LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Happy Canada Day! As we enjoyed the annual celebration of our great country, complete with food, fireworks and plenty of fun, I decided to do what I like to occasionally do: shifted gears and focused on something different. Let’s deviate away from the (ahem) looniness of Canadian politics and explore the zaniness of animation and comics!

It’s only right that we start off with two older Canadian titles I was re-reading recently.

Karen Mazurkewich’s Cartoon Capers: The History of Canadian Animators is still one of the finest examinations of our local animation industry. There’s some analysis of great National Film Board animated shorts like The Log Driver’s WaltzThe Big Snit and Bob’s Birthday, successful animated TV series/specials like Tales of the Wizard of OzBabarand The Raccoons, and Canadian connections to Snow White, Elmer the Elephant and Bugs Bunny. “Insiders joke that Canucks are the gypsy kings of the animated world,” Mazurkewish wrote in the Introduction, but in fact, “Canadians are flexing their graphic muscle in every major international studio.”

Chester Brown’s Louis Riel: A Comic Strip Biography remains one of the more fascinating graphic novels ever produced in this country. It started as a ten-issue serialization published by Drawn & Quarterly between 1999 to 2003, and exploded in popularity when it was published in book form. Brown’s scholarly examination of Riel’s life as a politician and radical Métis leader includes historical references and an extensive series of endnotes from primary and secondary sources. Few graphic novels have ever come close to achieving this high standard.

Let’s move on to other books.

The University Press of Mississippi produces some of the most intelligent opinions and analyses of animation and comic strips. Two books that I recently requested fit this description perfectly. (My thanks to Courtney McCreary.)

Katherine Moeder’s Wide Awake in Slumberland: Fantasy, Mass Culture, and Modernism in the Art of Winsor McCayis a superb exploration into the art and mindset of one of the world’s greatest cartoonists. Her in-depth study of McCay’s magical and highly imaginative comic strip, Little Nemo in Slumberland, is a joy to behold. Moeder suggested that his seminal work “attempted to broaden the audience for comics in several critical ways.” In particular, the strip’s main characters are “situated within a spectrum of childhood types defined in part by class.” Nemo is a “middle-class child of the suburbs,” for instance, and a “perpetual innocent, reminiscent of the gentle dreamers by Jessie Wilcox Smith, with his tousled hair and wide declarations of ‘Oh!,’ – he remains from week to week in a constant state of wonder.” Flip, a clown who is the “mischievous, cynical, cigar-smoking friend” of Nemo’s, has personality traits that distinctly resemble the “trickster street urchins embodied by the Yellow Kid.”

What about Impie, the young African jungle imp who befriends Nemo, Flip and the Princess of Slumberland? He speaks a “gibberish language” and is a stereotypical character whose “exaggerated features recall the theatrical blackface of minstrel performers.” This type of character would be frowned upon in today’s society, but was viewed in a different light in McCay’s time. This racialized example of “boyhood savagery was uplifted as both normal and necessary” and understood to be “an essential step in the journey to productive manhood.” Plus ça change, indeed.

Jean Lee Cole’s How the Other Half Laughs: The Comic Sensibility in American Culture, 1895-1920 is an equally thought-provoking analysis of the evolution of comic strip humour. There was a fundamental switch to a “particularly grotesque form of the comic sensibility” in this time period. George Luks, a talented artist and cartoonist with a Bohemian flair who used “‘schematic,’ suggestive sketching rather than close observation” to help readers “imagine what was happening,” spearheaded the early development of comic grotesque. His colleague Richard F. Outcault, creator of the brilliant Hogan’s Alley and The Yellow Kid, drew ethnic working-class scenes involving young children. His strips were dominated with text that was “written on objects – signs, boxes, fences, the Yellow Kid’s shirt – rather than being spoken by the characters themselves” and enabled the words to “act as labels, applied by Outcault, the mediating consciousness.” Cole also looked at the work of Rudolph Dirks, George Herriman, William Glackens and others to show how they influenced the “New Humour” movement in the newspaper funnies.

Let’s close things out with Fantagraphics, one of America’s finest comics publishers. (My thanks to Eric Reynolds and Tucker Stone.)

