Need to Know: Nothing can break Israel’s resolve

Welcome to Need to Know, The Hub’s twice-weekly roundup of expert insights into the biggest economic stories, political news, and policy developments Hub readers need to be keeping their eyes on.

Israelis have no choice—life goes on

By Adam Zivo, a Canadian commentator and director of the Canadian Centre for Responsible Drug Policy, currently in Tel Aviv

Israel is now at war with Iran, but the atmosphere within Tel Aviv is far calmer than many would assume. There is no mass panic. Israelis simply live as normally as they can—gossiping at cafés, playing volleyball on the beach, wandering the seaside promenade—because doing so is, to them, an act of defiance. They know that their enemies want to break their resolve, but October 7 and two years of conflict with Iran’s proxies have left them desensitized and resilient. Running to a bomb shelter has been banalized. Even this weekend’s successful missile strikes within Tel Aviv, which have no recent precedent, have failed to instill terror.

Over the past few days, I interviewed several Israelis who emphasized that, although war can be frightening or anxiety-inducing, they are “used to this.” Some expressed relief that Israel’s enemies attacked incrementally—first Hamas, then Hezbollah, then the Houthis, and now finally Iran. These escalating doses of violence allowed citizens to slowly build an immunity to panic and trained their responses to sudden threats. When Tehran launches its ballistic missiles now, an organized system kicks in: first, an emergency alert (sent via phone) informs citizens to stay close to a shelter, then, some point later (it could be minutes or an hour), a siren gives them 90 seconds to get inside. It is predictable. Manageable. A chore.

In the early hours of Sunday morning, a missile landed in the heart of Tel Aviv, severely damaging several buildings and shattering all of the windows within a large radius. Several people died. Dozens were injured. Broken glass was ubiquitous. So many storefronts and apartments, ruined. The affected neighbourhood happens to be the city’s cultural heart–a place for hipsters and artists to congregate. My favourite café lost some of its windows and outdoor furniture. The city’s only dedicated gay bar was destroyed. And yet the people I interviewed remained buoyant, even when their homes were damaged.

A husband and wife—both French-Israeli, photogenic, middle-aged—believed that this war with Iran was inevitable. They understood that the Islamic regime has genocidal intentions and wants to turn the Jews into atomic dust. With their apartment damaged, their plan was to relocate north, near Lebanon, gambling that a neutered Hezbollah would leave the area alone. Their resolve was unshaken: finish the war and win. Pay the necessary price. Accept sacrifice. Live happily, obstinately. Survive. It was not an uncommon sentiment.

Can Mark Carney manage a grand economic alliance?

By Livio Di Matteo, professor of economics at Lakehead University

Mark Carney has been prime minister since March 14, and we are rapidly approaching the 100-day marker.” The first 100 days have been remarkably refreshing, given Carney’s focus on economic affairs and Canada’s geopolitical role in what has become a rapidly changing and more perilous world, one without the warmth of our traditional relationship with the United States. It is helpful that Carney was trained as an economist and that, along with an understanding of opportunity cost, he has had a career in international finance during which he acquired an extensive network of contacts, including most major world leaders.

The G7 summit at Kananaskis is the strongest indicator yet that Carney is busy reshaping the network of alliances and relationships that Canada requires to prosper in this new age.

So far, Carney seems to be an amalgam of some of Canada’s most successful prime ministers. He is advocating for resource-based projects and infrastructure akin to Louis St. Laurent, he is pursuing both national and international diplomacy reminiscent of Lester Pearson, and he is focused on Canada’s economic basics in the manner of Brian Mulroney. While the first 100 days have been more words than outcomes, and it remains to be seen how he will square several economic objectives with fiscal resources, the right steps have been taken.

To wit, his G7 invite list is both an exercise in diplomacy and a signal that Canada is adopting a goal-oriented rather than value-signalling approach to foreign policy and that we are prioritizing the negotiation of new trade and economic relationships—all while trying to salvage our relationship with the United States. This means a professional friendship with most countries, even if some of them may seem a tad unsavoury. Carney is signalling that, as a small open economy dependent on exports, we should demonstrate Canadian values at home, communicating them by example to the world and leaving it up to them to wish to emulate. We cannot take people where they do not want to go.

Along with the regular attendees, the invitations to this year’s G7 included key players in the BRICS–Brazil, India, South Africa, and Indonesia–as well as Asia Pacific economies including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, which reminds both Russia and China that we are at the table. We invited Ukraine, demonstrating our standing with Europe, and the United Arab Emirates, demonstrating our connection and concern with the Middle East. No continent has been left untouched as we seek to expand our trade relationships. Wisely, the list also included Mexico, which starts an alliance of the ends against the middle in the North American trading relationship. Our relationship with Mexico has been much neglected, and hopefully, this marks the start of the two countries working more together in terms of developing mutual economic opportunities.

Essentially, the message being sent is that Canada is seeking to build new trading relationships with a wide assortment of growing and dynamic world economies that can serve as a counterweight to Russia, China, and the United States. As for the United States, they will always be our dear friends, but we understand they want more alone time. However, continuing to negotiate with them both on economic and defence matters is not up for discussion.^{1Those who criticize our engagement with them in discussions on matters like the Golden Dome need to realize that Golden Dome or not, if the intercontinental ballistic missiles pour in over the Arctic, where exactly do Canadians think the Americans will take them down? Over Illinois? Not likely, so it is requisite that we do a better job of investing in our defence capabilities and cooperate as best we can to safeguard our own interests with the Americans.}

Can Canada broker a new grand alliance with respect to world trade and economic growth? One certainly hopes. However, success requires time and patience, and for the time being, it seems Canadians are on board with the prime minister’s maneuvers, though the proof in the pudding will come with demonstrated results. As we move beyond the 100 days, to avoid a political fate akin to Anne of the Thousand Days, Carney will need to achieve success in driving new trade relationships, including among Canada’s own provinces, get infrastructure projects started, and secure Canada’s economic future.

