The FBI is offering $1 million US for information leading to the arrest of a top lieutenant in the Lawrence Bishnoi gang accused of orchestrating the June 2023 assassination of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, B.C.
The U.S. law enforcement agency is also adding Satinderjeet Singh, better known as Goldy Brar, to its most-wanted fugitive list for his alleged role in a spate of gang-linked crimes including murders, kidnappings, extortions, assaults and drug trafficking.
“He joins the notorious Top 10 list because he is considered extremely violent and an enemy to the public,” said Patrick Grandy, FBI assistant director in charge of the Los Angeles Field Office, during a news conference on Monday.
“We have made it a priority to apprehend him.”
Brar was named in a U.S. indictment released this summer involving a sweeping cross-border investigation into racketeering, extortion and murder by a trio of India-linked crime syndicates and charged in July for ordering the killing of Nijjar. The Sikh separatist leader was shot dead three years ago by masked gunmen in the car park of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara.
Then prime minister Justin Trudeau said Canadian intelligence linked agents of the Indian government to Nijjar’s killing, sparking a diplomatic rupture between the two countries. New Delhi has repeatedly denied the allegation.
The FBI alleges Lawrence Bishnoi directs his sprawling criminal organization from jail using smuggled phones, ordering trusted lieutenants to oversee day-to-day operations of the global network. Brar is alleged to be Bishnoi’s right-hand man overseeing the North American enterprise.
“Goldy Brar and his network have wreaked devastating havoc to so many lives and families for years — through high-profile murders, shootings, death threats, extortions, arsons and drug trafficking,” said RCMP Deputy Commissioner Lisa Moreland, during the same news conference.
“His addition to this prominent and very public list means the world just became a whole lot smaller.”
The FBI said Brar is considered to be extremely violent, armed and dangerous. He is known to reside in California and various parts of Canada, said Grandy.
Canada listed the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist organization in 2025, accusing it of intimidating and targeting diaspora communities.
Anyone with information about Brar is asked to contact the FBI’s tip line at 1-800-225-5324.
“This man holds no loyalty, nor should others feel any loyalty towards him,” said Moreland.
She pointed out the last Canadian to be added to the FBI’s list, Ryan Wedding, is now in custody.

Article content
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Prime Minister Mark Carney has explained his push for a closer relationship with Europe in simple terms.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
Unlimited online access to National Post.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
Support local journalism.
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
Unlimited online access to National Post.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
Support local journalism.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account.
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
Enjoy additional articles per month.
Get email updates from your favourite authors.
THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments
Enjoy additional articles per month
Get email updates from your favourite authors
Sign In or Create an Account
Email Address
or
Article content
“Developing an alliance for the future with the European Union … is based on Canada becoming more sovereign,” he said last week at a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
Article content
We apologize, but this video has failed to load.
Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.
Trump administration muses about hitting Canada with EU-style tariffs over Carney’s EU pivot Back to video
We apologize, but this video has failed to load.
Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.
Article content
Last week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed that Canada could become the European Union’s first “associate member,” drawing cheers, some confusion, and jeers from both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. President Donald Trump went further, saying he could see it as a “hostile act” if it were pursued with “bad intention,” and warning he could impose steep tariffs or even curb trade with Europe.
Article content
Advertisement 1
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
But what about Canada? With trade talks having collapsed in August, leading to more tariffs on both sides, how might Washington respond to Canada’s true north pointing further east — as a legitimate hedge or a challenge to U.S. power?
Article content
In a recent interview, Ambassador Pete Hoekstra shared his thoughts, noting that the preliminary trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada can no longer be the starting point for future talks. He said too much had changed in just three and a half weeks, including the EU proposal. Hoekstra offered a possible response that would have significant implications for the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement and U.S.-Canada trade.
Article content
“I’ve talked with our trade negotiators, and they said, ‘Well, that may just kind of simplify things, because we have a trade agreement with the EU. We may just slide Canada in under the EU trade agreement. We won’t treat Canada as a country with whom we have a four- or five-thousand-mile border anymore. Canada has made its decision. It is aligning with the EU, so it only makes sense for the U.S. to put Canada under that trade agreement,’” he said.
Article content
Advertisement 2
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Washington, in other words, could seek to apply the 15 per cent tariff ceiling imposed on most EU exports.
Article content
Read More
Article content
Hoekstra’s office declined National Post’s request to comment on the matter.
Article content
“Don’t take it seriously,” said Richard Stern, the vice president of the Plymouth Institute for Free Enterprise at Advancing American Freedom, a Washington-based conservative think tank.
