LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Canadian snowbirds could stay longer in the United States without a visa if a bill recently proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives becomes law.

The bipartisan bill put forward by Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, Laurel Lee of Florida and Greg Stanton of Arizona proposes to extend the time Canadian citizens can stay in the U.S. without a visa from 180 days to 240.

The Canadian Snowbird Visa Act, introduced at the end of April, would provide the longer timeframe for those aged 50 and over who both maintain a home in Canada and either own or lease a U.S. residence.

The proposal comes as many Canadians are choosing not to travel south because of U.S. President Donald Trump’s ongoing trade war and threats of annexation, while a lower loonie and rising insurance rates have also pushed Canadian snowbirds to sell their U.S. homes.

Lee says in a news release that extending the amount of time Canadians can stay in the U.S. would support local communities and job growth, as well as strengthen bonds with their closest neighbours.

The bill comes as the U.S. has also moved to require Canadians who are in the U.S. for more than 30 days to register with the government.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 10, 2025.

Ian Bickis, The Canadian Press


President Donald Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry have discussed U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow challenging U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy in next year’s Republican primary, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

The Republican governor’s promotion of a new challenger to Cassidy reflects unease within Trump’s base about the two-term senator. Cassidy voted to convict Trump in Trump’s 2021 impeachment trial over the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. And Cassidy, who is a medical doctor, expressed doubts about Trump’s pick of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the nation’s health secretary before voting to confirm Kennedy.

Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate and have a favorable electoral map in the 2026 midterms to help them keep control. But Cassidy is among several GOP senators up for reelection next year who are facing challenging primaries over past moves to distance themselves from Trump.

For the senator, “the biggest hurdle is going to be the impeachment vote. That’s what he has to overcome. And I don’t think he has the mindset to say, ‘I made a mistake,’” said Eddie Rispone, the Republican nominee for Louisiana governor in 2019 and a Cassidy supporter. “And Louisiana is a big Trump state.”

Landry, a close Trump ally, spoke last month with the president about Letlow as a potential Senate candidate, according to two people with knowledge of the conversation. They were granted anonymity to share contents of a conversation they were not authorized to discuss publicly.

A spokesperson for Letlow declined to comment on a potential campaign for Senate or the discussion between Landry and Trump. Landry’s office declined to comment.

Landry, elected in 2023, has been advocating for Letlow to consider a run, according to the people who confirmed their April conversation about Letlow. A Senate seat would be a safe bet for a Republican given that Trump received 60% of the vote in carrying Louisiana last year.

Republican insiders describe Landry and Cassidy not as close, but as having a cordial working relationship despite a difference in their feelings of loyalty to Trump, which creates some distance between Cassidy and segments of the party base in the state.

“Senator Cassidy delivers conservative results for the people of Louisiana,” Cassidy spokesperson Ashley Bosch said in a statement. “He’s worked hard to support the President’s agenda and we’re confident voters will re-elect him next year.”

Letlow is a three-term Republican representative from northeast Louisiana. She won the seat in a special election in March 2021 after her husband, Luke, had been elected but died of complications from COVID-19.

Letlow sits on the influential House Appropriations Committee. Her district was a mostly rural swath of northeast Louisiana when she arrived in Congress. It has shifted as a result of a redistricting map ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024 and now also include parts of metropolitan Baton Rouge, where Cassidy lives.

Cassidy already faces one major challenger, Louisiana State Treasurer John Fleming, a former congressman.

Some Republican activists in the state condemned Cassidy for his 2021 vote to convict Trump, a vote Cassidy said afterward he was “at peace” casting.

The state Republican executive committee voted unanimously to censure Cassidy. The Republican committee in Bossier Parish, which includes the city of Shreveport in northwest Louisiana, adopted a censure measure describing Cassidy as “an object of extreme shame” and called for his resignation.

Trump revived his public contempt for Cassidy a year ago after the senator spoke out when the then-former president promised to pardon those convicted in connection with the Capitol riot; Trump did that after taking office in January.

In an April 2024 post on Truth Social, Trump called Cassidy “one of the worst Senators in the United States Senate” and a “disloyal lightweight.”

Louisiana’s new congressional primary election system also could be a wrinkle for Cassidy.

Until the new system was adopted this year, congressional candidates from all parties seeking the same office ran on the same ballot regardless of party affiliation. In these so-called jungle primaries, only a candidate who received 50% of the vote would win the office outright. If no one reached the threshold, the top two finishers would face each other in a runoff.

Next year, only voters who note Republican affiliation on their voter registration — and those who affiliate with no party — will be able to participate in the GOP Senate primary. The effect is seen as a potential challenge for Cassidy, who had benefited from the less-partisan nature of the old system.

“It does tighten it a little bit for him, because you do have the far-right Republicans — for them, it’s going to be hard to forgive him for that impeachment vote,” Rispone said.