Rick Geary and Mathew Klickstein’s Daisy Goes to the Moon: A Daisy Ashford Adventure is an exquisite and unique comic volume. Ashford, an English writer whose most famous work was the 1919 novella The Young Visiters, served as the inspiration for a fantastical journey on a “rokitship.” She met a unique cast of characters, including a “rarther quear fellow” from the Moon named Zogolbythm, Servette the Robot, Mr. B. Blahdel and, in a strange twist, a second Daisy! Her adventure took many twists and turns, to the point where Daisy remarked, “So am I writing this story or is it writing me?”

There’s also Walt Disney’s Donald Duck Adventures Mini Collectionfeaturing the work of legendary cartoonist Carl Barks. Three of his classic comics, Ghost of the GrottoSheriff of Bullet Valley and The Golden Helmet, are included in this set. Barks, along with Don Rosa, was the most well-recognized illustrator of Donald Duck. He also created Scrooge McDuck, the wealthy “adventure-capitalist” who still ranks among the most memorable of Disney characters. All three stories hold up well, including my personal favourite, The Golden Helmet, which involves a search by Donald and his three nephews, Huey, Dewey and Louie, to find an ancient Viking helmet located somewhere on the coast of Labrador, Canada.

Comics on Canada Day? Why not, eh?

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Republican leaders in the House are sprinting toward a Wednesday vote on President Donald Trump’s tax and spending cuts package, determined to seize momentum from a hard-fought vote in the Senate while essentially daring members to defy their party’s leader and vote against it. It’s a risky gambit designed to meet Trump’s demand for a July 4 finish.

Here’s the latest:

Trump urges House Republicans to vote for his tax and spending cuts package

The encouragement comes as the Republican-controlled House sprints toward a vote Wednesday on the bill after it cleared the Senate by the narrowest of margins a day earlier.

Vice President JD Vance, in his role as Senate president, cast the tie-breaking vote on the measure.

Some House GOP members have voiced reservations about the bill. House Democrats are united in their opposition to the legislation.

“Republicans, don’t let the Radical Left Democrats push you around. We’ve got all the cards, and we are going to use them,” Trump said in a post on his social media site.

The Associated Press




Prime Minister Mark Carney winked at the start of his Oval Office meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump. And at the recent G7 leader's summit in Alberta, Carney, who had been watching Trump speak, turned his head slightly toward someone behind the camera and winked with his left eye.

The prime minister is a habitual winker. Once is once, two is a coincidence, three is a trend, and National Post counts at least four prominent public winks by

Mark Carney

since winning the top office — in Rideau Hall at his swearing in, in the Oval Office, and twice at the

G7

in Kananaskis, Alta. — plus many more going back to his governorship of the Bank of England.

Are these winks deliberate or have they become second nature? Do they mean something? Must they always? If they do, why not just say it? If they don’t, why risk causing misunderstanding or diplomatic insult? Winking around U.S. President

Donald Trump

, which accounts for three of the above examples, especially has an air of recklessness that clashes with Carney’s steady hands image.

A wink seems private even when it is public. It exudes self confidence, but it can seem sly. It can undermine carefully chosen words. It can literally mean “I am lying.” But it can also mean “I’ve got this.”

A wink as Carney does it “communicates a level of comfort with the idea of being noticed,” said Stewart Prest, lecturer in political science at the University of British Columbia. “But it could spiral badly if it is misconstrued.”

At the recent G7 leader’s summit, for example, after lamenting Russia’s absence, Trump was answering a question about what was holding up a trade deal with Canada. “I have a tariff concept,” he said. “Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like.”

Just then, at this awkward backhand compliment, Carney, who had been watching Trump speak, turned his head slightly toward someone behind the camera and

winked with his left eye

, which pulled the corner of his lip up into the briefest hint of a smile that threatened to become a smirk.

Soon after, Trump was leaving the summit and talking to the media alongside Carney and French President Emmanuel Macron. Just as Trump said they got a lot done, including a U.S. trade deal with the U.K., Carney looked away from Trump toward Macron and winked,

this time with his right eye

, but with the same risky ripple of humour crossing his face.

Some people wink at what they say themselves. Carney just as often winks at what other people say, and not to the speaker, but to their audience.

Prest’s view is that Carney’s winks in Trump’s presence are typical of his style, in that they operate on three levels. This offers a theoretical framework for how to understand Carney winks in general, what they mean, and who they are for, he said.

At one level, Carney is communicating with Trump, in public, quietly listening to him. At a higher level he is communicating with Macron about Trump, in a sort of privacy, signalling an internal reaction to Trump’s words that Carney has decided not to vocalize. At the highest level he is communicating with the all-seeing public on the other side of the camera lens, indicating his comfort in playing all these etiquette games at the same time.

