud of his work.

Moderator Patrice Roy occasionally slipped an editorial comment into his questions, at one point asking leaders what they had to “hide” by making the “totally irresponsible” decision not to publish their costed platforms before the debates.

Only the Bloc Québécois has published its full platform but has not published independent costing estimates of some of its commitments.

Poilievre, Carney and Singh all dodged the question but promised their costed platforms would be published in coming days, suggesting it would only be after the two debates. They also said they would be fiscally responsible all the while cutting taxes and supporting Canadians.

“These are Harry Potter budgets… they want to do magic. They want to spend more money but cut at the same time,” Blanchet said of the other leaders’ platforms.

Most leaders were equally evasive when responding to questions about energy development and their views on pipelines. Only Poilievre unequivocally stated support for more pipelines and the development of nuclear energy all the while opposing to the Liberals’ electric vehicle mandate beginning 2030.

Carney said he supported pipeline development but also said he would respect a province or a First Nation’s opposition. He argued that Canada needed to focus on low-risk and low-carbon oil and gas.

Singh said he would prefer that public money be invested in clean energy. Blanchet insisted that any new pipelines would have to be approved by Quebec all the while casting doubt on the province’s apparent newfound interest in oil and gas development.

The NDP, Bloc Québécois and Conservative leaders were focused all evening on stealing Francophones’ support from the Liberals during the election campaign’s only French-language debate.

Green Party co-leader Jonathan Pedneault was expected to join the debate until the organizing commission gave him the boot on the morning of the event, saying the party wasn’t running enough candidates to be eligible .

The debate occurred just two days before the beginning of early voting on Friday and less than two weeks before election day on April 28.

The French debate is a key platform for parties looking to shore up support in seat-rich Quebec. A new Postmedia-Leger poll published Wednesday suggests that with 40 per cent support in Quebec, Carney’s Liberals are dominating the Bloc Québécois (25 per cent) and the Conservatives (23 per cent).

But the Leger poll also suggests that the five leaders are fighting over a surprisingly small pool of undecided voters. Only 20 per cent of Quebec respondents said the debate would affect how they vote, a number that falls to 17 per cent nationally.

The leaders also faced off against the Montreal Canadiens NHL team for Quebecers’ attention in the second hour of the debate.

The French debate was originally scheduled for 8 p.m. but was moved forward two hours after the NDP and Bloc Québécois complained that the schedule conflicted with the Habs game at 7 p.m.

If the Canadiens win that game, the venerated team is guaranteed the last wildcard spot in the NHL playoffs.

Moderator Patrice Roy acknowledged the last-minute change at the start of the debate all the while imploring the Habs to win to make it all worth it.

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

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.

The Leaders’ Debates Commission clawed back some basic semblance of self-respect on Wednesday morning when it disinvited the Green Party from this evening’s French-language debate and tomorrow’s English-language follow-up. The party has only nominated 232 candidates across the country, or 69 per cent of the total number of ridings, whereas one of the three rules for a party’s inclusion (you need to satisfy two) demands that, “28 days before the date of the general election, the party has endorsed candidates in at least 90 per cent of federal ridings.”

And then it gave back all that self-respect with interest: Journalist Justin Ling reports for the Toronto Star that while limiting other media outlets to one journalist each at post-debate scrums with the leaders, Ezra Levant’s online Rebel News site managed to strong-arm the commission into granting his outlet five spots. Whatever you think of Levant or Rebel News, that’s utterly ridiculous — and guaranteed to incite a riot among competing reporters.

The way the rules are phrased , the Greens might actually have a narrow technical case: They did endorse a full slate of candidates, and they provided a list of them to the commission; it’s just that not all of them wound up being officially nominated as candidates. The rules specifically say “parties are not required to demonstrate that those candidates have been formally nominated with Elections Canada.”

But this utterly hapless party admitted it had pulled candidates from the running deliberately, so as not to split the progressive vote in the Conservatives’ favour. It pulled a fast one, and deserves to be disinvited on ethical if not procedural grounds — in addition to being all but a total non-factor in Canadian federal politics. (Greens are currently polling around two per cent support nationally , according to the polling aggregator 338Canada.com.)

The Greens having been excluded, however, this election is still shaping up as a low point for the commission.

For starters, on Tuesday, the French-language debate was moved up by two hours, to 6 p.m. EDT, to avoid conflicting with a Montreal Canadiens game in which they can clinch a playoff spot. The idea, creditable on its face, was to get more eyeballs on the debate.