Still, Cassidy has a clear fundraising advantage, with more than $7.4 million in his campaign account at the end of the first quarter. Cassidy has also begun laying the campaign groundwork in Louisiana and is expected to announce his candidacy formally in the coming weeks.

And in a sign things might not be as bad with Trump as they were, Cassidy received different sort of recognition from the president at an economic event at the White House this month.

“We have some great people, great senators, here,” Trump said. “Bill Cassidy, thank you, Bill.”

Thomas Beaumont, The Associated Press



Beef prices are on the rise in Canada, while pork producers are coping with depressed prices, according to a new reports on grocery costs by Statistics Canada. (Jim Wells/Postmedia)

Amid the general upward trend in Canadian grocery prices, meat shopping in Canada has become more challenging.

However, while the price of most beef products has risen, pork prices have dropped, according to the latest

Statistics Canada report

on monthly average prices for selected food products.

Retail

beef prices have risen

an average of 10-12 per cent in early 2025, with further moderate increases expected throughout the year.

Causes of rising beef prices

This is based on several interconnected factors. First is the

restricted supply of beef cattle

. Drought in western Canada and the U.S. has reduced cattle herds, leading to a smaller supply of beef and higher prices.

Drought has also driven up the

cost of feed grains

such as corn and barley, which are among the principal costs in cattle production. That contrasts with 

feed costs for hogs

(corn and barley), which are expected to remain below average in 2025. That’s good for pork producers as it will support improved margins for hog farmers.

Meanwhile, international demand for Canadian beef, especially in Asia, has been robust, keeping domestic prices high.

In contrast, pork prices in Canada are falling.

Tariffs hurting pork producers

The

threat of U.S. tariffs

loom for Canadian pork exports. If tariffs take effect, Canadian

pork exports to the U.S. could decline sharply,

forcing more pork into the domestic market and pushing prices further down. Retail price-estimates

suggest a 2 per cent decline

in retail pork prices if U.S. tariffs are enacted.

Meanwhile, exports to markets like Japan, Mexico, and South Korea are growing, but the loss of the Chinese market due to Canada’s tariff battle with China has also increased the risk of domestic oversupply. In March, China imposed a 100 per cent tariff on canola oil, oil cakes and pea imports, and a 25 per cent duty on Canadian aquatic products and pork.

Decreased pork consumption

Meanwhile, Canadian pork producers have been coping with decreased domestic consumption — a decline of about 12 per cent year-over-year in 2024. Consumers shifted to other proteins when pork prices were higher.

Pork farmers are also coping with recent research that indicates

beef consumers are less likely to reduce beef purchase

and switch to pork, even when beef prices rise. The research shows even substantial price hikes in beef result in only modest increases in demand for pork or chicken.

Conversely,

many pork buyers will reduce consumption

or switch to alternatives if pork prices rise, especially in lower-income or more price-sensitive demographics.

Here are some of the price changes in beef and pork noted by StatsCan:

Beef stewing cuts

2024: $16.68/kg, 2025: $19.33/kg

Beef striploin cuts

2024: $27.59/kg, 2025: $35/kg

Beef top sirloin cuts

2024: $18.57/kg, 2025: $22.06/kg

Beef rib cuts

2024: $23.80/kg, 2025: $39.01/kg

Ground beef

2024: $11.72/kg, 2025: $13.85/kg

Pork loin cuts

2024: $9.53/kg, 2025: $8.72/kg

Pork rib cuts

2024: $9.57/kg, 2025: $8.35/kg

Pork shoulder cuts

2024: $9.01/kg, 2025: $7.23/kg

Pork wieners

2024: $4.13/400 g, 2025: $4.07/400 g

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 daily newsletter, Posted, here.


The flags of Quebec and Canada are shown on flagpoles.

A new poll reveals that more than 80 per cent of Quebec residents say that they’re part of the Canadian nation.

The findings showed that despite the rhetoric by political leaders in the province that push for separatism, the majority of residents may not feel that way, according to the poll. Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet

called Canada an “artificial country

with very little meaning,” in April, ahead of the federal election. This week,

Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon showed support for Alberta Premier Danielle Smith

, who dangled the possibility of a referendum before the federal government to leverage demands. St-Pierre Plamondon called the move a “striking gesture” for the “autonomy and defence of her own province.”

The Association for Canadian Studies poll was conducted by Leger on May 1 to May 3. Leger asked Quebec residents, who believe that to be a nation means that members share a common culture, language and history, if they are part of the Canadian nation. Around 82 per cent agreed that they are.

Other Canadians, who also held the same definition of what it means to be a nation, were asked whether they agreed that Quebecers are part of the Canadian nation. Nearly the same amount, 83 per cent, agreed.

Meanwhile, the poll found that roughly 72 per cent of Bloc Québécois voters said Quebecers are part of the Canadian nation. This is compared to the 90 per cent of Liberal voters in Quebec who agreed, 78 per cent of Conservative voters, and 83 per cent of NDP voters.