Article content
“(Hoekstra) is trying to be the pitbull — the voice of people who are trying to stir up trouble, who are trying to separate America and Canada, who are trying to separate America from our closest allies.”
Article content
The suggestion that Canada could be folded into a U.S.-EU tariff framework, Stern said, is not a legal path for displacing CUSMA.
Article content
“There’s no real legal theory on that,” he said.

Environmental groups are sounding the alarm on the federal government’s Building Canada Strong Act as an “astonishing undermining of environmental law,” saying it gives cabinet the authority to approve virtually any project—across the country—regardless of its environmental impacts.
“The package of changes to environmental law over the last year-and-a-half … since this government first tabled the Building Canada Act has truly been like beyond anything we’ve ever seen,” said Margot Venton, program director of nature at Ecojustice, referencing Bill C-5 which became law in June 2025.
“What, essentially, they have done is created the power to avoid federal environmental standards for any project. … There are no limitations on what can be designated under the law as a national interest project or area,” Venton said.
Transport Minister and Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Que.) introduced Bill C-39 on Sept. 21, the first day of Parliament’s fall sitting. The almost 250-page bill is aimed at streamlining project approval and construction by completing project reviews within a year.
“One project, one review, and one year to decision,” MacKinnon declared in press conference that day shortly after tabling the bill.
To achieve that goal, Bill C-39 proposes amending a number of pieces of legislation—including the Building Canada Act, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s (Nepean, Ont.) flagship nation-building legislation, passed in June 2025; the Impact Assessment Act; and the Species at Risk Act—and creating “regions of national interest.” In those regions, projects could be pre-approved, subject to conditions, and following an assessment of the region by the Impact Assessment Agency, to then be exempt from environmental laws.
The legislation would give a governor-in-council the authority to name regions of national interest, “on the recommendation of the minister,” C-39 reads. Though the bill sets out criteria for the “types of projects that are eligible within the region,” it does not offer details for a national interest region itself—raising questions around the designation’s size and scope.
“If you look at … how do they define what one of these zones is, it says it appears on schedule three [of the Building Canada Act,” Venton noted. “What does that mean? How is that helpful?”
Liberal MP Corey Hogan (Calgary Confederation, Alta.), parliamentary secretary to the natural resources minister, offered some insight in a Sept. 23 interview with CBC Power & Politics host David Cochrane.
Asked about what would be considered a region of national interest, Hogan pointed to areas where mining and port opportunities are in the same region and gave the example of the “linear infrastructure” of power lines running from northern British Columbia to the Yukon.
“The whole point of creating these regions is that you get to have all of those conversations with the people in the regions and say: ‘What’s the cumulative impact we’re willing to entertain? Where does it make sense to build if we are going to build?’” Hogan said, calling the zones a natural extension of municipal and provincial regional planning.
Venton called the zones a “continuation” of the issues with the Building Canada Act, where she said there is also no criteria for what makes a project in the national interest.
That 2025 law is what first created the feds’ Major Projects Office, aimed at streamlining approval and construction for projects of national interest. At the time, First Nations and climate groups warned it could be used to impose projects on them without consent.
Currently, four projects are in the process of receiving national interest designation: an oil pipeline running from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast, an Ontario nuclear waste depot, the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 in the Port of Vancouver, and the Mackenzie Valley Highway.
“A zone could be very large. It could be very small. It could be designated for really any reason that cabinet deems to be relevant, and that is an extraordinarily broad power,” Venton said of Bill C-39’s proposed zones.
C-39 gives cabinet ‘unchecked discretion’ to approve projects: Greenpeace campaigner
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, B.C.) criticized the bill for similar reasons, telling reporters on Sept. 23 that no government has “ever” put forth legislation with powers like those floated in Bill C-39.
“We see now the same expansion of power from the executive branch of government—the Prime Minister’s Office and the cabinet—without anything other than political discretion to advise them,” May said.
“There are no fixed criteria, for example, there are no factors that must be considered … to identify a project of national interest, or now, under C-39, to determine a region of national interest.”
Salomé Sané, Greenpeace Canada’s nature and biodiversity campaigner, echoed that assessment, stressing that the bill’s potential implications are very broad.
“[Bill C-39] would provide pretty much unchecked discretion to the federal cabinet to approve projects—whatever the impacts of these projects might be on nature, climate, or communities—and it also is very much at odds with what people in Canada want,” she said.
