Prime Minister Mark Carney will travel to Washington next week to meet U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House as both nations prepare for a review of their trade pact and discuss new security concerns.

Carney’s office confirmed on Friday that he will arrive in Washington on Monday, with the Oval Office meeting scheduled for Tuesday. The visit comes at a critical moment, with Trump reviving his controversial “51st state” remarks and linking Canada’s request to join the proposed Golden Dome missile defense program with his annexation rhetoric.

Carney, who won Canada’s election earlier this year in the midst of Trump’s tariff threats and talk of annexation, has sought to stabilize relations ahead of the joint review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) set for next year. More than 75 per cent of Canada’s exports are tied to the U.S., making trade talks especially significant.

In a statement, the Prime Minister’s Office said the working visit will “focus on shared priorities in a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the U.S.” Canada recently dropped many retaliatory tariffs in exchange for U.S. exemptions under the USMCA framework.

Trump, meanwhile, has suggested Canada could be covered by his Golden Dome missile defense project, but in characteristic style added, “Why don’t you just join our country, become the 51st state and you get it for free.”

Canadian officials have firmly rejected any such idea. “Canada said it will never join the U.S.,” noted Robert Bothwell, a historian at the University of Toronto, calling Trump’s tactics “extortion.”

Carney previously asked Trump in May to stop referring to Canada as the 51st state, but experts warn the U.S. president may once again raise the issue publicly. “A key political risk is that President Trump raises the 51st state issue again and seeks to embarrass Prime Minister Carney during his visit,” said Daniel Béland, political science professor at McGill University.

As Canada pushes to be included in the U.S. missile shield and seeks stability in trade, Carney’s Washington trip underscores the delicate balance between economic reliance on the U.S. and maintaining national sovereignty.

The federal Liberal government has launched a new Defence Investment Agency, promising to centralize procurement and speed up delivery of vital military equipment to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Announced Thursday, the agency aims to cut through years of bureaucratic delays that have plagued Canadian defence procurement. Secretary of State for Defence Procurement Stephen Fuhr said the new approach will move at the “speed of relevance.”

“We cannot be trapped outside the technology cycle with procurement,” Fuhr said. “If we deliver stuff late, then it’s irrelevant. We’re going to deliver as quickly as possible, even if it means taking some risk.”

The office, housed within Public Services and Procurement Canada, will be led by Doug Guzman, a former RBC and Goldman Sachs executive. Fuhr, a former CF-18 fighter pilot, will oversee the agency and be politically accountable.

The agency will handle all purchases above $100 million and use risk-based contracting powers, allowing contracts to be signed without repeated Treasury Board approvals. Fuhr insisted it will streamline rather than add bureaucracy, calling it “one-stop shopping” for military procurement.

Defence industry leaders cautiously welcomed the move but stressed the need for measurable targets. Christyn Cianfarani, president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, said Ottawa must set clear goals to grow the domestic industry and reduce procurement steps.

Prime Minister Mark Carney campaigned earlier this year on a promise to reform defence spending, implement “Buy Canadian” policies, and ensure long-term planning for the Armed Forces. Canada has also pledged NATO allies that it will meet the 2% of GDP spending target for defence annually.

The government is expected to release a new defence industrial policy in the coming months, outlining how the agency will align with national priorities and support Canadian businesses in the supply chain.

Attacks on MLAs’ offices in Manitoba are raising deep concerns about safety, democracy, and the future of Indigenous women in politics.

In recent weeks, the constituency offices of two trailblazing First Nations women cabinet ministers in Manitoba have been hit by a disturbing wave of vandalism and arson. Families Minister Nahanni Fontaine’s office in West Kildonan was set on fire on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, just days after its windows were smashed. Housing Minister Bernadette Smith’s North End office has been targeted by fire four times since August.

Political scientists and Indigenous studies experts warn these incidents could have a chilling effect on democracy. Kelly Saunders, a professor at Brandon University, called the attacks “gender- and race-based violence” that risk discouraging Indigenous women from entering politics.

“When young Indigenous girls see their role models — women like Bernadette Smith and Nahanni Fontaine — being harassed and subjected to violence, it sends the opposite message,” she explained. “It tells them politics isn’t safe for them.”

Both Fontaine and Smith have vowed not to be silenced. Fontaine described the vandalism as an “attack on community,” while Smith called it “an attack on democracy” that undermines accessibility for constituents.

Other experts agree the attacks go beyond property damage. Dalhousie University professor Lori Turnbull noted that constituency offices are vital public spaces where elected representatives serve their communities. “It’s an act of violence not only against the individual but also against the public,” she said.

Sarah Nickel, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Politics and Gender at the University of Alberta, stressed that such intimidation carries symbolic weight. “Fire and vandalism are meant to instill fear and drive Indigenous women out of public roles,” she said, highlighting the long history of exclusion rooted in the Indian Act, which barred Indigenous women from holding office until 1951.

The incidents, experts warn, reflect a growing hostility in Canadian politics. If perpetrators are not caught, there’s a risk of copycat attacks. “We must be clear about drawing lines between free expression and targeted violence,” Saunders emphasized.

For Indigenous women, the message is personal yet political: representation matters, and intimidation cannot be allowed to erase their voices.