Canada hit back at the U.S. with retaliatory tariffs hours after U.S. President Donald Trump signed an order imposing a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian products.
Plus, the Liberals are touting 400,000 members amid its leadership race but the party is still reviewing the eligibility of sign-ups.
And a recent study revealed that only 2% of university job ads are merit-based and not based on diversity, equity and inclusion.
Tune into The Daily Brief with Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and Isaac Lamoureux!
Ontario Premier Doug Ford is cancelling a $100-million contract his government made with Elon Musk’s Starlink and is banning American companies from dealing with the provincial government amid an escalating Canada-US tariff war.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced 10-per-cent tariffs on energy and 25-per-cent tariffs on all other Canadian exports Saturday, citing the need for Canada to balance alleged trade deficits and secure its border from illegal immigration and drug smuggling.
Ford announced that he was banning his government from dealing with Elon Musk, a Trump campaign advisor and the current head of the new “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), on Monday.
“U.S.-based businesses will now lose out on tens of billions of dollars in new revenues. They only have President Trump to blame,” Ford said in the statement. “Canada didn’t start this fight with the U.S., but you better believe we’re ready to win it.”
He said he was cancelling the contract with Musk’s company Starlink, a global satellite network that provides internet access, as “Ontario won’t do business with people hellbent on destroying our economy.”
Last November, Ford announced his government had signed a $100-million deal with Starlink, which he said would “bring high-speed internet to 15,000 more homes and businesses in remote areas across Ontario.”
The federal Liberal government finalized a $2.14-billion deal with a Quebec-based alternative satellite internet provider, Telesat, but the company reports it will only have internet operational globally by 2027, with its first satellites launching in 2026.
Another of Musk’s companies, SpaceX, is slated to launch the satellites for Telesat in 2026.
Bonnie Crombie, the Leader of Ontario’s Liberals and Ford’s competitor in the ongoing Ontario election, has been calling for Ford to cancel his contracts with Musk since just after Trump’s inauguration.
In a post celebrating Ford’s move to “finally” cancel the contract, Crombie said the deal should never have been made in the first place. In a previous statement released by the Ontario Liberal’s on Jan. 22, Crombie accused Ford of not being able to stand up to Trump if he couldn’t cut ties with Musk.
As U.S. President Donald Trump imposed his long-threatened 25 per cent tariff on Canada, provinces have responded with reassurances for their constituents and in some cases countermeasures. This is above and beyond the $155 billion in retaliatory tariffs Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Saturday.
Here the premiers of Canada’s largest provinces responded to President Trump’s tariff imposition.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford
Ontario Premier Doug Ford expressed disappointment with the decision and touted a “Team Canada” response.
“I’m extremely disappointed that President Trump has chosen to walk away from a trading relationship that for decades has made life better for millions of workers on both sides of the border,” said Ford.
Ford championed the need to increase government spending by tens of billions to keep Ontario’s economy afloat with a renewed mandate from the electorate.
“With a strong, stable, four-year mandate that outlives and outlasts the Trump administration, I’ll do whatever it takes to protect Ontario, our workers, businesses and communities. I’ll invest tens of billions to retrain workers for new opportunities, retool companies for new customers, reshore supply chains and rebuild roads and highways to create new jobs.”
Later in the day, Premier Ford was interviewed on CNN where he claimed that the tariffs were not only unjust, but illegal under the USMCA trade agreement, which replaced NAFTA.
“As for the tariffs it was unjustified, it was unfair, and quite frankly, it was illegal. Breaking a deal that we had with the USMCA deal, and it’s disappointing,” said Ford.
Ford said that the tariffs will hurt both Canadians and Americanas and pleaded with Trump to not treat Canada like Mexico or China, who Trump also slapped with tariffs.
“It’s gonna be terrible. It’s gonna make Americans poorer, it’s gonna create inflation, it’s gonna make Canadians poorer, it’s gonna really hurt both economies,” said Ford.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith made it known that she was disheartened to hear that Trump signed an order to impose sizable tariffs on Canadian imports.
“I am disappointed with U.S. President Donald Trump’s @realDonaldTrump decision to place tariffs on all Canadian goods. This decision will harm Canadians and Americans alike, and strain the important relationship and alliance between our two nations,” said Smith on X.
