LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

The FBI estimates the 62 bikes seized by Mexican authorities and believed to belong to Ryan Wedding are worth US$40 million.

The FBI released photos this week of motorcycles, artwork and two gold medals seized by Mexican authorities during raids last month and suspected of belonging to former Canadian Olympian-turned alleged narco boss Ryan Wedding.

The agency estimated the value of the 62 high-end motorcycles at nearly $55 million (US$40 million). The trove included several Ducati bikes, a brand of premium Italian motorcycles known for their design and high-performance race engines.

The vehicles were among several items seized when multiple Mexican agencies

said they conducted raids and searches on four homes

in Mexico City and the State of Mexico, “related to a former Olympic athlete and one of the 10 most wanted fugitives by U.S. authorities,” according to a joint statement.

Wedding was not named specifically, but is the only person on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list who would fit the description.

Agents also said they seized “two Olympic medals,” however, images shared by the FBI show them to be gold medals awarded for the Canadian National Snowboard Series. National Post has contacted Snowboard Canada for more information on Wedding’s involvement in the series.

 Gold medals believed to belong to Wedding.

Wedding didn’t win a medal for Canada at the 2002 Winter Games in Utah, his only Olympic appearance. He finished 24th overall in the giant slalom event.

The FBI also shared images of four pieces of art, one of which appears to show Italian professional motorcycle racer Valentino Rossi, as evidenced by a No. 46 on a sport bike with sponsors Movistar and ENEOS. Similar prints are available for sale online.

 Art seized in the raids by Mexican authorities.

Another piece depicts a figure in a large sombrero with two rifles crossed behind him, set against a bright orange background with sombrero-wearing skeleton motifs. The last two are pop-art prints of pop-culture collectible toys and candy.

Also recovered was an undisclosed quantity of methamphetamine and marijuana, documents, and ammunition, though images of those have not been shared publicly.

After a career sports, North American authorities allege Wedding became entrenched in organized crime and built an expansive narcotics network, accused of trafficking large amounts of cocaine from Colombia through Mexico and into the U.S. and Canada.

The 44-year-old from Thunder Bay, Ont., was added to the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list in March and the reward for information leading to his arrest was increased from $10 to $15 million in November.

He’s wanted on charges that included running a continuing drug enterprise, drug trafficking, and orchestrating multiple murders connected to his alleged organization, including at least four in Canada. U.S. officials allege he also ordered the execution of a witness in the U.S. government’s case against him.

 The FBI and U.S. Embassy in Mexico released new images of former Canadian Olympic snowboarder-turned-alleged violent drug operation leader.

It’s alleged he is connected to Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel, considered a terrorist entity by Canada and the U.S., and uses cryptocurrency to launder illicit proceeds.

Wedding is thought to be on the lam somewhere in Mexico. His aliases include “El Jefe,” “Giant,” “Public Enemy,” “James Conrad King,” and “Jesse King,” according to the FBI.

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.


A Canadian tourist was stabbed late Monday, as he left the popular Winter Village in Bryant Park in NYC. (Photo by KENA BETANCUR / AFP)

A Canadian tourist was stabbed in the leg near Bryant Park late Monday afternoon in an attack described as random by the New York police department.

The victim was transported to Bellevue Hospital in stable condition,

NBC reports

. Police are actively investigating and have not yet made an arrest.

Bryant Park was hosting its annual Winter Village at the time, drawing large crowds. The attack occurred just hours after Mayor Eric Adams touted record-low crime in the city, says NBC.

Police responded to a 5:30 p.m. call near the park and found the unidentified 44-year-old man stabbed in the left leg. He told police he had been visiting the Winter Village and paused to tie his shoe on the way out. That’s when he felt something prick his leg.

He walked into a nearby store and checked his injury, discovering blood streaming from his leg, reports

amNewYork

. That’s when he realized he had been stabbed.

The victim told police he did not see an attacker. It’s not clear if police have located any video of the stabbing. They are still working on getting a description of the suspect,

reports ABC

.

This is the second time in recent weeks that the NYPD is investigating a random stabbing attack on a tourist in Manhattan, reports

CBS.

National Post reached out to the NYPD for an update about its investigation and has yet to receive a response.