“I was surprised at the extent to which a clear majority of Bloc Québécois voters agreed that the Quebecers were part of the Canadian nation,” said president and CEO of the Association for Canadian Studies and Metropolis Institute Jack Jedwab in an emailed statement to National Post. “It speaks to the degree to which Quebecers and other Canadians don’t make the distinctions politicians and academics insist (on making) between nations and countries.”

He continued: “Too often some politicians and academics appear to be blurring the distinction between nation and country to support a political objective.”

The federal election seemed to spark the question of separatism in other provinces as well.

Albertans have rallied recently

to show their support for separatism, and in another Leger poll, more than half of Canadians said that

Alberta separation should be taken seriously

. In mid-April,

a survey showed

that residents of Saskatchewan wanted to leave Canada the most, compared to other provinces, if Liberals won the election.

However, the findings from the new Leger poll suggest that Quebecers may now be more willing to turn away from separatism. This could be due to increased tensions between the U.S. and Canada since President Donald Trump took office. There has been a push among Canadians

to buy local goods

and to

travel within in the country

.

One Quebec resident and longtime Bloc Québécois supporter, Lucie Nucciaroni,

told CBC News

ahead of the federal election that although she was a a Quebec sovereigntist, “preserving Canada’s sovereignty is even more important.”

“We can’t live like Americans. Quebec needs Canada and Canada needs Quebec,” she said.

The responses to the poll came from 1,626 respondents in Canada. A margin of error cannot be associated with a non-probability sample in a panel survey for comparison purposes. A probability sample of 1626 respondents would have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

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 daily newsletter, Posted, here.


WASHINGTON (AP) — About half of U.S. adults approve of how President Donald Trump is handling transgender issues, according to a new poll — a relative high point for a president who has the approval overall of about 4 in 10 Americans.

But support for his individual policies on transgender people is not uniformly strong, with a clearer consensus against policies that affect youth.

The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey conducted this month found there’s more support than opposition on allowing transgender troops in the military, while most don’t want to allow transgender students to use the public school bathrooms that align with their gender identity and oppose using government programs to pay for gender-affirming health care for transgender youth.

Schuyler Fricchione, a 40-year-old stay-at-home mother from northern Virginia, is one of those who opposes the government paying for gender-affirming care, especially for young people.

She said she doesn’t want people to make major changes that they might later regret. But she said that because of her Catholic faith, she doesn’t want to exclude transgender people from public life. “It’s very important to me that everyone understands their dignity and importance as a person.”

“It is something I am kind of working through myself,” she said. “I am still learning.”

Most adults agree with Trump that sex is determined at birth

About two-thirds of U.S. adults agree with President Donald Trump that whether a person is a man or woman is determined by their biological characteristics at birth.

The poll found that Republicans overwhelmingly believe gender identity is defined by sex at birth, but Democrats are divided, with about half saying gender identity can differ from biological characteristics at birth. The view that gender identity can’t be separated from sex at birth view contradicts what the American Medical Association and other mainstream medical groups say: that extensive scientific research suggests sex and gender are better understood as a spectrum than as an either-or definition.

A push against the recognition and rights of transgender people, who make up about 1% of the nation’s population, has been a major part of Trump’s return to the White House — and was a big part of his campaign.

He has signed executive orders calling for the government to classify people by unchangeable sex rather than gender, oust transgender service members and kick transgender women and girls out of sports competitions for females. Those actions and others are being challenged in court, and judges have put many of his efforts on hold.

The public is divided on some issues — and many are neutral

Despite being a hot-button issue overall, a big portion of the population is neutral or undecided on several key policies.

About 4 in 10 people supported requiring public schoolteachers to report to parents if their children are identifying at school as transgender or nonbinary. About 3 in 10 opposed it and a similar number was neutral.

About the same portion of people — just under 4 in 10 — favored allowing transgender troops in the military as were neutral about it. About one-quarter opposed it.

Tim Phares, 59, a registered Democrat in Kansas who says he most often votes for Republicans, is among those in the middle on that issue.

One on hand, he said, “Either you can do the job or you can’t do the job.” But on the other, he added, “I’m not a military person, so I’m not qualified to judge how it affects military readiness.”

This month, a divided U.S. Supreme Court allowed Trump’s administration to enforce a ban on transgender people in the military while legal challenges proceed, a reversal of what lower courts have said.

Most object to government coverage of gender-affirming care for youth

About half oppose allowing government insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to cover gender-affirming medical care, such as hormone therapy and surgery, for transgender people 19 or older. About two-thirds oppose it for those under 19.

And on each of those questions, a roughly equal portion of the populations support the coverage or is neutral about it.

One of Trump’s executive orders keeps federal insurance plans from paying for gender-affirming care for those under 19. A court has ruled that funding can’t be dropped from institutions that provide the care, at least for now.