“It’s a high-wire act,” said Prest. “If it goes badly, it could go very badly.”

He needs to be careful that the wink includes the public, not excludes it. “The subtext always has to bring the public along,” Prest said. They need to know what Carney is trying to communicate, that he is confidently in control, and they also have to believe him. Otherwise it’s just a cocky facial tic.

Some winks are simple, obvious. Some winks need to be accounted for more deeply. Winks are almost always ambiguous, but sometimes they mean something important. Criminal court judges have faced this problem more than most. For example, in a 2017 murder case against a Richmond Hill, Ont., man accused of beating his roommate to death, a judge had to decide whether to let a witness testify about the meaning of a wink, and was troubled by its uncertain air of “innuendo.”

A friend of the victim had told police he had seen bruising on the victim’s ribs a couple of weeks before the killing, so he asked what happened. The victim explained he fell down the stairs, or off his bike, but then he winked, and when the friend asked what that meant, the victim said “Kenny’s got a hard punch,” referring to the accused.

The key problem, the judge said, was that it was not clear the victim winked and spoke at the exact same time, such that the wink directly contradicted the claim of falling down the stairs, and implied that the truth was Kenny punched him. It wasn’t clear “whether the wink and the comment were part of a single, ongoing transaction.”

That jury never heard the wink story, and eventually found the accused guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

Winks have been admitted as criminal evidence, however, such as in the 2017 Montreal case of the undercover police agent who testified about getting a “101 course” in robbery of shopping mall jewellery stores from the suspected culprit that was so convincing, so finely detailed, that the undercover officer asked whether the suspect had actually ever robbed the target store he was describing, in the Carrefour Laval.

The accused laughed, winked, and said “no,” which the undercover took as “an implicit admission that the accused had indeed robbed the store in the past.”

So sometimes a wink can mean the opposite of what was just said, that I did not fall off my bike, that I did rob this jewellery store. What I have just said is not true, wink wink. You’ll just have to trust me, and I know you will.

 

 Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney winks during a press conference at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa on Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013.

For a national leader’s voting public, that strategy works until it doesn’t, Prest said. Carney is in something of a honeymoon phase, and his current winking spree coincides with surging approval numbers in his first months as prime minister. He can wink and trust that he will be understood in good faith. But that can change.

When she profiled Carney for the Sunday Times in 2020, as he took the United Nations job as Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, Charlotte Edwardes told the amusing story of being on a group tour with him through a Picasso exhibit at the Tate Modern in London, led by a curator who kept pointing out hidden penises in the Cubist paintings, and on the fifth or sixth one (a reclining woman whom the curator explained had a penis extending from her head) she caught Carney’s eye and “corpsed,” which is to say she laughed at this inappropriate moment. He joked about it afterwards in a deadpan: “Are you absolutely sure that you could see the penises?” She did not mention whether he said so with a wink, but it seems possible, and later in the piece, she said Carney told her he took the job of governor of the Bank of England because he likes a challenge, and he said so “with a wink.”

Could the winking thus be a bit de trop? Could it get creepy? Or cheesy? With the accumulation of political baggage, could Carney’s winks ever grow as stale as Justin Trudeau’s novelty socks?

“The wink will be perceived as Mr. Carney is perceived,” Prest said.

So, maybe. One day, the winks might turn sour. It would only be then that the leader with a “winking problem,” as the

National Post’s John Ivison once called it

, becomes a winker with a leading problem. Until then, Prest said, Carney seems to be pulling it off.

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.


A Glock pistol. An Edmonton judge acquitted a man found with loaded Glock 9mm handgun, arguing the search was illegal. (Photo by JOE KLAMAR/AFP via Getty Images)

In Edmonton last month, a judge laid the groundwork to acquit a man who, while sporting clear hallmarks of drug dealing, was caught by police packing a loaded Glock. If you’re ever wondering why crime is on the rise in Canada, you can look straight to decisions like these by our courts.

This

recent example

comes to us from 30-year-old Haider Aftab Khan, who was recently acquitted of a pile of gun and drug charges. On June 11, he succeeded in convincing Justice Derek Jugnauth, a former criminal defence lawyer

appointed

by then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, to exclude the gun and drug evidence from his trial. This collapsed the Crown’s case.