No small tasks.

Canada’s measles outbreak was entirely preventable

By Kelden Formosa, a Canadian commentator and elementary school teacher

Measles is back. The highly contagious disease that produces rashes and a parade of other horribles was declared eliminated in Canada in 1998, as it was no longer circulating domestically, with relatively rare cases brought over from overseas. That achievement was brought about by widespread vaccination through the two-dose MMR (Measles-Mumps-Rubella) vaccine, which offers a high degree of protection for individuals and stops community spread in its tracks. But with falling vaccination rates, particularly in rural areas, Canada is currently experiencing our worst outbreak since elimination, with 2,968 cases in Canada so far in 2025, putting young children, pregnant mothers, and the immunocompromised at special risk. One child has already died.

If we’re honest, we know why this is happening. Lots of people aren’t getting their kids vaccinated. The percentage of seven-year-old children covered by two doses of the MMR vaccine has fallen by about 10 percent since 2019, and there are some areas with much lower MMR vaccine coverage than the still-high provincial averages—as low as 32 percent in some communities. So much of our culture is about vibes, and the vibes around vaccines are bad these days.

Many of us warned about this risk during the COVID pandemic, when vaccines and other restrictions were turned into political wedge issues on all sides. Firm anti-vaxxers chanted the old “my body, my choice” slogan, ignoring their possible role in overwhelming public hospitals with serious cases, while many political leaders went nuclear on the 15-20 percent of the population who were hesitant to take the COVID-19 vaccines, banning them from participating fully in society and claiming that many of them were “misogynists and racists,” in the words of then-Prime Minister Trudeau.

This was made worse by the expert class making sweeping, universal pronouncements that went beyond the best scientific evidence available at the time. For example, much of the public health establishment pushed mandatory school masking and encouraged repeated COVID-19 vaccinations for young children, even as their peers in Europe said that wasn’t a good trade-off. This left a bad taste in many people’s mouths, making them doubt public health advice in general. Add in the opioid crisis, the failure of so-called “safe supply,” and the odd insistence on referring to expectant mothers as “pregnant people,” and one can understand why people don’t believe the experts as much as they used to.

But with measles on the rise, this is a good moment to remember why—despite all that—getting yourself or your children vaccinated is good, even noble, especially when the vaccine has a long track record of safety and effectiveness, as with the MMR vaccines. Infectious diseases are horrific, and they used to kill thousands of Canadians every year. No vaccine is perfect for individual protection, so the best way to stop transmission is to ensure that as many people as possible are as immune to the disease as they can be. By getting ourselves and our children vaccinated, we uphold our responsibilities as members of a society and show our particular concern for the weakest among us, who are most likely to be seriously harmed by measles.

“No man is an island,” wrote the poet John Donne in the opening line of his famous anti-libertarian poem. In recent years, Canadian conservatism has taken on more of a libertarian streak than it has traditionally had—fine in many instances, but dangerous here. So it’s a good moment for conservative politicians and influencers to go out and make the more traditional case for using our freedom responsibly and in the broader social interest. After all, as Donne puts it, we are all “a piece of the continent, a part of the main…” and that when the bell tolls for someone else, it also tolls for thee.

The geopolitical realities driving Carney’s G7 invitations

Sharan Kaur, former deputy chief of staff to Finance Minister Bill Morneau and head of crisis and issues management for Aramco

As we navigate an increasingly complex global landscape, stark binaries of right and wrong often fail to capture the nuances of geopolitics. Newly minted Prime Minister Carney’s decision to host the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, provides Canada with a unique opportunity to broaden its diplomatic outreach by inviting influential leaders outside its member states. By extending invitations to Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) of Saudi Arabia, Carney showcases a commitment to engaging with the evolving global landscape.

The memory of Canada’s last G7 presidency under Prime Minister Trudeau, which concluded amidst palpable tensions with President Trump, lingers. Carney’s invitation of leaders like MBS (who was unable to attend), respected by Trump, may strategically position Canada to foster more balanced discussions, potentially de-escalating previous hostilities.

In light of global economic uncertainties exacerbated by fluctuating U.S. policies, Canada’s outreach is essential. Engaging with non-G7 leaders can help re-establish Canada’s role within a rules-based trade environment and forge diverse partnerships that mitigate economic volatility.

However, inviting Modi and MBS has not gone without controversy. Canada’s relationship with India has been strained, particularly after the tragic assassination of Sikh Canadian Hardeep Singh Nijjar, which has raised serious allegations against Indian agents. Likewise, relations with Saudi Arabia have faced scrutiny since the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. While diplomatic engagement is necessary for progress, it must not compromise accountability for these grievous acts.

As a Canadian of Indian descent who lived in Saudi Arabia, I understand the importance of engaging with uncomfortable partners. Canada must actively work to restore diplomatic channels with India to address issues like Nijjar’s murder. Similarly, recognizing the significant reforms under MBS, particularly in women’s rights and regional de-escalation, is crucial for fostering a constructive relationship.

Critics questioning Canada’s diplomatic boundaries highlight the need for nuance. Blanket condemnations can lead to stagnation and isolation, weakening Canada’s influence. Instead, constructive dialogue should focus on mutual interests while addressing concerns of human rights and regional stability.

Carney’s invitations reflect a recognition of the realities shaping international relations. By stepping outside comfort zones and engaging with challenging partners, Canada can safeguard its interests and hold nations accountable. Through earnest dialogue, we can address shared challenges and promote mutual understanding and peace. Ultimately, engagement does not equate to endorsement; it must prioritize what serves the best interests of our citizens and economy.