Meanwhile, Trump’s administration this month released a report calling for therapy alone and not broader gender-affirming health care for transgender youth. Twenty-seven states have bans on the care for minors, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule in coming months over whether the bans can hold.

Forming a stance is easy for some

While Democrats are divided on many policies related to transgender issues, they’re more supportive than the population overall. There is no anguish over the issue or other transgender policy questions for Isabel Skinner, a 32-year-old politics professor in Illinois.

She has liberal views on transgender people, shaped partly by her being a member of the LGBTQ+ community as a bisexual and pansexual person, and also by knowing transgender people.

She was in the minority who supported allowing transgender students to use the public-school bathrooms that match their gender identity — something that at least 14 states have passed laws to ban in the last five years.

“I don’t understand where the fear comes from,” Skinner said, “because there really doesn’t seem to be any basis of reality for the fear of transgender people.”

___

Mulvihill reported from New Jersey.

___

The AP-NORC poll of 1,175 adults was conducted May 1-5, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Geoff Mulvihill And Linley Sanders, The Associated Press


OTTAWA — For some politicians, the grief takes time to set in.

For former London West MP Sue Barnes, however, the sense of loss after being defeated in her 2008 re-election bid landed like a thud.

Barnes, like other MPs, had been living a life of too many people to see, too many things to read, too many events to attend, too few hours in the day. But there was no shortage of purpose.

That’s the way it had been pretty much for 15 years in Parliament for the first woman elected to represent any riding in her southwestern Ontario city. And then, after a few hours of ballot counting, it was all gone.

“It hit me immediately,” she recalled this week.

Barnes compared the grief of her electoral loss, in tone, but certainly not in degree, with the recent loss of her husband John, who died in January 2024 after a long battle with Parkinson’s disease. She had spent much of her post-political life, especially the last five years, as his primary caregiver.

Barnes and the extensive club of former MPs got a new set of members last week when Canadian voters kicked dozens of their representatives to the curb.

According to an initial tally by former Nova Scotia MP Francis LeBlanc, an active member of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, the recent election saw 46 MPs lose their seats. Another 65 chose not to run again.

“This was a big wave,” said LeBlanc, in reference to the turnover of 111 former MPs from Canada’s 343 ridings.

It’s the natural cycle of political life. It’s part of the job and part of a healthy democracy.

But for those who lose their jobs, it still hurts. And this latest batch of defeated federal representatives will follow the patterns of the past: Some will grieve for a period and then move on to do other things. For others, it won’t be at all easy.

“It’s the only job in the world where you get publicly hired and publicly fired,” said Bryon Wilfert, a former Liberal MP who represented Richmond Hill outside of Toronto for 14 years. “For some (the loss) doesn’t sink in for months.”

Former Liberal cabinet minister Mark Holland was among those who struggled severely, descending after his 2011 loss into a dark enough place that he attempted suicide. Speaking to a Parliamentary committee in 2022, Holland said he had devoted almost his entire life to politics, had let too many other things in his life slide, and then woke up after seven years as an MP following defeat “in a desperate spot.”

“I was told that I was toxic,” he said during an emotional speech to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. “The Conservatives hated me. No organization would hire me. My marriage failed. My space with my children was not in a good place and most particularly my passion — the thing I believed so ardently in … the purpose of my life — was in ashes at my feet.”

Holland returned to the House of Commons in 2015, and later served as minister of health before deciding not to run in this most recent election.

But his is not the only tale of caution. And it’s not just federal politicians who face post-election challenges.

 Former Liberal MP Sue Barnes, with her husband John, already grieving the loss of her London West riding on election night, Oct. 14, 2008.

Lorenzo Berardinetti, a former Toronto city councillor and Ontario MPP with a 30-year career in politics, faced a series of challenges in the immediate years after losing in the 2018 provincial election: difficulty finding work, a divorce, a brain seizure and the rising cost of housing.

By 2023, he was living in a homeless shelter in Ajax, Ont., where he stayed for more than a year. “I never thought this would have happened to me,” he was quoted as saying earlier this year, “but it happened.”

Thanks to a former political staffer at Toronto City Hall and Queen’s Park who started an online fundraising campaign, Berardinetti found shelter.

Not all former MPs, of course, face the severe challenges faced by Holland or Berardinetti. LeBlanc said it’s impossible to quantify the number struggling with serious problems but warns that it’s a “significant minority.”

Michael Browning, an Ottawa psychotherapist who has treated MPs in the past, said losing an election is similar to any other major professional setback, except it’s often more severe emotionally because of the huge sacrifices involved. Another important factor, he added, is that unlike many other professional defeats, such as losing a bid for promotion, there’s no existing job to fall back on.

“There’s no consolation prize,” said Browning, the director of The Whitestone Clinic.