However, Smith indicated she is encouraged to see the Trump administration impose a reduced tariff rate on Canadian energy products, crediting her government’s advocacy on behalf of the energy sector for the exemption.
“We note the reduced 10% tariff for Canadian energy which is partially a recognition of the advocacy undertaken by our Government and industry to the U.S. Administration pointing out the substantial wealth created in the U.S. by American companies and tens of thousands of American workers,” said Smith.
In the months leading up to Trump’s return to the White House, Smith met with several Republican lawmakers, including Trump himself at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.
Smith committed to continue lobbying American lawmakers and to work collaboratively with the federal government to respond to the tariffs, though will not support any plan from the federal government to ban exports to the United States or impose export tariffs.
“Alberta will, however, continue to strenuously oppose any effort to ban exports to the U.S. or to tax our own people and businesses on goods leaving Canada for the United States. Such tactics would hurt Canadians far more than Americans.”
Quebec Premier François Legault
Quebec Premier Francois Legault says Quebec is ready to go to battle with President Trump to protect Quebec’s workers in light of looming tariffs on Quebec’s exports to the United States.
Legault spoke with Trump at the reopening for the Notre Dame cathedral and conveyed his desire to avoid a trade war, but now views retaliatory tariffs as the only way to protect Quebec’s economy.
“Our first choice has always been to avoid a trade conflict with our main partner. But Mr. Trump has decided to attack us. We must stand up. We must fight to protect our economy and our jobs,” said Legault.
In response to the tariffs, Legault ordered Quebec’s treasury board president to penalize American companies applying for procurement contracts equivalent to the penalty of a 25% tariff.
He is also encouraging constituents to “Buy Quebec” in order to support local businesses and drive down the sales of American products.
British Columbia Premier David Eby
In a video uploaded to social media, British Columbia Premier David Eby said that Canada needs to respond “firmly and forcefully” to American tariffs in order to protect Canadian jobs.
“President Trump’s crushing 25 per cent tariffs are a complete betrayal of the historic bond between our countries. It is a declaration of economic war against a trusted ally and friend,” said Eby.
Eby recognized the need for premiers and the federal government to work together on a “Team Canada” approach to dealing with America’s new trade policy and indicated his support for retaliatory tariffs.
In an effort to support local businesses, the premier said that he is directing BC Liquor to stop buying American liquor from states governed by the Republicans.
“I have directed BC Liquor sales to immediately stop buying American liquor from red states. Liquor store employees will be removing the most popular of these brands from store shelves,” said Eby.
Eby has also directed the province’s crown corporations to stop buying American goods and services and replace them with Canadian products.
Other Provincial Responses
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe focused on alleviating the Trump administration’s border security concerns, touting his government’s efforts to fortify the border.
“Saskatchewan has been equally clear about efforts to stop the flow of fentanyl and illegal migrants. We have enhanced our provincial border security measures,” said Moe.
Moe made clear that the federal government should prioritize addressing Trump’s concerns by securing the border and amending the Criminal Code to toughen penalties for drug offences related to fentanyl.
Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston indicated that his government will limit access to procurement for American business while looking for opportunities to cancel existing contracts.
Houston will also increase tolls for American vehicles by 100% on the tolled highway Cobequid Pass effective Feb. 3 and direct the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation to remove all American liquor from store shelves.
New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt is also encouraging constituents to buy local to help build the provincial economy and indicated her willingness to use “every tool in our toolbox.”
Holt is backing the federal government in responding with tariffs of their own, standing by the “Team Canada” approach.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew also backed the federal government in imposing retaliatory tariffs on the United States.
Similar to Legault and Holt, Kinew is urging Manitobans to make an effort to conscientiously purchase Canadian goods over American goods to support local businesses and Canada’s cause in the trade war.
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey joined the other premiers in condemning the tariffs and urging Newfoundlanders to buy locally made products.
The government funding formula for child care in Ontario changed as the calendar flipped to January 2025, and with the change came the predictable advertisements from politicians. Jenna Sudds, the federal minister responsible for child care, wrote, “Kicking off the new year with more savings for families in Ontario! The new $22-a-day child care fee cap for kids under six is here, putting more money back in your pocket.”