Ottawa, however, maintains that Bill C-39 would not mean an erosion of environmental protections or Indigenous rights—pointing to the economic crisis facing Canada in the face of the ongoing trade war with the United States, which Carney, speaking on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, said his government has a “very clear mandate” to tackle.
“A decision delayed is a project denied,” Carney said on Sept. 22, telling reporters that under the previous government, businesses stopped building due to red tape. “If you’re going to say no, decide it within a year.”
The government had intended to table C-39 before Parliament’s summer recess, but pushed it back, extending consultations over the summer in the wake of backlash. The discussion paper on the proposed legislative changes received 21,000 responses, and prompted the feds to ditch one proposal that would have exempted projects from the jeopardy test in the Species at Risk Act—a provision that prohibits a project’s construction if it would kill an at-risk species.
On Sept. 9, the Carney Liberals also changed Canada’s regulatory framework so that select projects—including pipelines, transmission lines, and some oilsands extraction facilities—would only need to be federally reviewed by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), and not Canada’s Impact Assessment Agency.
Climate groups have warned that this change will mean less comprehensive assessments, saying the CER isn’t equipped to conduct the same level of review.
Bill C-39 proposes similar changes. It would move federal reviews of pipelines, nuclear facilities, and power lines to the CER and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, both of which are under Energy Minister Tim Hodgson’s (Markham—Thornhill, Ont.) jurisdiction. Canada’s Impact Assessment Agency reports to Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Ont.).
Sané called the CER “more friendly to industry,” stressing that environmental laws as assessments exist “for a reason.”
“It’s also this idea of assuming that all projects are good, when, not necessarily. And that’s the whole point of having an assessment,” she said, “you need to ensure that the project is actually good.”
“This is not what people wanted when they put Prime Minister Carney in power. … We all live the realities of the trade war that we’re having with the U.S. and the Trump politics shaking things around the geopolitical world, but at the same time, we need to lean into what makes Canada Canada.”
Current federal review process a ‘nightmare,’ says Sen. Gignac
While Bill C-39 has been slammed by climate groups—and by unions over its changes to the Canada Labour Code—many firms and business associations have praised the move as a step in the right direction for improving Canada’s investment appeal.
In addition to its project regulation changes, C-39 changes some conditions around invoking Sec. 107 of the code to force workers back to their post, requiring the minister to declare that a strike is affecting Canada’s “national interest,” to review a report from a new special mediator, before invoking 107.
Unions have slammed the move as infringing on their right to strike, with the Canadian Union of Public Employees voting unanimously to defy C-39 if it passes unamended.
But Canadian Senators Group Senator Clément Gignac (Kennebec, Que.), an economist and chair of the Senate Banking, Commerce, and the Economy Committee, said told The Hill Times that he likes the bill’s labour code changes and its commitment to one-year reviews.
“Canada has, in the past, [a] particularly bad reputation because you have delay, delay, red tape, and so on,” he said. “From an economist’s point of view, I think that this is a very large positive step in the right direction.”
He also noted that a Senate Transport Communications Committee report recommended modernizing collective bargaining in order to reduce the frequency of work stoppages back in June.
Still, when it comes to review times, Gignac acknowledged that it “depends” on the project if a year will be enough time to complete a review process, but said centralizing review processes to one agency will improve efficiency.
“The intention of the government is there,” he explained, “rather to have one department, for example, give a ratification, wait for another department like environment [to] give another certification, … it will be centralized, and that will help to have more efficiency.”
“Because right now it’s a nightmare. In some cases, you have different departments at the federal level. You have the provincial government as well.”
When asked about environmental concerns, Gignac said he would wait for the Red Chamber’s study of the bill, encouraging concerned parties to share their thoughts with Senators, adding that if it makes sense to propose amendments, the Upper Chamber will.
He said that it wasn’t the “game plan” of then-prime minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government to generate wealth and make Canada competitive—but it is Carney’s, so parliamentarians will have to find the “proper balance” in a “new era.”
“It’s a new leadership. Its priority is simple: … to create wealth and to make Canada stronger and more competitive and less dependent [on the] U.S. and have a more resilient economy. So, that means that we have to make things differently. We have to work differently,” he said.
“That will imply some changes, as well, in terms of how do we include the environment … in a context that Canada wants to increase its sovereignty, be less dependent, and have a stronger economy.”
ewand@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times

Canada is reducing its economic reliance on the United States by diversifying its ties, including renewed partnerships with China and India, under a policy of “values-based realism,” because Ottawa “can no longer afford to be overly reliant on any one partner,” Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand told the United Nations on Saturday.