Alain Therrien, the MP for the Quebec riding of La Prairie-Atateken for more than five years until last week, said it’s a bit easier to deal with an election loss when you’ve been through it before.

“It’s tough, that’s for sure,” he said. “But for me, it’s my fourth time, so I’m starting to get used to it.”

Therrien, the Bloc Quebecois’ House Leader in the most recent parliament, said elected officials must try to remember that the jobs are always temporary.

“(The voters) have the right to say ‘we would like to have someone other than you.’ We must accept it.”

Therrien said he isn’t sure what he’ll do next, but he hasn’t ruled out a return to teaching. Another run for public office is also possible.

Wilfert, the former Toronto-area MP, has been busy since leaving Parliament but he understands the grief. Former MPs, he said, have to transition from somebody whose time and attention are in high demand to possibly struggling to find work. Many find themselves struggling emotionally after the shock of a loss, with alcohol problems often entering the picture.

“Some are stunned,” said Wilfert, who compared an election loss to a relationship breakup. “This is going to be quite a shock.”

 Former Bloc Québécois MP Alain Therrien in the House of Commons. “It’s tough, that’s for sure. But for me, it’s my fourth time, so I’m starting to get used to it,” he says of his loss in last month’s election.

For Wilfert, like Barnes, the grief was almost immediate, hitting him as he was taking down campaign signs the day after the loss. “You feel like the roof fell in.”

That’s why Wilfert, LeBlanc and about 20 other former MPs involved in the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians will attempt in the coming days to contact each of the recently defeated MPs to extend a hand, show support and help prevent any roofs from falling in.

The non-profit, non-partisan organization’s official mandate is to gather former MPs and Senators to support global democracy. But it also offers a feeling of comradery that may help former MPs transition to their next chapters.

“There’s life after Parliament,” said Wilfert.

National Post,

with additional reporting from Antoine Trepanier

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

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 daily newsletter, Posted, here.


The Canadian flag and an Alberta provincial flag fly together in Cochrane on Tuesday March 4, 2025. 
Gavin Young/Postmedia

I’m not sure, as an Albertan, that the biggest Alberta political news of the week isn’t the official secession of

the Alberta New Democratic Party from the national NDP.

Last weekend members of the NDP-A voted at a general assembly to allow for separate provincial memberships in the party: no longer will the NDP be one and indivisible. It seems there is widespread agreement that Alberta’s economy and its political culture are so distinctive from Canada’s, and so permanently incompatible with it, that the two entities really needed to… what’s the word I’m looking for? “Separate”?

NDP-A leader Naheed Nenshi, who executed the NDP schism, also spent some of the weekend denouncing Premier Danielle Smith’s plans to allow and

even slightly facilitate

a referendum on Alberta independence: maybe I’m being flippant, but I guess he’s a separatist only for his own gang. As a federalist Albertan, I’ve observed a lot of dread and anger both inside and outside the province about Smith’s openness to using the threat of separatism as an advanced Quebecois-style version of what are otherwise time-honoured anti-Ottawa tactics.

Smith insists she favours a united Canada: even (or especially) if you take her at her word, any conscious risk to the political unity of the country could be seen as playing Russian roulette. On the other hand, she has to hold together her own political governing coalition, which certainly has a separatist minority of significant size within it. I do not see any reason whatsoever to believe that a test of genuine public separatist sentiment in Alberta, a test with stakes on the table, would accomplish anything other than to instantly reveal the pathetic size and feeble calibre of that minority.

I say this having near-total sympathy with most of Alberta’s grievances against Canada. The very constitution of the country is explicitly rigged to diminish our electoral and senatorial power. Our heavy funding of the rest of Confederation seems to earn us nothing but contempt from central Canada. I don’t have major complaints about explicit fiscal equalization between provinces per se, apart from the unceasing ad-hoc updates, but equalization is just the questionably necessary top layer of a cake.

Other provinces’ economies are all to some degree engineered around employment insurance, and around contrived seasonal industries that wink in and out of existence to allow for the hoovering of implicit labour subsidies from the federation. And unlike most of what the species calls “insurance,” eligibility to collect is lowered for the regions that use EI inveterately, not raised. The long-term effects of this haven’t been good for anybody.

Alberta’s contributions to the Canada Pension Plan are also, as the recent controversy over a project for an Alberta Pension Plan showed, enormously disproportionate. The most important source of Alberta’s relative wealth is its oil and gas, and perhaps the rest of Confederation is now prepared to stop treating this industry as a despicable moral poison. But what the RoC certainly won’t stop doing is dismissing Alberta hydrocarbons as a lucky endowment from heaven to which the province has no legitimate moral entitlement — unlike, say, nickel mines, or ocean fisheries, or hydropower, or potash and uranium, or old-growth forests and coastlines.