But the federal government’s national child-care program is not putting more money into your pocket. The average fees parents pay directly to government-subsidized child-care centres may go down, but the taxes they pay to fund the subsidies are going up. There are no savings here; just a transfer of the control over spending. Governments get more control, parents get less.
Moreover, contrary to certain politicians’ narratives, the child-care sector has become a mess with increased government intervention in recent years. In the fall, ahead of the funding change, numerous child-care centres in Ontario participated in rolling closures to protest government policies, hundreds of operators and parents attended a series of in-person and online meetings to highlight the damage of increased government control, and some even protested at Queen’s Park and Parliament Hill.
In fact, some child-care centres exited the federal child-care program early in 2024 because government interference in their operations threatened child-care quality. By the fall dozens more in Ontario were exploring the possibility and some families received letters from their daycares saying they would no longer participate in the government program.
In November, ahead of the January 2025 funding changes, an industry association reported that the majority of licensed child-care operators in Milton, Ontario would opt out of the federal child-care program. While initially eager to participate, they found the government program compromised the quality of child care, exacerbated staff shortages, and was simply not financially sustainable.
Both for-profit and non-profit centres have voiced frustration with the funding changes, under which government increasingly subsidizes centres that turn significant operating control over to the state by participating in the federal program while withdrawing funding from other centres. For example, a non-profit Ottawa daycare reported in December it would lose its existing provincial funding in the new year for not participating in the federal program, to the chagrin of families using the daycare.
In addition to families and child-care operators, local news media and local governments are also sounding the alarm on the negative effects of federal and provincial policies. A recent story in the Parry Sound North Star reported the lack of child care was putting “tremendous stress” on local parents, with similar problems being felt across the province and across the country.
Another recent report from the town of St. Marys said there were more than 560 children on the waiting list for child care, that the wait list was expanding, and that even if more physical child-care spaces were added centres would be unable to staff them. In Lanark County, the Children’s Services Supervisor explained in a recent presentation that there’s a provincewide staffing shortage, limited options for parents who work parttime, a “lack of child care options in more rural areas, which create child care deserts” and despite significant need for it “licensed child care centres in Lanark County do not currently offer unique hours, overnight, or weekend care.”
That the federal child-care program is inflexible and provides inadequate access for parents who do not work traditional 9-to-5 hours is a problem not only in Lanark County, but nationwide.
Federal and provincial politicians might make lots of child-care announcements, such as their trumpeting of funding formula changes in 2025. But these announcements are simply promises to spend more money or increase their control over child care. When it comes to actual child-care access and quality, the government has only made things worse in Ontario and beyond.
Matthew Lau is an adjunct scholar with the Fraser Institute.
The majority of Americans would rather import oil and gas from north of the border than from anywhere else, while many wrongly believe Saudi Arabia and not Canada is their current biggest oil supplier.
With a Liberal government that for years shied away from promoting Canada’s oil and gas industry, a new poll from Abacus Data shows that most Americans don’t know Canada is the U.S.’s number one trading partner for the resource.
Fifty three per cent of Americans, named Saudi Arabia as the U.S.’s number one supplier of crude oil, while 52 per cent chose Canada as their preferred source for oil imports.
The GZERO and Abacus Data survey asked 1,500 eligible American voters from Jan. 23-24 about their thoughts on America and Canada’s bilateral trade relationship.
Only 22 per cent of American respondents correctly chose Canada as its top foreign supplier of crude oil.
The survey asked U.S. voters to identify America’s biggest foreign supplier of oil and gas, as 40 per cent of America’s crude oil came from foreign supply in 2022.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Canada was the source of 52 per cent of U.S. gross total petroleum imports and 60% of gross crude oil imports in 2022.
A U.S. Congressional Research Service report on U.S.-Canada trade relations earlier this month said that in 2023, Canada accounted for 60 per cent of U.S. crude oil imports, amounting to 1.4 billion barrels.
When Americans were asked who they’d prefer to be the number one trading partner for trade imports, 52 per cent said they would prefer Canada, while only 19% said they would choose Saudi Arabia instead.
Just over a quarter of Americans said Trump’s threatened 25-per-cent tariffs were an overall positive, though 44 per cent of Americans who voted for Trump in the 2024 election said they were a good thing.