The Foreign Minister’s speech to the UN General Assembly reflects Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government’s efforts over the past 18 months to rebuild ties with Beijing and New Delhi after years of diplomatic disputes.
Ms. Anand, echoing Mr. Carney’s January speech at the World Economic Forum, talked of how to thrive in a “new age of disorder” where “great powers are walking away from global economic co-operation, and dismantling economic integration.”
The United States under the Trump administration has grown deeply protectionist and unpredictable, imposing significant tariffs on allies and rivals alike in an effort to drive manufacturing back to U.S. territory.
She did not name the U.S. when criticizing great power behaviour. Nor did she discuss the costly trade war between Ottawa and Washington that escalated recently after Mr. Carney walked away from what he called a “bad offer” in negotiations with U.S. President Donald Trump that would undermine Canadian sovereignty and destroy major industries.
Carney, other world leaders launch effort to spur middle power co-operation
The U.S. followed this suspension of trade negotiations with more tariffs and product bans on Canadian products.
“Great powers want the rest of us to accept what we are offered,” Ms. Anand told the UN.
She said Canada is already succeeding in diversifying away from business on this continent, where the U.S. is this country’s biggest customer.
“Canadian exports to markets outside North America have significantly increased,” Ms. Anand told the UN in French.
“We are diversifying our ties, and building stronger relationships with new and old partners alike, so that our people can enjoy peace and prosperity.
She spoke positively of the U.S. three times in her speech, but in terms of security. She welcomed Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s convening of the Arctic Seven earlier this week – countries except Russia that have Arctic territory – and the recent agreement among Greenland, Denmark and the U.S. on Arctic security. In French, she thanked the U.S. for supporting the gang-suppression force in Haiti.
Ms. Anand said Canada “will pursue a policy of values-based realism.”
She signalled Canada sees itself as a convenor of middle powers in an age of rupture.
In his speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mr. Carney said the postwar rules-based international order has broken down. Great powers now use tariffs, financial systems and supply chains as tools of coercion, he said, and institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the UN and the COP climate process are under threat.
Opinion: Carney’s Davos speech diagnosed the problem. His EU speech lays out the cure
“Understanding the world as it is, we will make the right choices for Canadians, while being guided by our values,” Ms. Anand said.
She said “values-based realism” means diversifying Canada’s ties and working with “trusted partners” on emerging technologies, critical minerals, defence production, and clean and conventional energy. It also means leading “other middle powers to act collectively and decisively.” She described the current moment as “a rupture, not a transition.”
The speech named China and India as partners, saying Canada is “building renewed partnerships with large economies like India and China.” It did not mention China’s human-rights record like Canadian officials under former prime minister Justin Trudeau did or allegations of foreign interference conducted by China and India that dominated Mr. Trudeau’s latter years in office.
Back in 2022, for instance, then-foreign minister Mélanie Joly told the UN General Assembly in her speech that a UN report on China’s Xinjiang region contained “credible accounts of abuses that constitute crimes against humanity.”
India’s PM Modi expected to visit Canada in December to sign trade deal, envoy says
On Saturday, Ms. Anand noted at the UN that Canada has secured more than 20 new economic and defence partnerships in the past year. She also said this month’s Canada Investment Summit produced nearly $500-billion in new financing commitments.
Ms. Anand said Canada’s commitment to NATO is “ironclad.” She said Canada allocated more than $80-billion to defence in last year’s budget, now spends more than 2 per cent of GDP on defence, and is “building toward NATO’s 5 per cent pledge by 2035.”
She called Iran “the principal threat to peace and security in its region” and pointed to sanctions she announced this week. She said Canada will again lead the General Assembly resolution on human rights in Iran.
On the Middle East, she said: “Israel’s right to exist is not up for debate. And the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in a state of their own is also not up for debate.” She said Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. She noted that Canada said this month it intends to restrict trade in goods from them. She said Hamas “must play no role in the governance of Palestine.”
She reaffirmed Canada’s support for the International Criminal Court. She asked member states to back Canada’s bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council for 2028 to 2030.
Ms. Anand said Canada will favour “issue-based coalitions” of countries and is working with more than 30 countries in the Coalition of the Willing to support Ukraine. She said she will co-host a conference in Toronto next week with Norway and Ukraine on the return of Ukrainian children, detained civilians and prisoners of war.