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.


Ontario's solicitor general, Michael Kerzner, left, is urging Chief Myron Demkiw and the Toronto Police Service   to take action against repeated anti-Israel protests in the city.

Ontario’s solicitor general wants the Toronto Police Service to urgently step up its enforcement of “hate, intimidation and harassment-motivated offences” plaguing the city.

And while Michael Kerzner’s letter to Toronto Police Service Chief Myron Dimkew and Councillor Shelly Carroll, chair of the civilian oversight board, doesn’t explicitly single out the city’s Jewish population as the victims of such offences, his intent is clear.

“Recent incidents, including mob intimidation and harassment at the Eaton Centre just last week, as well as ongoing intimidating marches through residential neighbourhoods near Bathurst and Sheppard, are completely unacceptable,” he wrote in a letter dated Dec. 30.

For the second year in a row, an anti-Israel mob of protesters occupied an area in the downtown shopping centre on Boxing Day,

reportedly chanting for “Intifada.”

As for the Bathurst and Sheppard area, home to a large percentage of the city’s Jewish community and located within Kerzner’s district, anti-Israel demonstration marches through otherwise quiet residential neighbourhoods and near Jewish institutions — including synagogues, schools and community centres — have occurred weekly.

Kerzner said even these recent incidents have left some people paralyzed by fear in what should be safe spaces and “concerned about a lack of visible response.”

National Post has contacted Dimkew and Carroll for comment.

“When such incidents occur repeatedly and without visible consequences, it substantially undermines public confidence in the rule of law and in the institutions responsible for upholding it,” said Kerzner. He is the York Centre Member of Provincial Parliament, the

highest-ranking Jewish member of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government

.

While not mentioned by Kerzner, Jewish residents of two buildings in the Bathurst area had their mezuzahs — Hebrew prayer scrolls affixed to doorways —

stolen or vandalized in December.

Earlier in the month, about

200 anti-Israel protesters

gathered outside Meridian Hall to oppose a debate featuring former Israeli officials. Groups that organized the protest called the Israelis “war criminals” and were upset that they were given a platform. Two people were arrested.

Multiple similar incidents have been documented in the city over the past two-plus years as anti-semitism has emboldened and spread in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack in Israel.

Kerzner said the provincial government has done its part to equip, train and empower Toronto police to respond to these incidents and enforce the law at the local level.

“The responsibility now rests with police leadership to ensure that existing authorities to act are used promptly and decisively when criminal acts of hate and intimidation are taking place,” he wrote.

“Strong action is required to prevent further escalation and hold offenders to account.”

Just before Christmas, Demkiw and Mayor Olivia Chow received a similar piece of correspondence from York Centre Conservative Member of Parliament Roman Barber, who was much more pointed in highlighting the “fear and intimidation” inflicted on Toronto’s 100,000 Jewish people, 17,000 of whom are his constituents.

He demanded an outright end to the Sunday protests in the Bathurst and Sheppard area, which he said are not peaceful and not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as they “include threats and disturb the peace.”

“They deprive local residents and businesses of enjoyment of property,” he said, arguing it should at least be deemed mischief under Canada’s criminal code.

Barber also highlighted that people making calls for “intifada” in the U.K., where it is considered an incitement to violence, are now subject to arrest.

“A long overdue, but welcome recognition by Ontario that intimidation & threats can be addressed by enforcement of existing laws,” the MP who represents the York Centre federal riding said of Kerzner’s letter on X. 

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.


A Canada goose calls to the flock while standing amid other geese and ducks in Springside Park in Napanee, Ont.

O Canada faced some serious backlash as it was front and centre on an international stage when the Toronto Blue Jays took part in the World Series. Canada’s army was dubbed a “boutique” military, only capable of niche operations and deployments due to inadequate funding and slow procurement. A Canadian symbol, the goose, once considered a honking nuisance is given some grace. Women in Afghanistan shared their heartbreaking and hopeful stories about life with the Taliban back in charge.

This year’s longreads have covered a wide range of topics. These ones may have been under-read when they were first published— but they’re worth reading now.

As the new year approaches, here are six stories you should dig into from 2025.