Khan had been pulled over in a Ford Explorer in the early hours of April 24, 2022. The vehicle had a license plate covering, an illegal addition that caught the attention of a pair of police on patrol. The officers ran the plate number and found the SUV was registered to a Calgary owner who was “subject to ‘a large paragraph’ of court ordered conditions related to weapons and violence.” They pulled Khan over, and both approached the car.

One officer approached the car asked Khan for his license, insurance and registration; Khan couldn’t find his license, however, and provided an expired insurance slip; frantic, he searched his car, then his phone. The officer followed Khan’s hands with his flashlight (this was around 1 a.m.) — and saw a blue pill bottle without a lid that “looked like it had the paper scratched off” under the radio dash. Inside the bottle, the officer testified, were two baggies: one with pills, another with white powder.

At that point, Khan was arrested for drug possession. He was then patted down by the other officer, who found a Glock 9mm handgun loaded with four bullets.

Officers then searched the SUV, finding 40 oxycodone tablets and a gram of cocaine in the pill bottle — the label that was worn, illegible in some places, but not torn — along with a box of 30 45-calibre rounds from the centre console.

Khan was charged with improper storage of a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm in a vehicle, carrying a concealed weapon without authorization, and possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition (which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years). He was also slapped with two counts of drug possession.

When his day in court came along, Khan gave a different version of events — which the court didn’t buy. The SUV, he testified, was his cousin’s, and he had driven it to Edmonton to be worked on by a preferred mechanic; he’d been followed by three cruisers, not one; he had his phone recording during the traffic stop; he was dragged from his car, punched several times by the arresting officer, and then punched again several times by three other officers while handcuffed in the back of the cruiser; he’d sustained cuts to his face.

The pill bottle, Khan testified, wasn’t sitting under the radio in the front of the car — in fact, he claimed to have never seen it before.

The judge called BS: Khan’s story was “implausible” and “internally inconsistent.” No phone video was filed as evidence in his defence, the beat-down story didn’t make sense and no medical evidence supported the brutality allegations.

But on Khan’s side was the Charter — and Justice Jugnauth’s liberal reading of it.

To justify an arrest, an officer must have reasonable grounds to do so, supported by sufficient evidence that causes them to believe an offence has been committed.

The basis for Khan’s arrest was the pill bottle, which the officer believed had been tampered with. And, fair enough. Canadian police seize bottles with scratched labels in busts all the time. In

Sooke,

B.C., in

Grande Prairie,

Alta., in

Barrie,

Ont.,

London,

Ont., in

Corner Brook,

N.L. — to name a few cases. But it turned out the label in this case wasn’t scratched (though it was weathered), and its lidless quality with plastic sticking out the top

wasn’t enough

to satisfy the judge, who also thought the arresting officer didn’t have the training or experience to identify a suspicious bottle.

The cocaine baggie, in the judge’s view, was the only item that, if spotted, would have warranted a lawful arrest — but he didn’t believe that the officer could have seen it inside the bottle from his angle. No reasonable grounds were secured, which meant that all evidence stemming from the arrest — the gun, the drugs — was obtained illegally.

This wasn’t necessarily fatal to the case: judges have the option of allowing evidence borne from a Charter violation into trial if society’s interest in the prosecution is great enough. Heck, the Supreme Court of Canada

ruled in 2010

that unlawfully beating a non-compliant intoxicated driver to the point of breaking his ribs and puncturing a lung isn’t enough to get evidence tossed out.

However, Jugnauth found the police misconduct to be “serious,” and the breach of Khan’s rights to be on the extreme end of the state-intrusion spectrum. These factors were so heavy, in the judge’s view, they outweighed the

concealed loaded handgun

that posed an objective danger to society — and, in particular, the officers, had the traffic stop gone another way.

“Unlawfully carrying a loaded handgun on one’s person is an extremely serious offence that strikes at the heart of the community’s sense of security….

“In my view, society’s interest in bringing Mr. Khan to trial on the merits of this case strongly favours admitting the evidence. However, the strength of that pull is ameliorated to a degree by the importance of the public’s interest in knowing that citizens’ fundamental rights have meaning and the rule of law governs.”

And so, Jugnauth neutered the Crown’s case and acquitted Khan. The Alberta Crown Prosecution Service has not yet decided whether to appeal.

It’s not a major case, nor a bloody one, but it’s a decent demonstration of just how hard it is to manage public safety in Canada: even if a person is caught with a loaded gun strapped to the chest with illegal drugs semi-visible below the dash, that’s no guarantee they’ll be held to account for it.