“Though some would build higher walls and retreat from international engagement, we believe that long-term partnerships are the way to prosperity and security,” Ms. Anand said. “And though some would rather ignore the rupture that we see before our eyes, we are willing to see the world as it is.”

Allegations of possible U.S. interference dominated the Quebec election campaign Friday.
This prompted Coalition Avenir Québec Leader Christine Fréchette to seek a meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney and contact the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) as the province heads into the final 10 days before the Oct. 5 vote.
The controversy follows reports that an American think tank published proposals to weaken Canadian unity, including supporting and financing the province’s sovereigntist party, the Parti Québécois.
The report by Quebecor media quoted two unnamed sources from Fréchette’s government who said American government officials had attempted to negotiate tariffs with Quebec directly. It also noted how a U.S.-based think tank, the Defense Analyses and Research Corporation, published an essay in February calling for Americans to destabilize the Canadian federation.
The essay urged Americans to support the election of sovereigntists in Canadian elections and to “weaponize” reconciliation between Canada and First Nations to “slowly nudge” the country on a path toward the end of history.
Fréchette, who spoke twice about the allegations during a campaign stop Friday, said the issue was serious and that Quebecers alone should decide who forms the next provincial government.
“I want help from the federal government to shed light on the issue,” she told reporters Friday morning.
Later Friday, Fréchette’s office issued a statement saying her team informed her last Saturday about the essays published by the U.S. think tank. The statement said the CAQ contacted CSIS on Tuesday, leading to a meeting with the federal intelligence agency on Wednesday.
The statement added that Fréchette’s team had received no information confirming interference in the election campaign. Fréchette also confirmed that American officials contacted her government in the spring regarding sectors related to CUSMA.
CSIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“When my team told me about it, I shut the door on it right away. Because, as far as I’m concerned, it’s unthinkable that Quebec could sign an agreement with the United States,” Fréchette said.
“The information revealed about potential foreign interference is serious and the truth will come out,” Fréchette said, adding that Quebecers alone should determine who forms the next provincial government.
Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon questioned both the allegations and the timing of their release, saying he has not seen proof of interference.
“There was an obligation to act promptly if there is a genuine risk; it was not done by the CAQ…and then if there is no risk and that’s why they didn’t do anything, why are they sending out this information two days before voting?” he said.
St-Pierre Plamondon noted that advance voting begins Sunday and said the timing of the allegations was “weird.” “I’m told the information was available as of January. We’re talking about events that might have taken place in early September,” he said. “And we’re only hearing about this two days before voting begins.”
Earlier in the campaign, the PQ leader accused the federal government of electoral interference by strategically announcing major investments in Quebec and of “anxiety-inducing” messaging concerning the trade war with the United States.
But St-Pierre Plamondon urged Quebecers on Friday to head to the polls “with peace of mind” and to not allow the federal and American governments to “kidnap” the election.
The PQ leader has promised to hold a referendum on sovereignty if his party forms a government — but not before President Donald Trump leaves the White House.
Quebec Liberal Leader Charles Milliard said that if he had been aware of the information, he would have made it public and argued Fréchette should have been more transparent.
“If I had known this information before, I would have used it; I would have shared it, as you know, the premier of Quebec. This is not what happened… I think it’s a question of leadership,” he said.
Milliard also said Trump would benefit from political instability in Canada and that all party leaders should have been informed when the allegations first surfaced.
Québec solidaire co-spokesperson Ruba Ghazal said Quebecers alone will decide the outcome of the election and called for greater transparency.
“What is she telling us? After she meets Carney, it’s crucial that she informs all Quebecers of the nature of the interference, if there was interference,” said Ghazal.
“It’s not for Americans to tell us if they want the PQ or another political party in Alberta to be elected,” she said. Ghazal suggested the American government could have an interest in separatist movements in both Quebec and Alberta.
Federal Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said Ottawa is taking the allegations seriously. “Protecting our democracy is of the utmost importance to our country,” she said.
Anand said she does not believe there is currently anything affecting Canada’s democracy but added that she raises concerns with her counterparts, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, when issues arise.
“Right now I do not have proof,” she said.
The foreign interference allegations emerged as party leaders continued campaigning on other issues, including government accountability and transportation.
Quebecers who want to cast a ballot before election day can vote at advance polls Sunday. Polling stations will be open from 9:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. Additional information, including polling locations and other advance voting dates, is available online.
Five parties are expecting to win seats in the Oct. 5 election: Fréchette’s CAQ, the Parti Québécois, the Quebec Liberals, the Quebec Conservatives and Québec solidaire.
–with files from The Canadian Press