LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Cars wait in line to enter the United States at a border crossing at the Canada-U.S. border in Blackpool, Quebec, Canada, on February 2, 2025.

People exiting the United States by vehicle could be photographed at the border crossings,

WIRED reported on Friday.

No timeline was provided for when this system comes into effect.

The photographs taken at the border crossings will be matched to commuters’ travel documents such as passports, green cards and visas to verify identity. When implemented, the system will impact outbound lanes going to Canada and Mexico.

This will be an expansion to the agency’s existing practice, spokesperson for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Jessica Turner told WIRED. CBP already takes photos of people entering the U.S. and matches it with their respective travel documents.

 A Canadian flag flies next to the American one at the Lewiston-Queenston border crossing bridge on Feb. 04, 2025 in Niagara Falls, Canada.

“Although we are still working on how we would handle outbound vehicle lanes, we will ultimately expand to this area,” Turner tells WIRED.

The Verge reports

CBP collects biometric data (photograph, finger prints etc) of travellers exiting from 57 U.S. airports. But the border protection agency reportedly has no program monitoring people leaving the U.S. by a vehicle.

The goal of an outbound system, Turner told the publication, would be to “biometrically confirm departure from the U.S.”

Canadians already wary of travelling to the U.S.

Earlier this week, some drivers returning to Canada reported additional checkpoints at B.C.-Canada border that

CBP told National Post

was a regular inspection.

 A sign for the US-Canada border is pictured at the Peace Arch border crossing in Blaine, Washington, on March 5, 2025.

“As part of its national security mission U.S. Customs and Border Protection routinely conducts inspections on outbound traffic. These inspections are a vital tool in apprehending wanted individuals as well as in seizing a variety of contraband – which ultimately makes our communities safer,” CBP told National Post on Tuesday.

Although the checkpoint was shortly taken down, one B.C. resident told Global News that the searches on other vehicles made her “very uncomfortable.”

“I don’t want to call it a blockade but… they were stopping people and I held up our Nexus cards and the U.S. customs agent waved us through but as I passed, because our windows are down, he said, ‘Let’s stop and check the next one,’” Leslie, who wanted to be identified by her first name, told

Global News

.

The sentiment mirrors a majority of Canadians who said

travelling to the U.S. could be unsafe and unwelcome

, as seen in the findings of a

recent poll by Leger

conducted for the Association for Canadian Studies (ACS).

The survey evaluated responses from 1,626 across Canada from May 1 and May 3. Out of which, majority (52 per cent) said it is no longer safe for all Canadians travelling to the U.S. Slightly more (54 per cent) said they don’t feel welcome anymore.

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

“If Canadians have serious concerns about this, it has ramifications for our ongoing travel and interaction with Americans and with the United States,” president and CEO of the ACS, Jack Jedwab told National Post. “It’s something that needs to be addressed and it’s something that Mr. Carney needs to help Mr. Trump understand.”

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.


MONTREAL — An official with Elections Canada says the seat for the Quebec riding of Terrebonne has flipped from the Bloc Québécois to the Liberals by a single vote after the results of a judicial recount.

More coming.

The Canadian Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller says President Donald Trump is looking for ways to expand its legal power to deport migrants who are in the United States illegally. To achieve that, he says the administration is “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus, the constitutional right for people to legally challenge their detention by the government.

Such a move would be aimed at migrants as part of the Republican president’s broader crackdown at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“The Constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller told reporters outside the White House on Friday.

“So, I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at,” Miller said. “Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”

What is habeas corpus?

The Latin term means “that you have the body.” Federal courts use a writ of habeas corpus to bring a prisoner before a neutral judge to determine if imprisonment is legal.

Habeas corpus was included in the Constitution as an import from English common law. Parliament enacted the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which was meant to ensure that the king released prisoners when the law did not justify confining them.

The Constitution’s Suspension Clause, the second clause of Section 9 of Article I, states that habeas corpus “shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”

Has it been suspended previously?

Yes. The United States has suspended habeas corpus under four distinct circumstances during its history. Those usually involved authorization from Congress, something that would be nearly impossible today — even at Trump’s urging — given the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus multiple times amid the Civil War, beginning in 1861 to detain suspected spies and Confederate sympathizers. He ignored a ruling from Roger Taney, who was the Supreme Court chief justice but was acting in the case as a circuit judge. Congress then authorized suspending it in 1863, which allowed Lincoln to do so again.

Congress acted similarly under President Ulysses S. Grant, suspending habeas corpus in parts of South Carolina under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, it was meant to counter violence and intimidation of groups opposing Reconstruction in the South.

Habeas corpus was suspended in two provinces of the Philippines in 1905, when it was a U.S. territory and authorities were worried about the threat of an insurrection, and in Hawaii after the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor, but before it became a state in 1959.

Writing before becoming a Supreme Court justice, Amy Coney Barrett co-authored a piece stating that the Suspension Clause “does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it.”

Could the Trump administration do it?

It can try. Miller suggested that the U.S. is facing “an invasion” of migrants. That term was used deliberately, though any effort to suspend habeas corpus would spark legal challenges questioning whether the country was facing an invasion, let alone presenting extraordinary threats to public safety.

Federal judges have so far been skeptical of the Trump administration’s past efforts to use extraordinary powers to make deportations easier, and that could make suspending habeas corpus even tougher.

Trump argued in March that the U.S. was facing an “invasion” of Venezuelan gang members and evoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime authority he has tried to use to speed up mass deportations.

His administration acted to swiftly deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua to a notorious prison in El Salvador, leading to a series of legal fights.

Federal courts around the country, including in New York, Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania, have since blocked the administration’s uses of the Alien Enemies Act for many reasons, including amid questions about whether the country is truly facing an invasion.

If courts are already skeptical, how could habeas corpus be suspended?

Miller, who has been fiercely critical of judges ruling against the administration, advanced the argument that the judicial branch may not get to decide.

“Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act which stripped Article III courts, that’s the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases,” he said Friday.

That statute was approved by Congress in 1952 and there were important amendments in 1996 and 2005. Legal scholars note that it does contain language that could funnel certain cases to immigration courts, which are overseen by the executive branch.

Still, most appeals in those cases would largely be handled by the judicial branch, and they could run into the same issues as Trump’s attempts to use the Alien Enemies Act.

Have other administrations tried this?

Technically not since Pearl Harbor, though habeas corpus has been at the center of some major legal challenges more recently than that.

Republican President George W. Bush did not move to suspend habeas corpus after the Sept. 11 attacks, but his administration subsequently sent detainees to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, drawing lawsuits from advocates who argued the administration was violating it and other legal constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Guantanamo detainees had a constitutional right to habeas corpus, allowing them to challenge their detention before a judge. That led to some detainees being released from U.S. custody.

___

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

Will Weissert, The Associated Press




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