I’m a federalist anyway — and I’m sure I’m speaking for most Albertans. (At any rate, I can speak for any Albertans who, like me, put in a decade working at Alberta Report.) Say what you want about Quebec separatism: before it could become a threat to Confederation, it had to build, despite its huge inherent ethnic, linguistic, and historic advantages, and this took a good long time.

Alberta separatist political parties are gnats, invisible to the naked eye. They haven’t come within an order of magnitude of passing any electoral test, despite lots of chances, since the National Energy Program crisis. Alberta separatists don’t have recognizable intellectual leadership — none that you’d use those words to describe, anyway. They haven’t either captured or formed any popular journals of opinion. They haven’t written catchy songs that Albertans bellow at each other in bars.

The Maple Leaf flag is as popular here as anywhere. Try applying

Tebbit’s cricket test:

we Albertans cheer for Canada at the Olympics, and sing “O Canada” with incomparable gusto at hockey games. We don’t have an entire cultural vanguard that plays footsie with separatism. The separatists don’t have a permanent literature going back decades: there’s no ready-made Alberta pantheon, no list of Alberta sovereigntist classics.

And, of course, there’s the biggest problem of all. Who’s supposed to be the Alberta-separatist René Lévesque, the affable, stylish Alberta genius who routinely argues circles around federal ministers and Canada Council trough-feeders alike?

National Post


President Donald Trump meets Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, May 6, 2025, in Washington.

Mark Carney has returned from Washington and is taking a bow from the highly supportive Canadian political media for a very cordial meeting with U.S. President Trump. He set out to replicate his mighty but unsuccessful effort as governor of the Bank of England to terrorize the British public over the prospect of the United Kingdom departing the European Union, which Britain had never voted to enter, and squeaked into the minority reelection of an otherwise failed Liberal government of Canada as the man who could stand up to Donald Trump. President Trump heaped compliments on his visitor and with some justification took credit for Carney’s election victory, said that he (Trump) was the best thing that ever happened to him (Carney) and slapped him jovially on the knee. Readers will recall that I said at every stage that the hysteria about Trump was a nothingburger and that no more would be heard about Carney’s theory that “Trump is trying to break us” and that “This country’s intimacy with the United States is over, a tragedy but the reality.” When asked about this last week President Trump said “He was running for public office,” a gracious explanation of the ludicrous canard that Trump is any kind of a threat to Canada.

The fawning political media of Canada could not accept being debriefed as abruptly as the prime minister was. In its otherwise unexceptionable cover story article about the visit, in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, May 7, the word “annex” or “annexation” was repeated six times. Every informed person in Canada knows that the use of that word in this context is dishonest. Trump never spoke of annexation, which implies an involuntary takeover, something the United States did not do even with Texas or California, which it took from Mexico to the great pleasure of the inhabitants. Trump never uttered one word implying an aggressive act against the independence of Canada. He said that he thought the Canadians would do better as Americans after a voluntary federal union, and it was refreshing to hear him repeat this past week that if Canadians were Americans they would not only benefit from lower taxes but better health care, as well as being able to dispense with the defence budget altogether, since it has come so close to eliminating it anyway. Two whole generations of Canadians have been force-fed the fraud that Canada’s health-care system is superior to that of the United States; 80 per cent of Americans receive a level of health care beyond the dreams of any Canadian who does not go to the United States for medical treatment.

Some Canadian journalists even employed the word “Anschluss,” the German expression for annexation generally used in reference to Hitler’s occupation of Austria in 1938, as being Trump’s conception of the future of Canadian-American relations. And the media that touted Mark Carney as the virtuous and indomitable Dudley Do-Right to slay the American Goliath, when the whole scenario of total disruption of relations with the United States and American aggression was revealed as unutterable nonsense, have hailed his return from Washington as a triumph of the underdog. It is a triumph of political posturing and chicanery. In the abstract, Mr. Carney carried it off well and deserves professional commendation for selling a fable and then harvesting the credit for helping to banish the threat that never existed. The not-so-flattering aspect of this process is that where the British public correctly saw in 2016 that Carney’s Brexit ”Operation Fear” was a myth, as subsequent events have proved, Canadian voters were more gullible when presented with the new and much more implausible bogeyman of Donald Trump seeking to strangle the pure snow-maiden of the North. Trump this week repeated his well-known and oft-stated liking for Canada, had nothing but praise for Mark Carney and emphatically stated that Canadian-American relations would remain friendly and positive under any scenario. The Liberals’ monstrous electoral rodomontade, incredibly, saved a government which desperately deserved a punishing defeat on its record, and the Canadian political media that crooned the Liberal song sheet has justly praised the prime minister for elegantly disposing of the charade that he himself invented to save his party.