We don’t need more gun bans targeting lawful owners — we need better judges.

National Post


Recently, I was a panellist at the Canadian Association of Journalists conference in Calgary. The session was titled, “Local Journalism in the Age of Cutbacks.” A great headline, sure, but that’s not why I was there. I was there to talk about our $8-billion class-action lawsuit against digital advertising giants Google and Facebook.

Alongside Sotos LLP, I launched a national class-action lawsuit in 2022. I’m the representative plaintiff in a case filed in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of all Canadian newspaper publishers, big and small, independent and chain owned. We allege that Google and Facebook have engaged in anti-competitive practices in digital advertising and siphoned billions in ad revenue from Canadian journalism.

If we really want to talk about cutbacks, then let’s talk about what’s causing them. The bleed of advertising dollars away from Canadian newsrooms and straight into the pockets of two unregulated tech giants is the reason we are all hurting. We can’t stop the drain without getting to the root of the problem. That’s what this lawsuit is about.

Our case is one of the first of its kind in the world. Countries like Australia, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have also picked up the cause, some with their own legal action, others with groundbreaking legislation forcing Big Tech to pay for journalism.

On that panel in Calgary, I listened to a lot of “woe is me.” Stories of shrinking newsrooms. Struggles to retain talent. Frustrations over government ad policy. It was the same old tune. The media in this country has become far too comfortable living with a victim mentality.

Well, I am nobody’s victim. I’m a fighter. And it’s time our industry remembered how to fight, too. What I didn’t hear on that stage was resolve. What I didn’t hear was fire. We’ve become so used to decline that we’ve forgotten how to push back and stand tall.

We forgot that newspapers aren’t just businesses. We’re institutions. We are the watchdogs. The check and balance. The public record. And somewhere along the way, we let Silicon Valley billionaires convince us we didn’t matter anymore.

Well, I haven’t forgotten. And I haven’t given up.

I run a small-town newspaper in Crowsnest Pass, Alta. I don’t have a national platform or a multimillion-dollar budget. But I have a spine, and I’m not afraid to use it. If a small community newspaper can step up and take on the giants, then so can every publisher in this country. Because if we don’t stand up for our work, our readers and our communities, who will?

Let me remind you: Canadians still believe in us. News Media Canada found that 81 per cent of Canadians read newspapers weekly, and 63 per cent trust newspaper advertising far more than ads on Facebook or Instagram. Even young readers are returning to trusted sources. So why are we acting like we’ve already lost?

This lawsuit isn’t just about money. It’s about restoring a fair playing field. It’s about holding the powerful accountable. It’s about saying “enough.”

If one local newspaper from a mountain town in southern Alberta can take on Google and Facebook, then maybe, just maybe, all of us can fight for Canadian culture and identity.

Under the leadership of its tenacious commissioner, Matthew Boswell, the Competition Bureau of Canada is doing its job and taking Google to court. It deserves our full support and all the resources it needs to protect Canadians from tech giants tilting the field in their favour.

I am a proud, independent, second-generation community newspaper publisher, a proud Conservative, a proud Albertan, but most of all I am a very proud Canadian. This pro-coal, pro-oil, pro-gas, pro-pipeline gal has been pleasantly surprised and impressed by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s willingness and determination to get stuff done and move our economy forward and unlock our promise and potential after a decade of dithering. He, and all of us, have the power to lead the world in this fight if we choose to do so.

Let Canada be the democratic beacon in an increasingly autocratic world by standing up to Big Tech giants and safeguarding local news and our digital sovereignty.

National Post

Lisa Sygutek is the publisher of the Crowsnest Pass Herald.


Federal Industry Minister Mélanie Joly.

OTTAWA — The federal government is set to make a highly anticipated decision in the coming weeks regarding internet affordability.

The CRTC recently reiterated its decision

issued last year authorizing Canada’s three major telecommunications companies to resell fibre optics to internet service providers (ISP) on their respective networks.

At the time, then-Minister of Industry François-Philippe Champagne asked the regulator to review its decision, which notably grants Telus more options to access new markets.

According to the regulator, “several thousand Canadian households” are already benefiting from new plans offered by “dozens of providers that are using the access enabled by the Final Decision.”

“Changing course now would reverse the benefits of this increased competition and would prevent more Canadians from having new choices of ISPs in the future,” wrote the CRTC in its June 20 decision.