On the other hand, nearly half of the respondents, 47 per cent, said retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. would be a net negative for America, while 24 per cent said they were a good thing.
The survey asked respondents about other potential retaliatory measures by Canada as well.
When asked about their thoughts on Canada withdrawing its oil sales from the U.S., forcing America to buy from countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, 55 per cent said it would negatively impact their country.
Only 19 per cent said Canada withdrawing its oil would be a good thing for America.
Turning to hypothetical retaliation from Canada, 60 per cent of Americans said a Canadian tax on oil exports would be bad for the U.S. while 19 per cent said bring it on.
Despite the recent friction between Ottawa and Washington, 86 per cent of Americans still view Canada as an ally.
While the majority said they would prefer trading with Canada, 65 per cent, said they think the U.S. produces enough oil domestically and need not rely on trade with Canada. There was a higher proportion of Trump voters who said America could be energy independent, with three quarters saying they don’t need to import oil and gas.
When asked to describe the relationship between the U.S. and Canada, 54 per cent of Americans said that Canada was either “best friends” with the States or at least “close friends.”
The study also found a large majority of Americans – 84 per cent – believe both countries are better off having a free trade deal.
Despite the general sentiment, 56 per cent of Americans said Canada disproportionately benefits from the free trade agreement.
The opt-in survey sample of panellists was statistically weighted to represent the most recent census data for the U.S. For comparison purposes, a probability-based random sample of the same size represents a margin of error of no greater than 2.6 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
The Trudeau government’s plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 will lead to the loss of over a quarter of a million jobs and cost workers an estimated $8,000 in lower wages annually over that period, according to a new study.
Senior Fellow with the Fraser Institute Ross R. McKitrick published a study
Providing a broad scope of what sacrifices would be required to meet net zero by 2050.
McKitrick used data available from Ottawa’s current goal of reducing m of having 40% less emission in 2030 compared to 2005 as the bases for his projections.
Net zero emissions requires the net removal of all greenhouse gas emissions either by natural effects such as forest growth or industrial carbon capture as well as by storage or agriculture-based sequestration methods.
“Ottawa’s emission-reduction plan will significantly hurt Canada’s economy and cost workers money and jobs, but it won’t achieve the target they’ve set because it is infeasible,” said McKitrick, author of Canada’s Path to Net Zero by 2050: Darkness at the End of the Tunnel.
The federal government’s Net Zero by 2050 emission-reductions plan includes a wide array of measures such as the carbon tax and clean fuel standards.
“Despite political rhetoric, Ottawa’s emission-reduction policies will impose enormous costs without even meeting the government’s target,” said McKitrick, who is also a University of Guelp professor.
“Especially as the US moves aggressively to unleash its energy sector, Canadian policymakers need to rethink the damage these policies will inflict on Canadians and change course.”
The study’s findings also revealed that “even a carbon tax of $1,200 per tonne (about $2.70 per litre of gas) would not get emissions to zero.”
The government’s net zero plan also includes various other regulations for GHG, such as electric vehicle mandates, energy efficiency requirements for buildings and fertilizer restrictions for farmers.
However, McKitrick claims that these policies will lead to Canada’s economy shrinking by 6.2% by 2050, reduce workers wages by $8,000 annually and kill 254,00 jobs during that period.
Furthermore, the study found that these economically harmful policies won’t be able to meet the target of net-zero emissions by a substantial margin, only reducing GHG emissions by an estimated 70% of the government’s actual goal.
According to the study’s conclusion, “the answer to the question of whether Canada can undergo an energy transition to net zero is that, given our current economy and technology, not at a price Canadians are likely to be willing to pay, and probably not at any price.”
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called for swift retaliation, significant countermeasures and a recall of Parliament in a news conference Sunday, two days ahead of the Trump administration’s implementation of 25-per-cent tariffs.
Poilievre called on the Liberal government to recall Parliament and urged the approval of his party’s ‘Canada First Plan’ as a response to the tariffs.
The plan includes imposing “dollar-for-dollar” tariffs on the U.S., the passage of an emergency “bring it home” tax cut, the promotion of interprovincial trade, and the strengthening of the military.