Now that he can retire from his stirring performance as Canada’s Demosthenes, Canadians can only hope that Mark Carney will prove as agile and successful in the new role that he and his host in Washington promised to play in the positive renovation of our relations. There is some room for optimism. As an almost hallucinatory climate change fanatic he was an apostle of the carbon tax and an enemy of pipelines but the Liberal party polltakers induced the grace of mid-campaign conversion, and he joined the majority that had already seen the carbon tax as another confiscatory tax inadequately disguised by a lot of claptrap about saving the planet; an enemy of pipelines, he has become an advocate of them. The best hope for a successful Carney government is that its leader will continue to put expediency ahead of dogmatism and translate his support of great projects that historically have built this country, from the Canadian Pacific Railway to the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Montréal World’s Fair and will assist in projects already well underway to bring some of the most sophisticated resources of this country to the world that needs them at huge profit to Canada and particularly to its short-changed native peoples.

Among these are the Ring of Fire chromite deposits that appear likely to supply the entire world’s consumption of that crucial metal required in making stainless steel for more than a century. There are similar prospects for the Magpie Mountain magnetite deposit of billions of tons on Quebec’s North Shore, with vanadium and titanium byproducts, and with the very large rare earth metals deposits on the North Shore of Lake Superior, and the Sussex New Brunswick potash deposits. The development and marketing of all of these projects are in advanced discussion and are supported by the relevant Indigenous groups. If the prime minister got behind these projects now, he would strike a mighty blow for the economic resuscitation of Canada and put an end to this foolishness about the 51st state, which Donald Trump described last week as “having fun with ‘Governor’ “Justin Trudeau.”

The conjured spectre of an American Canada has returned to the ether. Canada for the Canadians: let’s get back to making this country the world’s next Great Power.

National Post


OTTAWA — Indigenous groups in Canada say they want to see Pope Leo XIV continue the reconciliation work started by his predecessor, the late Pope Francis.

Francis was recognized as an ally of Canada’s Indigenous Peoples and was known for advancing reconciliation efforts and apologizing — both in the Vatican and in Canada — for the Catholic Church’s role in widespread abuses at residential schools.

His visit to Canada in 2022 was described as a “penitential pilgrimage” as Francis insisted on meeting with Indigenous survivors of residential schools and hearing their stories.

Pope Francis also expressed a willingness to return colonial-era artifacts in the Vatican Museum that were acquired from Indigenous people in Canada.

National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who was in Rome for Francis’s funeral, said the late pontiff did “a lot of good things.”

Chicago-born Robert Prevost, who has chosen the name Leo XIV, is the first pontiff from the United States, though he worked for many years in Peru.

Woodhouse Nepinak said she welcomes Pope Leo and hopes he will be “open and receptive” to working together.

“I know that we have a lot of work to do but I think we can get there together,” she said. “I think the former pope had left lots of work undone and I think that we want to get back to that.”

Work on repatriating artifacts is “ongoing and we hope to have those discussions with the new Pope” and the Vatican, she said.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a national organization that represents over 65,000 Inuit in Canada, said on social media that it welcomes Leo’s selection.

“We look forward to continuing the productive work we have undertaken with the church on advancing reconciliation with Inuit,” the post says.

“And we hope that under his leadership, the Catholic Church will uphold and strengthen efforts to repatriate cultural heritage and support the priorities of Indigenous communities.”

The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, released in 2015, included a call to action urging the pontiff to travel to Canada to apologize.

Other calls to action included developing education strategies to ensure church congregations learn about their role in colonization, teaching the need to respect Indigenous spirituality and providing permanent funding for culture and language revitalization projects.

Woodhouse Nepinak said there must be an examination of Canada’s progress with the church on the calls to action, given that almost a decade has passed.

“We’re not doing as much as we should have and I think that we have to start measuring that,” she said.

Woodhouse Nepinak also said she hopes Pope Leo will come to Canada and meet with residential school survivors.

She added she is optimistic about his willingness to engage with Indigenous peoples, given his time in South America.

“Working in Peru, he would have been exposed to Indigenous culture, Indigenous ceremony, Indigenous ways of life,” she said. “I’m hoping that he would be open to seeing that here with First Nations in this country and meeting our residential school survivors to fully understand what they went through.”

About 150,000 Indigenous children were forced to attend residential schools in Canada. More than 60 per cent of the schools were run by the Catholic Church.

Neil MacCarthy, a spokesman for the Catholic archdiocese of Toronto, said he is “hopeful” that reconciliation work will continue, citing “huge strides” under Pope Francis.

“I think we have to acknowledge a lot was done,” said MacCarthy, who was involved with the Indigenous delegation to Rome in 2022 and the papal visit to Canada. “It was, I think, a whole new chapter, most would agree, in the relationship with the Catholic Church and Indigenous Peoples.”

MacCarthy suggested that moving these issues along will take time.

“Part of that is working with the bishops in Canada and others who’ve been part of this journey and will continue to be moving forward,” MacCarthy said. “I think we all recognize that it’s a journey that needs to continue.”