However, many telecommunications companies are fighting back and exerting pressure on the federal government, particularly Industry Minister Mélanie Joly, to overturn the CRTC’s decision, arguing that it will have a negative impact on investment and competition across the country.

For them, the case is not over and the final decision has not yet been rendered.

They have financial analyses, including from Bank of America and National Bank, that predict “a decline in future investments in telecommunications infrastructure” if the decision is maintained.

Federal cabinet is expected to confirm or overturn the CRTC decision by Aug. 13.

“We take note of the CRTC’s decision to retain mandated wholesale access to fibre networks,” said Joly’s spokesperson, Isabella Orozco-Madison, in a statement. “Cabinet will make its decision on the petition before it in due course.”

The battle between the telecom giants, which began years ago before the federal regulator, is highly political in nature. A source indicated that Telus is also making every effort to ensure that the CRTC’s decision is upheld by Ottawa.

In an interview with National Post, Cogeco Communications’ chief legal and corporate officer said that telecoms will play a crucial role in Canada’s defence, housing, energy, artificial intelligence and agriculture sectors, and that the government must adopt policies that will promote their prosperity.

“It’s really about the moment we’re in as a country, and we don’t have time for regulation that doesn’t make sense and defeats its own objectives,” said Paul Cowling.

Smaller providers like Cogeco, or even independent providers that don’t have their own facilities, could very well be threatened by this policy if Ottawa signs off on it, they say.

“We want to compete, and we want to offer more choice in the marketplace… That becomes very challenging when your biggest competitors, who have many advantages over you, are empowered by the regulator to compete unfairly against you,” said Cowling.

For example, this decision would give Telus, which is strong in Western Canada, the opportunity to use other providers’ networks to add thousands of customers in Ontario and Quebec instead of building its own infrastructure.

Bell Canada’s executive vice president, Robert Malcolmson, recently said that “as a direct result” of the policy, his company has reduced its capital expenditures by $500 million in 2025 alone and by over $1.2 billion since the CRTC’s initial decision in November 2023.

“The CRTC policy will continue to have major negative impacts well into the future,” he wrote in a

scathing statement

.

In the meantime, Telus keeps telling Canadians how important this policy is. The Vancouver-based provider launched a petition online that has gained over 300,000 signatures to support the CRTC decision.

In the petition description, Telus writes “the federal government tried to limit competition, and could do so again” and that “some home internet carriers are still trying to restrict the brands you can choose from.”

“Upholding the decision reinforces the independence of expert regulators, which is necessary to create the certainty needed for Canadian businesses to continue to invest with confidence,” said Telus director of public affairs Richard Gilhooley.

Recently, B.C. premier David Eby said he was “pleased to see CRTC’s decision to uphold its ruling allowing for greater competition.”

“This is great news for BC headquartered Telus and for jobs in BC,” he wrote on social media.

According to

a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report

, the telecommunications sector contributed an estimated $87.3 billion to Canada’s GDP last year.

Now, internet carriers like BCE and Cogeco argue that sustaining this level of economic impact requires a regulatory environment that supports continued investment.

“And what we need in this country right now is more investment. We need more investment in strong digital infrastructure, other telecommunications networks… Our economic ambition is really dependent on having strong connectivity in our economy today, nothing works without connectivity,” said Cowling.

National Post

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.


Three people walk in front of a line of soldiers and a large Canadian flag.

Following all of the political sound and fury and sticker shock of last week’s NATO summit in The Hague, the question of what Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government wants to accomplish with all of that money — on an annual basis — is coming into even sharper focus.


Jackson, Miss. (AP) — More than 60 years after a white supremacist assassinated civil rights leader Medgar Evers, his daughter still sees the same strain of political violence at work in American society.

“It’s painful,” said Reena Evers-Everette. “It’s very painful.”

Evers-Everette was 8 years old when her father, a field secretary for the NAACP, was shot to death in the driveway of his home in Jackson, Mississippi.

A few months after Evers’ killing in 1963, President John F. Kennedy was gunned down. The deaths of civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, and U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy followed later that decade.

Now, experts say the level of political violence in America over the past few years is likely the highest it’s been since the 1960s and 1970s. The past year alone has seen the assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers, and two assassination attempts on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

At a four-day conference celebrating Evers’ life just before what would have been his 100th birthday on July 2, his daughter was joined by the daughters of slain civil rights leaders: Kerry Kennedy, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, and Bettie Dahmer, the daughter of civil and voting rights activist Vernon Dahmer. The 2025 Democracy in Action Convening, “Medgar Evers at 100: a Legacy of Justice, a Future of Change,” was held in Jackson.