Poilievre, who was criticized for not mentioning fentanyl trafficking in his X post on a Canada First plan, pushed back at Trump’s concerns about cross-border fentanyl trafficking.
“Even if you believe in tariffs,” Poilievre said, “how is it possible to put a 25-per-cent tariff on Canada and only a 10-per-cent tariff on China? In what strategic mindset does that make sense?”
In FY 2024, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 21,148 pounds of fentanyl at the southwest border, mostly from Mexico, while only 43 pounds — less than one per cent of total seizures — were intercepted at the northern border. A significant amount of fentanyl’s precursors originate in China.
“If it’s to do with fentanyl, the fentanyl is coming from China. It’s killing our people, too. We both have to do more to stop it. But we can do more if we do it together.”
True North asked Poilievre about the possibility tit-for-tat tariffs with the United States could lead to a trade war that Canada cannot win.
“Well, I believe we’re already in a trade war,” Poilievre responded, “and I believe that no one will win. I think both countries will lose.”
The U.S. dollar closed Friday at $1.48 Canadian — a bitter predictor of the economic chaos to come in the country I don’t recognize anymore.
When President Donald Trump announced 25-per-cent tariffs on Canadian imports starting Tuesday, I realized our feckless leaders had played right into his hands.
It’s not as if our Liberal government — at the moment limping to stay relevant — hadn’t been warned to deal with the flow of illegal migrants and fentanyl through our border to the United States.
Or at least show that they took the issue seriously — not just for Trump’s sake but for those of us who see the escalating drug and illegal migrant issues on our city streets.
But whether ego, incompetence, willful tone-deafness or a refusal to concede there is a problem, or all of the above, led them to double down and refuse to negotiate, they have hung Canadians out to dry.
It’s United States retailers and manufacturers who will be paying the whopping tariffs — kind of like an import duty.
That will have the effect, of course, of stopping them from buying Canadian goods altogether and likely finding other cheaper sources.
And apart from the free flow of fentanyl and illegal migrants from Canada to the U.S., I can understand that a president who campaigned on Making America Great Again might want to keep jobs and goods in the U.S.
It makes perfect sense to those of us who think using common sense rather than emotion or faux Canadian patriotism our politicians have whipped up in easily manipulated Canadians like they did with COVID masking and social distancing.
(Same tactics, different day).
But getting back to the fentanyl and migrant crisis, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what is playing out on the streets of Toronto and other large cities.
The progressives can’t pretend on the one hand there is no flow of fentanyl across our borders and continually shriek about the opioid crisis and the need for safe injection sites on the other.
As for the illegal migrants/asylum seekers, all we have to do is take a look at the protests that have played out on the streets of Toronto, Mississauga and Montreal since Oct. 7, 2023.
We have no clue how many of these hateful, intimidating terrorist sympathizers, who hide their faces with keffiyehs, are not Canadian citizens because our politicians and the police have given most of them a free pass.
To add tremendous insult to injury, Trudeau’s pal, immigration minister Marc Miller, recently celebrated the arrival of nearly 5,000 Gazan families to Canada. He also announced each adult will get $3,000 and each child $1,500 to get them started.
We have no clue whether they’ve been properly vetted and we sure can’t trust the Canadian government when they say they have been.
Think of this: no other country will take the Gazans, not even neighbouring Egypt. Polls have consistently said the majority of Palestinians living in Gaza support Hamas.
It is amazing to me that the Trudeau government is allowing potential Jew haters into our country.
And those who continue to prop up the Liberals deny we have a problem.
Not only did our alleged leaders deny the very real issues with fentanyl and illegal migrants but they thought they could call Trump’s bluff.
All they had to do was acknowledge there may be a problem and show they’re working to correct it.
The little frat boys — and I include Ontario Premier Doug Ford in this — thought they could fight back.
Here’s where ego and power come in.
They decided to play political games and fight Big Bad Trump to cling on to power.
Ford called a snap election this past week and is running around asking people to give him a strong mandate to protect Ontario jobs against the tariffs.
He must think we’re all stupid.
He had a strong mandate and instead of buckling down and dealing with the tariffs, he’ll lose a month to political gamesmanship.
As for Trudeau, the trust fund baby seems to be hoping he can install Trudeau 2.0, Mark Carney, in Parliament and drag out an election until 2026 — a desperate bid to preserve Liberal power.