‘It’s a crime to be a girl’: The forgotten women of Afghanistan

Illustration of Negin, woman living in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

She was 20 years old, dreaming of a fulfilled life. The smart, ambitious young woman was among 20 Afghan women and girls enrolled in a secret school, seeking knowledge and a future.

But the Taliban were back in charge after Western forces withdrew from Afghanistan in September 2021, and they had different plans, as did her authoritarian, ultra-conservative father; she would marry an Afghan man of his choosing living in Turkey, a man she did not love.

She saw no way out of this future she did not want. She left a note, placed a smartphone in record mode, and hanged herself.

“I lost her,” said Negin, her 33-year-old teacher who set up a school in her home in a suburb of a city in northern Afghanistan. “She was 20 years old with lots of dreams.”

Negin goes by one name because she fears the Taliban’s retribution. Her school teaching young women English, vocational skills and activities such as painting, are forbidden by the Taliban. But she is determined to provide a bright spot, a glimmer of hope in their bleak existence.

Read more by Ehsanullah Amiri

Guilty or not guilty? Twelve random citizens and one colossal task

 The eager juror, the woke juror, the reluctant juror. How different personalities come together to determine a person’s fate.

In the end, the verdict came late on a Friday afternoon when Toronto’s courthouse was quiet, and the only other observers in the gallery were a few curious staff.

But two weeks previously, it was a bright and bustling fall morning when Tamar Cupid, 27, was formally placed in the hands of his jury.

Cupid stood up beside his lawyers. The robed registrar spoke. “Members of the jury, look upon the accused, and hearken to his charges.” The registrar read them aloud. Manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery. And then, with a rhetorical flourish scripted long ago, the registrar spoke the crucial words to the 12 seated jurors: “For his trial he hath put himself upon his country, which country you are.”

With its stirring language, this ceremony that unfolds daily in courtrooms across Canada emphasizes the human side of criminal justice.

In this room, Crown and country are not abstract civic concepts, but actual people. Criminal trials are not the robotic application of rules or deference to some all-powerful state authority, but a weirdly psychological communal journey from opening ceremony through evidence to closing statements and onward into the inner sanctum of the jury room, with no deadline or even much instruction about how to actually deliberate, only the colossal task of unanimously deciding someone’s future.

Read more by Joseph Brean

In defence of the Canada goose, the pooping, honking bird everyone loves to hate

 Traffic backs up waiting for Canada geese to cross Riverfront Avenue S.W. in downtown Calgary on Monday, July 28, 2025.

It’s early fall on a shallow stretch of the Rideau River in Ottawa, a few hundred metres below Hog’s Back Falls. That’s the point where the Rideau Canal splits off from the once-natural waterway it has commandeered as a boat channel for almost 200 years, and where the liberated river finally reasserts its wildness.

In this remnant feral section of the Rideau, which runs past Carleton University, hundreds of Canada geese — showing an untamed spirit, like the stream that has drawn them here — are massing in a honking, splashing, fluttering maelstrom of exuberance.

They arrive on this mid-October day every few minutes in gaggles of five, eight, 12. There’s a sense of urgency, it seems, as they descend rapidly from the sky, some of them “whiffling” — performing a mid-air body twist that sends the bird plunging sharply — to hit their chosen landing spot on the water.

Now and then, an individual frantically skims across the surface of the water in pursuit of another — half-flying, half-swimming, long black neck aimed low and beak flared — in what looks like a vigorous game of chase. The behaviour, perhaps a mating or bullying display, will subtly reset the social order within this congress of Branta canadensis, Canada’s iconic white-cheeked goose.

Read more by Randy Boswell

Whoa, Canada! Is our malleable, maligned national anthem under attack?

 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – OCTOBER 27: Singer and musician JP Saxe sings the Canadian National Anthem before game three of the 2025 World Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium on October 27, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Patrick Smith/Getty Images)

David Grenon started Canada’s national anthem ahead of Game 6 of the World Series with a bright smile and booming voice before making a gesture for the crowd to join in. And did they ever.

By the end, after the awkward flip from French back to English at Toronto’s Rogers Centre, row after row, tier after tier of Blue Jays fans were knocking it out of the park. It wasn’t the usual tepid muttering or vague mouthing of words, but actual singing, with gusto, of a rousing rendition of O Canada.