— With files from Kelly Geraldine Malone, Brittany Hobson, Nicole Thompson, Cassandra Szklarski, Fakiha Baig, Nicole Winfield and The Associated Press

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 10, 2025.

Catherine Morrison, The Canadian Press


Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks to journalists as he arrives on Parliament Hill for a meeting of the Conservative caucus following the federal election, in Ottawa, on Tuesday, May 6, 2025.

By withstanding perhaps the worst case of foreign interference in Canadian electoral history, and managing to grow his party’s share of the House of Commons despite the electorate’s sudden Liberal rush, it’s clear that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre deserves his place at the head of the party.

There will again come a time when Canadians will have an opportunity to vote for change — and Poilievre should be there to lead when it does.

It’s true that the embattled party leader suffered setbacks of significance. His fortunes of leading the party at a time when the country was most receptive to new Conservative ideas crumbled as President Donald Trump assumed office in the United States and immediately waged a trade war — accented with threats of annexation — against Canada. Trump’s fixation immediately boosted the Liberals’ standings and, well, you know the rest.

Aside from losing the election after holding a commanding lead for months previous, he lost his own seat of Carleton, in suburban-rural Ottawa.

But, the only way to fairly evaluate the setbacks suffered by Poilievre is to take them in stride with his accomplishments, which are far greater than anything achieved by the two party leaders who preceded him.

Poilievre at his height had the party

leading

by

27 points

. Even when party support collapsed post-Trump — and this was only a collapse in the relative sense, since he retained most of his support — he still managed to grow the party’s foothold in Parliament. Poilievre now leads a party caucus of 144 seats, which makes his caucus larger than those of former prime minister Stephen Harper in both 2006 and 2008, as well as those of Andrew Scheer in 2019 and Erin O’Toole in 2021. He also gained

41.3 per cent

of the total vote share — a level unseen by the party since 1988, which, back then, won them a majority.

Poilievre’s Conservatives notably surged in Ontario. Before the election, they held only

40

of the province’s ridings; in 2025, they’re now at

52

(the Liberals, by contrast, have 70 Ontario seats, down from 77), with a strong showing in the 905.

Less quantifiable — but more impactful on the daily lives of Canadians — has been Poilievre’s influence on completely changing the conversation in Canadian politics, transforming the Conservative party from defence to offence.

On climate policy, the party was once completely under the thumb of the Liberals. After fighting the carbon tax since its inception under Trudeau, in 2021, then-Conservative leader O’Toole

conceded

that a carbon tax on fuel should be kept in place — a major flip-flop, as he had promised during his leadership campaign to get rid of the tax. O’Toole went further and proposed the

idea

of special carbon-rebate bank accounts, which would only be spendable on government-approved climate-friendly purchases. It was almost as if the party was trying to out-Liberal the Liberals.

Affordability, meanwhile, took a back seat. The Liberals took the offensive, inflaming social divisions by encouraging the country to see the world in terms of race, sex and COVID vaccine status and berating the Tories for not doing the same.

Poilievre took a sledgehammer to the status quo, embodying the frustrations of so many Canadians at a time when it felt like there was no light at the end of the tunnel. He unapologetically held the Liberals to account, forcing then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to answer for impoverishing the country. Instead of cowering to avoid attacks of COVID-denialism — a common, false accusation the Liberals launched against Conservatives —  he was

demanding answers

for Trudeau’s inflationary, COVID-excused overspending.

Instead of supporting drug consumption sites — as the Conservatives

did

under Erin O’Toole — Poilievre

promised

to close them. Instead of staying silent and avoiding the question of whether to cap immigration altogether — as

Scheer

and

O’Toole

both did — Poilievre boldly

announced

that he’d tie his intake numbers to homebuilding. And on the carbon tax, Poilievre’s steadfast criticism brought the Liberals to abandon their beloved flagship policy. At no point did he slouch away in shame of his own party; he stood up for common sense, and, until Trump stole the attention of Canadians, he had election-winning levels of support from his countrymen.

Trump’s interference in 2025, much like John F. Kennedy’s open

efforts

to defeat Progressive Conservative John Diefenbaker in 1963, robbed Canadians of an election about domestic issues at home. What should have been on the ballot in both elections was governance; it should have been a referendum on which party was better-poised to lead Canada into the coming years, and fix the broken bits left behind after longtime Liberal rule. Instead, we got an election about Trump — a temporary hurdle that inspired more fright than it should have, due to Canada’s weakened state after its decade of waste and decline.

Poilievre knows what he has to do next. In a post-election video, he

told

his followers that “it wasn’t enough. We didn’t get over the finish line, which means that I need to learn and grow, and our team needs to expand.”

The underlying fundamentals that made Poilievre the best leader the Conservatives have seen since Harper haven’t changed. His support is high. His principles are strong. He still has what it takes to win — and for the good of the Conservative movement, the party must give him that chance.

National Post