Meanwhile, while he claims to still be PM, he has done nothing aside from one little trip down Mar-a-Lago to ease the pain of Canadians.
He prorogued Parliament and refuses to call it back to deal with the tariff issue.
He even somewhat joyfully told the media in the past few days that Canadians will suffer hard times — in addition to the hard times we’ve already experienced during his nine years in power.
On Saturday when Trump confirmed the tariffs, he took a day off.
It’s a slap in the face to those of us who have worked hard all our lives.
But sadly, far too many Canadians passively allow this to happen.
They’ve been asleep at the switch.
We’ll see when prices start escalating.
Perhaps they’ll finally wake up.
After 26 hearing days of tense and often acrimonious legal jousting over evidence and testimony in the disciplinary tribunal of Ottawa detective Helen Grus, closing submissions concluded with both sides agreeing politics played a role in her predicament.
Grus, who remains on active duty in Ottawa Police Service’s robbery unit, was charged with discreditable conduct in the summer of 2022 over her probe of infant deaths and the novel COVID vaccines.
At the beginning of February 2022, Grus was put on leave of absence without pay by OPS for failing to adhere to the force’s vaccine mandate, then suspended with pay on Feb. 4, 2022 pending an internal investigation into her conduct.
The substance of the Police Services Act charge against her includes contacting the father of one deceased child to inquire about the mother’s vaccine status, alleged meddling in other infant death cases without proper approval or taking adequate notes, all of which brought OPS into disrepute.
According to evidence presented and her own testimony, there were six infant deaths between May 2021 and January 2022 coinciding with the vaccine rollout and whose circumstances correlated with Pfizer’s own clinical data on adverse events. The tribunal also heard that by May of 2021, Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended the vaccines for pregnant women.
While Grus testified that criminal negligence could be at play given safety assurances provided by public health officials and lawmakers, Ottawa Police Service lawyer Jessica Barrow bristled at the idea.
“This type of investigation, particularly in the climate we’re talking about, would have had massive political implications,” Barrow argued. “So there’s no way that detective Grus believed (it) was one she could self-assign and not speak to a single member of the chain of command.”
Evidence presented at the tribunal indicates this climate included a townhall meeting Grus attended Jan. 13, 2022 – little more than two weeks before she was put on leave without pay for failing to abide by OPS’ vaccine mandate – where she met with then-chief Peter Sloly and deputy chief Patricia Ferguson and presented her concerns.
In explaining her actions, Grus testified that she was in the probative stage and collecting information within her discretion as a detective with sex assault and child abuse (SACA) unit, whose mandate includes investigating deaths of children five and under.
She also told the tribunal that she did not inform her immediate superiors of her probe because they had forbidden her from speaking about COVID-19 in the SACA office.
During closing submissions for the defence, Grus’ lawyer, Bath-Shéba van den Berg, described this muzzling of her client as police interference, that those involved were the ones guilty of discreditable conduct and suggested the entire prosecution amounted to a coverup.
“There was and continues to be so much political control and prevention of doctors and police officers asking questions regarding safety of the COVID-19 vaccinations and Grus was the only known police officer in Ottawa, perhaps in Canada… to properly carry out her duties,” said van den Berg, who earlier told the tribunal any such political influence exerted on the matter could be coming from as high up as Health Canada or even federal cabinet.
“What is the government hiding? Are they colluding with the police? We are talking about innocent lives here that have been lost.”
Pfizer’s own clinical data for its BioNTech covid vaccine was released in March 2022 by Texas court order (after Grus was suspended) also loomed large in van den Berg’s closing submission. Though tribunal adjudicator Chris Renwick – a former OPS superintendent – rejected testimony from four expert medical witnesses for the defence on potential harms of COVID vaccines, he accepted as documentary evidence a raft of open-source research Grus collected, including the Pfizer data.
But Barrow argued that because Grus admitted in both a compelled statement and her own testimony to elements of the charge – failure to keep adequate notes of her case file queries and not apprising direct superiors of her intentions – this was sufficient to find her guilty and evidence outside of these facts, including Pfizer data about harmful effects of the vaccines was irrelevant.