It was so well received it didn’t make headlines.

It doesn’t always go that way.

Read more by Adrian Humphreys

Canada’s boutique military: ‘Should we not be able to defend ourselves?’

 Prime Minister Mark Carney tours military vehicles and meets with Canadian troops of the 4th Canadian Division as he attends a tour of the Fort York Armoury in Toronto on June 9, 2025.

The Alaskan Air Identification Zone extends 150 miles from U.S. territorial airspace and into Canada’s airspace in the North. It begins where sovereign airspace ends but is a defined stretch of international airspace that requires the ready identification of all aircraft in the interest of security.

On two consecutive days in February, two Russian Tupolev bombers accompanied by two Sukhoi Su-35 fighters flew into the zone. On both days, Feb. 18 and Feb. 19, they were intercepted by F-35 fighters, a Boeing E-3 Sentry early warning and control aircraft, and a KC-135 Stratotanker for aerial refuelling. All American aircraft.

On April 15, Russian aircraft flew into the zone again and were detected and tracked. According to the North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad), this is a regular occurrence.

Last July, a joint sail between Russians and Chinese went into the Bering Sea, a body of water in the north that divides the Eurasia continent and North America. They stayed in international waters.

And there was the infamous case of the Chinese spy balloon that floated over Canada and the United States from Jan. 28 to Feb. 4, 2023, before being shot down by a U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter jet over the Atlantic near the coast of South Carolina.

Canada has come to rely on the U.S. military to help defend us. “We’re protecting Canada,” said U.S. President Donald Trump in his recent meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney in the Oval Office. While Trump has dismissed the notion of using the U.S. military to realize his dream of making Canada the 51st state, that doesn’t mean he’s content providing Canada with what he calls “free military.”

Read more by Chris Lambie

Terror, violence and organized crime: Inside the lawless East Coast fishery

 Suzy Edwards fishes elvers on a Nova Scotian river at night for a company holding a DFO issued commercial license.

In the chill dark of a March night on a Nova Scotia river, a hip-wader-wearing woman put Canada’s sovereignty to the test.

Or rather, the 40 or so net-wielding members of Sipekne’katik First Nation on the opposite bank were calling Canada’s bluff.

They caught juvenile American eels (elvers) under their own band-issued licenses in defiance of a Fisheries Act requiring them to have licenses approved by the federal fisheries minister.

“I think it was the fourth call to DFO I asked their dispatch if they could say whether any officers were on duty,” said Suzy Edwards, a commercial elver harvester.

“They wouldn’t. We flagged down a passing RCMP officer and he said they’d been told to stand down on elver-related matters.”

The issue at hand is larger than the tiny translucent juvenile American eels being dumped into buckets that night.

It’s whether the federal government will enforce its own laws when challenged by First Nations claiming a sovereignty that goes well beyond that acknowledged by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The lucrative East Coast fishery — lobster is Canada’s most valuable seafood export — has been made a testing ground for federal government reconciliation policies.

Read more by Aaron Beswick

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.


When negotiating peace after the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin wanted Britain to give Canada to the newly formed United States as compensation, author Madelaine Drohan says.

For decades, Canada and the United States have been strategic allies and defence partners. But it wasn’t always that way.

U.S. President “Donald Trump is not the first American to say that he wanted to possess Canada,” journalist and author Madelaine Drohan told National Post.

Long before Trump launched a trade war and threatened to make Canada the 51st state, other U.S. presidents had ambitions to conquer Canada. It turns out, even Founding Father Benjamin Franklin wanted a piece of the country.

In her book, He Did Not Conquer: Benjamin Franklin’s Failure to Annex Canada, which was published in September 2025, Drohan opens a window on a forgotten chapter of North American history.

The senior fellow at the University of Ottawa and longtime journalist argues that Franklin’s desire to annex Canada came from his fears regarding national security, projected population growth and his desire to seek opportunities to spread American influence to the North.

National Post spoke to Drohan about Franklin’s motivations and how history connects to the present. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

Your book describes Franklin’s decades-long effort to annex Canada. Can you walk us through what motivated him?