But there are two problems with that. One, the debate is two hours long . The Habs game starts at 7 p.m. EDT, midway through the debate. So when it comes to the eyeballs … mission unaccomplished. Two, the rescheduling means the debate starts at 3 p.m. on the West Coast, which is a really silly time to have a national debate.

But of course, it’s not really a national debate. This manoeuvre just proves it.

We all know that “the French-language debate” is usually just “the Quebec debate.” There’s one debate for the 22 per cent of Canadians who live in Quebec, or rather the minority of that 22 per cent who are consumed by nationalist, linguistic, jurisdictional and sovereigntist angst, who will be represented by Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet. And then there’s one for the 78 per cent of Canadians who don’t live in Quebec and have little time for any of that stuff.

Indeed, it’s a very fitting representation of the way Quebec-nationalist elites think about language, and the influence they wield in Ottawa, that we have “a French debate” and “an English debate” in the first place: those elites see bilingualism as a threat to French, whereas the rest of the world sees bilingualism and multilingualism as a benefit on its face. Surely a truly, proudly, functionally bilingual country would have bilingual debates , translated for the unilingual in real time.

Having said all that, the English-language debate starts at 4 p.m. PDT on Thursday, which is only 60 minutes less silly a time to broadcast a national debate than the French-language one.

On social media, I have seen some defend the rescheduling on grounds that nowadays, people can stream these debates whenever they please online, so the time really doesn’t matter. This is true!

But then: Why reschedule for the hockey game?

And hang on. Wasn’t the commission created after the 2015 election with the enthusiastic support of people who didn’t like the fact that other organizations (Maclean’s magazine, The Globe and Mail, the Munk Debates and TVA) were hosting their own leaders’ debates and broadcast/streamed them where not every Canadian could supposedly see them?

Why yes, yes it was.

“It was not always clear to the public where and when they could access the debates since some were carried on a specialty channel or online,” Radio-Canada reported at the time . “(Ryerson University journalism professor David) Nayman asks why Canadians ‘should have to rack their brains’ to find them’.”

Again: This was 2015. Not 1995. The internet was quite well established by then.

Now we’re supposed to pretend 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. debates, organized by the same old fuddy-duddy broadcasters’ consortium that consistently disappoints Canadians with their product, is the right way forward because people can stream them on the website of parliamentary TV channel CPAC after the fact — just as they could 10 years ago?

Nuts to that. Mr. Carney or Mr. Poilievre, if you seek proper debates in future, tear down this commission. And in the meantime, organize a one-on-one bilingual debate for next week and stream it wherever and whenever you want to. No one can stop you — certainly not this misbegotten commission, which only exists to lend credibility to holding the fewest number of debates imaginable, and in the least imaginative ways.

National Post
cselley@postmedia.com

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

• Amy Hamm: Carney has the charisma of an AI chatbot
• FIRST READING: Pierre Poilievre makes rare mention of non-verbal daughter with special needs

Twenty-three years after prisoners won the right to vote, Sen. Bernadette Clement visited nine correctional facilities in order to prepare a report about the challenges that still exist for elections held inside.

California’s governor is trying to drum up more Canadian tourism to his state by distancing himself from U.S. President Donald Trump. And he’s doing that literally, reminding Canadians how far from Washington his state is.

“California, it’s the ultimate playground,” Gavin Newsom says in a video recently posted to social media. “Two thousand miles from Washington and a world away in mindset.”

The Golden State and Canada have always shared so much in common.

Sure, you-know-who is trying to stir things up back in DC, but don't let that ruin your vacation plans.

We're launching a new international campaign to welcome and encourage Canadians to visit the Golden State. pic.twitter.com/ko24o5WkWp

— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) April 15, 2025

He’s being modest on that front. Sacramento, the capital of California, is 2,357 miles (or, for Canadians, 3,794 kilometres) from Washington as the crow flies. By car, it’s about 400 miles further. But Newsom is not shy in boasting of the state’s “world-class wine, food and outdoor adventure.”

A press release from the governor’s office notes that, since Trump started his second term as U.S. president, tourism to California from Canada has declined for the first time since the pandemic, dropping 12 per cent in February compared to the previous year.

Last year, it noted, 1.8 million Canadians travelled to California, spending $3.72 billion. It also claims that California is America’s top tourist destination, making more than $150 billion in 2023. ( New York State gets more visitors but they don’t spend as much.) According to the release, nearly 1.2 million California workers depend on jobs in tourism and hospitality.