“I just was feeling so much pain, and I didn’t want anyone else to have to go through that,” Kennedy said, recalling that after her father died, she prayed for the man who killed him. “I was saying, ‘Please don’t — please don’t kill the guy that killed him.’”

Two-time Georgia gubernatorial candidate and voting rights activist Stacey Abrams spoke at the event, denouncing efforts by the Trump administration to strip the names of activists from Navy vessels, including possibly Evers.

“They want to take his name off a boat because they don’t want us to have a reminder of how far he sailed us forward,” Abrams told the conference crowd.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has undertaken an effort to change the names of ships and military bases that were given by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, which often honored service members who were women, people of color, or from the LGBTQ+ community.

Abrams drew parallels between acts of radical political violence and the Trump administration’s use of military resources against protesters in Los Angeles who were demonstrating against immigration enforcement actions.

“Unfortunately, we cannot decry political violence and then sanction the sending of the Marines and the National Guard to stop protesters and not believe that that conflicting message doesn’t communicate itself,” Abrams told The Associated Press. “What I want us to remember is that whether it is Medgar Evers or Melissa Hortman, no one who is willing to speak for the people should have their lives cut short because of what they say.”

In addition to her father’s life and legacy, Evers-Everette wants people to remember the hatred that led to his assassination.

“We have to make sure we know what our history is,” she said. “So we don’t repeat the crazy, nasty, racist mess.”

Sophie Bates, The Associated Press



WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump keeps saying that Republicans’ mega tax and spending cut legislation will eliminate taxes on federal Social Security benefits.

It does not.

At best, Trump’s “no tax on Social Security” claim exaggerates the benefits to seniors if either the House or Senate-passed proposals is signed into law.

Here’s a look at Trump’s recent statements, and what the proposals would — or would not — do.

What Trump has said

Trump repeatedly told voters during his 2024 campaign that he would eliminate taxes on Social Security. As his massive legislative package has moved through Congress, the Republican president has claimed that’s what the bill would do.

Trump said on a recent appearance on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that the bill includes “no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime.”

A temporary tax deduction

But instead of eliminating the tax, the Senate and House have each passed their own versions of a temporary tax deduction for seniors aged 65 and over, which applies to all income — not just Social Security.

And it turns out not all Social Security beneficiaries will be able to claim the deduction. Those who won’t be able to do so include the lowest-income seniors who already don’t pay taxes on Social Security, those who choose to claim their benefits before they reach age 65 and those above a defined income threshold.

The Senate proposal includes a temporary $6,000 deduction for seniors over the age of 65, contrasted with the House proposal, which includes a temporary deduction of $4,000.

The Senate proposal approved Tuesday would eliminate Social Security tax liability for seniors with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 or less or $150,000 if filing as a married couple.

If passed into law, the tax deduction would last four years, from 2025 to 2029.

The deductions phase out as income increases.

White House touts impact

Touting a new Council of Economic Advisers analysis, the White House said Tuesday that “88% of all seniors who receive Social Security — will pay NO TAX on their Social Security benefits,” going on to say that the Senate proposal’s $6,000 senior deduction “is estimated to benefit 33.9 million seniors, including seniors not claiming Social Security. The deduction yields an average increase in after-tax income of $670 per senior who benefits from it.”

Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation think tank, said conflating the tax deduction with a claim that there will be no tax on Social Security could end up confusing and angering a lot of seniors who will expect to not pay taxes on their Social Security benefits.

“While the deduction does provide some relief for seniors, it’s far from completely repealing the tax on their benefits,” Watson said.

Economic effect

The cost of actually eliminating the tax on Social Security would have massive impacts on the economy.

University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that eliminating income taxes on Social Security benefits “would reduce revenues by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase federal debt by 7 percent by 2054″ and speed up the projected depletion date of the Social Security Trust Fund from 2034 to 2032.

Discussions over taxes on Social Security are just part of the overall bill, which is estimated in its Senate version to increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Administration officials have said the cost of the tax bill would be offset by tariff income.

Recently, the CBO separately estimated that Trump’s sweeping tariff plan would cut deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period while shrinking the economy, raising the inflation rate and reducing the purchasing power of households overall.

Fatima Hussein, The Associated Press