Well, over a period of about three decades, he pushed the idea that Canada, the area called Canada, should actually be part of the American colonies and then eventually the United States. He was born in 1706 at a time when there were British colonists in the American colonies and French colonists in the area that was called Canada, which was basically the province of Quebec at that time, well, more than that, it extended below the Great Lakes. Relations between these two peoples were hostile. I mean, they would regularly raid each other’s settlements, burn houses, murder and scalp people with their Indigenous allies and take hostages. And so, for Franklin, growing up, Canada was a threat to the security of the British American colonies, and he wasn’t the only one that would have wanted to get rid of the French in Canada and make it part of the British American colonies, mostly for security.

Later on, he sort of elaborated on that because he had this idea that he wrote about the population in the American colonies growing by leaps and bounds. In fact, he predicted it was going to double every 25 years, and they needed room to grow. So, they needed other areas to settle in. And, of course, Canada was part of that other area that he had his eye on. And when he wrote about this, the population growth and this idea that the American colonists should populate the continent, it was sort of the first time that a British American expressed this idea of Manifest Destiny, that it was their destiny to populate the continent. That was when Canada was still a French colony, but he still had his eye on it when it became a British colony, after 1760, and for those same reasons: security and room to grow.

His last motivation came when he was in Paris in the 1780s. He was negotiating the peace agreement with Britain, and he said Britain was the aggressor in the American Revolution, the Americans were the victims of British tyranny and destruction, and, as victims, they were entitled to compensation. And so the compensation that he asked for was Canada. He wanted Britain to give Canada to the newly formed country of the United States.

What prevented Franklin from annexing Canada?

Well, certainly, in that last attempt in 1782, in Paris, what stopped him was the Americans wanting other things more. They wanted secure access to the fishery off of the East Coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. So they wanted to make sure that was part of the peace treaty. And they also wanted Britain to say that this triangle of land underneath the Great Lakes — that both Britain and France said belong to Canada — the American negotiators wanted in the treaty that that actually belonged to the United States. So that (1782) was his last attempt.

In the mid-1770s, the Continental Army, which was made up of American colonists, invaded Canada, and they tried to take all of Canada over, and they managed to take Montreal and Trois-Rivières, but they got held up outside of Quebec City, and could not take Quebec City, but hung on. And that was when the Continental Congress, this was early 1776, asked Benjamin Franklin and two other delegates to come up to Montreal and persuade the French Canadians to throw off the British, and had the French Canadians rise up. Then, with the Americans, they would have taken all of Canada. But, in fact, Franklin failed to convince enough people to support the American cause. And when some British warships showed up on the St. Lawrence (River) shortly afterwards, this would be in May 1776, both Franklin and the Continental Army made a run for the border and gave up at least that attempt of conquering Canada.

How would you describe your process for writing this book and did your perspective change while you were researching it?

Well, this whole project, sort of the seed for this, was planted when I went and visited the Chateau Ramezay Museum in Montreal, which is a great museum of Quebec history, and it’s in an old building that was built in the beginning of the 1700s.

I’m wandering through the museum, and I come across a portrait of Benjamin Franklin. And I thought, what is Benjamin Franklin doing in this museum of Quebec history? And there was a little plaque on the wall that said he had been in that very building in 1776 when he came to Montreal to ask the French Canadians to join the American Revolution. And I knew nothing about this. I mean, the whole thing took me by surprise, and so I thought that’s really interesting, and I sort of tucked it in the back of my mind as something I might research when I had the time.

And so, when COVID hit, I decided to stop writing for The Economist, get a Master of Arts in History, and focus on what Franklin was doing in Montreal, and why don’t we remember it? So, I wrote my Master’s paper on that, but as I was doing the research for that particular paper, I realized that 1776 wasn’t the only time that Franklin had expressed an interest in possessing Canada. And so that led to the book project.

Now, in terms of researching, fortunately, almost everything that Franklin ever wrote has already been digitized and is available online at numerous sites, including a site run by the U.S. government. And also a lot of letters that were written at that time had been either digitized by other people, letters by other people, or they appeared in books, and the original documents were mostly available on the Internet Archive. Once I went looking for things, they were relatively easy to find. I did have to work in the Canadian archives, as well, for some of this, but mostly, because it’s history, it’s already happened. I didn’t have to interview people. It was a deep dive into the archives for most of this.