“The Golden State and Canada have always shared so much in common,” Newsom says in his video, as flags of the two regions pop up in front of him. “Sure, you know who’s trying to stir things up back in D.C., but don’t let that ruin your beach plans.”

Newsom is coy about “you know who,” showing only an image of the White House. But a pinned post on his X account discussing his pursuit of trade deals with international partners is more direct.

“Donald Trump’s tariffs do not represent all Americans,” he says in that one, “particularly those that I represent here in the fifth-largest economy in the world.”

Newsom also reposted remarks from British Columbia Premier David Eby, who met with him on Monday. “ @CAgovernor expressed to me that he values our trade relationship,” Eby wrote. “We spoke about the role of BC lumber in helping rebuild communities impacted by wildfires — and we are ready to help meet that need.”

I met with Gavin Newsom today to talk about the impacts of tariffs.@CAgovernor expressed to me that he values our trade relationship.

We spoke about the role of BC lumber in helping rebuild communities impacted by wildfires - and we are ready to help meet that need. pic.twitter.com/RSWmCT9333

— David Eby (@Dave_Eby) April 14, 2025

Newsom announced on Wednesday that his state will file a lawsuit challenging Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs.

The suit will argue that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China or a 10 per cent tariff on all imports is unlawful. The act lets a president freeze and block transactions in response to foreign threats.

The lawsuit, to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, will also argue that enacting such tariffs requires approval from Congress, Newsom’s office said.

Still, not everyone is buying the state’s pro-tourism message.

“Clearly it’s a response to what’s happening,” B.C.’s minister of housing and municipal affairs, Ravi Kahlon, told Global News .

His advice for would-be travellers? “Hold the line. It’s working. There’s a reason why there’s an ad campaign being run by the California state. There’s a reason why there’s ads being run by U.S. states. It’s because Canadians have responded with a clear message: we’re not a 51st state, we’re not going to take this lightly, we believe all the tariffs should come off, and I’m proud of Canadians, I’m proud of British Columbians.”

With files from the Associated Press

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.

Premier Doug Ford says new bill introduced Wednesday will help strengthen the economy of the province and country. Ford also signed MOUs with the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to support free trade between the provinces.

OTTAWA — A new Postmedia-Leger poll reveals that support for Quebec sovereignty, which had fallen below 30 per cent due to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Canada, is back.

Even though Canada is engaged in a tariff war with its closest ally, support for Quebec independence has reached 36 per cent according to new data .

“So, it’s interesting to see a little bit of movement there. It seems disconnected from the ballot at this stage of the game. You’ve got some of those who are saying they would support sovereignty, but they’re still parking their vote right now with the Liberals, with a federalist party,” said Andrew Enns, Leger’s executive vice-president.

In the province, the Liberals (40 per cent) still have a 15-point lead over the Bloc (25 per cent).

“Right now, (Quebecers) think Carney is a better prime minister to (protecting the country from America) than certainly Mr. Poilievre. And certainly, Mr. Blanchet isn’t necessarily the guy (they) need at this particular time,” added Enns.

Leger asked 1,001 residents of the province the question about Quebec’s sovereignty.

In March, Leger reported that 29 per cent of Quebecers supported Quebec independence. Since then, separatist politicians, such as Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet, have argued that this was only a temporary decline due to the fleeting rise of Canadian patriotism among the Quebec population.

Leger also asked the following question in all regions of the country except Quebec: “If a referendum were held in your province to become an independent country, would you vote for or against independence for your province?” An overwhelming majority of the 2,309 respondents (71 per cent) were opposed.

However, 29 per cent of Albertans supported Alberta sovereignty, which echoes a recent Angus-Reid poll .

National Post
atrepanier@postmedia.com

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

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

A recent study confirms previous findings that completing the recommended amount of weekly aerobic physical activity in one or two sessions can be as effective as spreading it throughout the week.

The Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines advise adults to aim for 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous aerobic physical activity weekly.

However, finding time for daily exercise can be challenging, particularly for those juggling work and other responsibilities. Many struggle to prioritize fitness on weekdays but have more time on weekends.

This pattern has led researchers to use the term “weekend warrior” to describe individuals who complete their recommended weekly aerobic exercise in one or two concentrated sessions instead of spacing it out.

For those who struggle to find time during busy weekdays, this approach could offer a more accessible option to obtain the health benefits of aerobic physical activity.