“It is research that Det. Grus admits she was doing partially in her own time, including while on suspension. So presumably she does not intend to suggest that she was continuing a police investigation while on suspension,” added Barrow.
Seven weeks before Grus was suspended, the tribunal heard she and other OPS members attended a December 2021 townhall, again hosted by police brass, where they expressed concerns about looming mandates, whether members suffering possible vaccine injuries would be compensated and that the novel COVID vaccines may pose a wider public health hazard.
Testifying to the latter, Grus recalled an August 2021 motor vehicle accident in which the driver claimed to suffer from a medical emergency and told attending police he had just left a COVID vaccine clinic. When Grus later queried the accident file on OPS’ records management system (RMS), she said there was no mention of the driver’s statement, adding that “adverse events were being underreported.” Grus told the tribunal that this was also communicated to OPS superiors at the December townhall.
In other RMS queries Grus made, she testified to incomplete Sudden Unexpected Deaths in Infants (SUDI) questionnaires in some infant death case files and that another file was closed without a coroner’s report. Van den Berg cited this testimony during closing submissions, noting that the SUDI was a standard and mandatory investigation tool and contained medical history questions for caregivers and parents, including all drug use which affords the opportunity to ask about vaccines.
The tribunal also heard that Grus’ 20-plus year record as a police officer and detective is exemplary and since being called back to duty for the robbery unit, the mother-of-three continues to do impeccable work.
Van den Berg also reprised evidence that tribunal adjudicator Renwick declined to accept into the record, including third-party communications about Grus between OPS members, related infant autopsy reports and access to a duty book belonging to Grus.
In a rare ruling in favour of the defence, Renwick agreed to include the original duty book as sealed evidence for future reference should there be an appeal of his decision, which he said would be delivered in written form in a matter of weeks.
Grus has also sued the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for $875,000 in damages for a series of articles it published about her which she alleges contain false statements and precipitated the discreditable conduct charge.
Liberal leadership candidate Chrystia Freeland is suggesting that she would hit Elon Musk’s Tesla with a 100% tariff if elected to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Freeland said the measure would come as part of a package of select tariffs that the former finance minister says are targeted at sending a message to President Donald Trump and his powerful supporters.
In an interview with the Canadian Press, Freeland suggested Canada implement a 100% tariff on all wine, beer and spirits coming from the United States, as well as an equally harsh tariff on the import of all Tesla vehicles.
“We need to be very targeted, very surgical, very precise,” said Freeland.
“We need to look through and say who is supporting Trump and how can we make them pay a price for a tariff attack on Canada.”
Freeland’s attack on Musk comes after the former finance minister launched her campaign on an anti-Trump message, promising to counterpunch against the Trump administration.
In 2023, Tesla was the leading electric vehicle brand in Canada, making the two most popular EV models in the country, the Tesla Model Y and Model 3.
Earlier this week, Tesla’s Chief Financial Officer Vaibhav Taneja told investors on a quarterly earnings call that the Trump administration’s tariffs have the potential to hurt the automaker’s profitability.
“Over the years, we’ve tried to localize our supply chain in every market, but we are still very reliant on parts from across the world for all our businesses. Therefore, the imposition of tariffs, which is very likely, will have an impact on our business and profitability,” said Taneja.
Freeland contends that Canada can exploit much of the uncertainty and internal debates within the Trump administration to deliver outcomes advantageous for Canada.
“One of the characteristics of the Trump administration is they like to traffic in uncertainty,” said Freeland.
“There are lots of reports about there being internal debates in the U.S. (administration), so let’s use that to our advantage. And let’s put some cards on the table and be very clear that if they hit us, we will hit them back.”
She suggests exploiting American uncertainty by publishing a list of goods Canada plans to tariff in retaliation to Trump’s tariffs.
“We need to publish it today because there’s still time. This is an existential challenge, and that will be true whether tariffs come on Saturday or whether the threat of tariffs is still hanging over our heads like a sword of Damocles and April 1 is the date.”
Freeland has previously announced that in response to Trump’s imposition of tariffs, Canada must convene an international summit of countries and leaders that Trump has threatened in one way or another, including Mexico, Denmark, Panama, the European Union’s President, and NATO’s Secretary General.
Freeland would also direct the federal government to cease purchasing any goods from American companies, only making an exception for national security purposes.