Published on April 2 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the study found that the “weekend warrior” approach delivers comparable health benefits to more frequent exercise spread throughout the week.

Researchers analyzed physical activity data from more than 93,000 adults using wrist-worn accelerometers to track their body movement over seven days. The study relied on data from the U.K. Biobank, a large biomedical database that provides extensive health and lifestyle insights for research purposes.

The study grouped participants into three categories: “active weekend warriors,” who completed most of their activity within one or two days; “active regulars,” who exercised more evenly throughout the week; and “inactive” individuals.

Findings showed that both “active regulars” and “weekend warriors” experienced similar reductions in the risk of death from cardiovascular disease, cancer and other causes, reinforcing the idea that the total volume of exercise is more important than how it’s distributed throughout the week.

For many Canadians, these findings could be a game-changer. According to ParticipACTION’s latest report card, “less than half of adults in Canada are currently meeting physical activity guidelines, and lack of time is definitely one of the major barriers that people face,” said Markus Duncan, a data scientist at ParticipACTION who studies the benefits of active living.

Duncan emphasized that consistency matters more than timing. “Whether you happen to squish it all into two days or spread it out over the week, as long as you are working towards that, you’re more likely to have better health outcomes.”

• Ozempic for kids? Doctors are being encouraged to offer weight-loss drugs to Canadian teens
• Study suggests CT scans could cause 100,000 more cancer cases in U.S.

For beginners, however, easing into physical activity is crucial. Duncan said that attempting to complete all 150 minutes at once or within two days may increase the risk of injury. “Building up that base level of fitness takes time and can even start with just 10 minutes of going for that brisk walk,” he said.

Even brief aerobic physical activity sessions can make a difference, said Robert Ross, an exercise physiology professor at Queen’s University who worked on the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines. “The greatest reduction in health risk doesn’t occur from going from 130 minutes to 150; it occurs when you move from doing very little to something.”

“The most recent meta-analyses are suggesting that as little as three or five minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity in a day is associated with substantial reductions in health risk,” Ross said.

Whether it’s enjoying a fun activity on the weekend or sneaking in a dance session, the key is to move whenever you can and in a way that feels right for you.

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.

As the federal election campaign picks up speed, the Citizen’s Bruce Deachman has been asking Ottawa residents to share, in their own words, some experiences and thoughts on voting. Today: Stephanie Laguerre talks about searching for candidates whose values align with hers: Read More

Full disclosure: almost every idea for my rabble column comes to me in the middle of the night. A friend, who aspires to be a writer, said to me “Cathy, that’s wonderful!”

No, it’s not.

The ideas sometimes come from haunting dreams (nightmares) that mirror reality: homeless people forced onto buses by officials, a disease outbreak in a post-apocalyptic period ravages a community, unhoused people with their belongings in a shopping cart crisscross the city in search of shelter, a military force battles people in their camp. The ideas can also come from an issue I’m lying awake stewing over – who took Indigenous artist Sam Ash’s painting?

I write my column to witness, and I hope that my columns contribute to make a difference.

The City of Toronto did stop its using six transit buses for shelter for the winter season, governments introduced layers of  pandemic protections for people who were unhoused, the City’s Ombudsman report signalled the systemic injustice in the city’s policing approach to encampments, and after a two-year search the Sam Ash painting, I gifted has been repatriated to its proper home at the Atkinson Foundation.

My latest middle of the night awakening? A dream where Prime Minister Mark Carney was speaking with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

I will leave you to analyze that, but in my mind it’s like an epic David and Goliath story between Trumpian global dominance and Canada, represented by the Prime Minister, elbows up and all. But the dream did coincide with what can only be described as a remarkable Liberal TV ad hyping a housing promise which finally sparked some policy debate in the election, so dominated by Trump’s economic war on the world.

In the 30 second video, Carney is sitting at a kitchen table hearkening back to Canada’s post-World War II efforts to solve a housing crisis. Images flash on the screen: returning veterans debark a naval ship, a newspaper ad declares a housing shortage followed by archival images of government builds of prefabricated homes. He gestures in the kitchen, “those homes are still here.”

Carney announces his intent to launch a new housing program. Billed as ‘Building Canada Strong’, he tells us Canada will repeat this wartime housing effort by creating a new crown corporation Build Canada Homes (BCH) that over the next decade will build 500,000 new homes per year.

I was pumped. I’ve always been fascinated by Canada’s post-war housing story. I have a file of photos of wartime (some say peacetime) homes that I’ve seen across the country (yes, many are still there) and a box of research including a tape from the CBC radio archives that tells the story of a riveting period in Canadian history through the voice of veteran Franklyn Hanratty,

In every speech I’ve ever given I’ve told the story that few knew to inspire that we can do it again.

You may know the Tommy Douglas story of how we got Medicare, our national health program. You may not know this story—how we got our national housing program. In 1945, the federal government had declared Toronto an emergency shelter area, forbidding people from moving there unless they were starting a job deemed essential. In 1947, Toronto Mayor Saunders put an ad in the newspaper that warned: ‘Acute Housing Shortage in Toronto—do not come.’ When Canadian soldiers returned from World War II, they were met with this housing shortage. It was such a desperate situation that the veterans took to the streets to protest. In Ottawa, Montreal, and Vancouver, women’s groups joined in. They protested, they held picket signs, they demonstrated, and they even took over empty buildings like the Hotel Vancouver and the Kildare barracks in Ottawa and squatted in them. Franklyn Hanratty, the leader of the Ottawa protest, said, “Scores of Ottawa families are living under intolerable conditions.” From A Knapsack Full of Dreams. Memoirs of a Street Nurse.

This grassroots movement led to the creation of the Wartime Housing Limited which later evolved into Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

Today the concept of wartime housing is in the public lexicon. Politicians, pundits, policy nerds, even members of the public are referencing how this post-war effort led to a national housing program. At its peak, that program built 20,000 new units a year. Then it was gone, killed in 1993 – 1994 by both federal Conservative and Liberal governments.

Carney’s plan is ambitious.

But it’s perhaps what’s not in the Building Canada Strong policy that should caution us.

• No timeline or annual targets to reach a build of 500,000 units per year.
• Non-profits and co-operatives are not mentioned.
• No outline of percentage of private development versus public and not-for-profit.
• No mention of tenant protections.
• No mention of restrictions to prevent the financialization of housing.
• No guarantees for responsible and transparent spending for the public good not corporation profit.

History shows us we should be wary.

Many fear the BCH will replicate the weakness of the 2017 National Housing Strategy that was criticized by the Auditor General of Canada for lack of accountability and non-transparent spending to ensure that housing was built for those most in need.

Alison Kemper, a professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Toronto Metropolitan University and who I consider a profound moral compass, recently noted that her MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who happens to be the Minister of Housing, was hosting a fundraiser. Regular price tickets were $500. She cautioned:

“A great way for companies to buy blocks of tickets and make closer friends with the Minister of Housing. So, if you wondered if there was any chance that (Prime Minister) Carney’s new homes would be set up to avoid real estate speculation or exploitative ownership, I fear we need to be hyper vigilant. The Liberals’ natural allies and supporters are not middle-income renters who need secure, permanent housing. They are the companies who will buy tickets and influence. And even the best Liberal candidate is not immune to the traditional way to attain and retain power. If we want Carney’s wonderful housing announcement to result in any non-market housing, we’re going to have to fight.”

The influence of developers on government housing policy is well supported by an article by Martin Lukacs who chronicles big developer connections with the Liberal Party and even more expensive dinners with former housing minister Sean Fraser. Some of the corporate real estate developers (Bosa, Wesgroup, Aquilini) spent up to $1,725 for their rubber chicken dinner with Mr. Fraser.

However, there is an even more egregious omission in Building Canada Strong.

Prime Minister Carney needs to say “I’m sorry” for past wrongs of his government.

There is no sense of remorse for the historic role the Liberal government played in first cancelling federal funding and when it re-entered the field, so poorly funding social housing for three decades. Yes, the Conservatives should also apologize too but I don’t expect that (Pierre Poilievre was once Minister of Housing).

Hundreds of thousands of people have been unjustly left in inadequate housing or were pushed into homelessness. Intentional policy neglect traumatized families, worsened health, caused permanent mental health damage and shortened life span. Literally, thousands have died in perhaps the most significant example of social murder since colonization.

And let’s not forget the evidence that Indigenous people have been impacted by the housing crisis at a higher percentage than the rest of Canada’s population and there is yet to be mention of reconciliation in Building Canada Strong.

In my nursing memoir I quote a grandson who stated, “heart is justice.’ If there is heart in Building Canada Strong, let’s see it.

Mr. Carney acknowledge the injustices of the past, promise to do better, and begin your housing war with an apology.

The post Is the Liberals’ promise of a wartime housing effort enough? appeared first on rabble.ca.