 The Death of General Montgomery in the Attack on Quebec, December 31, 1775, painted in 1786 by John Trumbull. It depicts the death of U.S. General Richard Montgomery during the Invasion of Quebec, a major military operation by the Continental Army in the American Revolutionary War.

Can you explain the political climate that influenced Canadians to stay loyal to British colonial rule in the response of the American invasion?

The British conquest of what was called Canada then, or New France, took place in 1760. And then Britain finally agreed, yes, they were going to keep Canada, not giving it back to France, in 1763, so after that, Britain was stuck with this colony that had a rough estimate of maybe 100,000 French Canadians. And the original British plan was to make them into English-speaking Protestants. But Britain realized pretty early on that this was going to be a very long-term project, and at the moment, the colony was ungovernable, really. So Sir Guy Carleton, who was the governor, went to London in 1770, and sort of worked out this plan. A lot of it was his ideas of, how are you going to govern these 100,000 French-speaking Catholics? And the idea was that, at least for the time being, that they would be able to practice Catholicism. Religion was a huge deal in those days, nothing like it is today. So, the Quebec Act of 1774 allowed the French Canadians to continue being Catholic and also to keep their civil law. They would have to use British criminal law, but they could keep their civil law. And both the seigneurs(lords) and the clergy were allowed to collect the fees that they had been collecting before. It also drew the borders of what was now called Canada, or the province of Quebec, to match pretty much what they were when it was Canada or New France. All those things in the Quebec Act pleased the important people in Canada, or province of Quebec, at least. It pleased the elite. No one really knows what the ordinary French Canadians thought of this, because there was no one really to speak for them. The clergy and the seigneurs were all on side with the British. They thought this was a good idea, and so they went along with it. So when the Americans invaded in 1775, about 250 years ago, they were already running into opposition from the French Canadian elites. And they did get some support from ordinary French Canadians, but not enough to turn the tide in that invasion.

Your book highlights Franklin’s strong anti-Catholic views and plans for French Canadians, including eviction and assimilation. How did his personal bias and financial interests influence his strategy towards Canada?

I’d have to say that towards the end of his life, he actually sort of moderated that, but he was a child of Puritans, he grew up in the Puritan colonies, or the Protestant colonies, so they did see, traditionally, the French Canadian Catholics as the enemies. But I think Franklin was fairly pragmatic, so it was more the security threat that weighed on him, rather than Catholicism. All the same when he wrote something called the Canada pamphlet in 1760 during a debate in Britain about whether Britain should keep Canada or Guadeloupe when they were negotiating the terms of peace with France, he wrote a very strong argument that Britain should definitely keep Canada because it would remove the security threat. It would be good for trade. It would give the American colonists room to expand all these things. These are all themes that he embraced early on. But the big thing, the big problem there with his plans was, again, he envisaged Canada being an English-speaking Protestant place, and there were all these French Canadians there. And so he dealt with them by saying that they would be encouraged to leave and/or they would be assimilated. So he did not plan for a French-speaking Catholic population to remain in what they called Canada, or the province of Quebec at that point. But just one more thing about his religion, I mean, ultimately, he called himself a deist, and they believed in God, but they didn’t follow any particular organized religion because they disagreed with some of the practices of all the various Christian religions.

How does this history relate to enduring tensions in Canada–U.S. relations?

I think one thing that is a big message to take from my book is that Donald Trump is not the first American to say that he wanted to possess Canada. I mean, at the very birth of the United States, Benjamin Franklin was pushing the same agenda, and he wasn’t alone. There were others as well that thought Canada should be American. This idea, which was present at the beginning of the United States, has reemerged from time to time. There were other times that the whole idea that the West coast of Canada should be American was present in the 1840s. They talked about Manifest Destiny then. I think in the minds of some Americans, not all Americans, they truly believe that Canada should be part of the United States. When I was making a presentation of my book in Victoria, one of the people there mentioned, and I’m going to steal it. He said, “We’re living through a Manifest Destiny zombie movie.” I think that sort of sums it up, that this is an idea that is sort of firmly implanted in the minds of some Americans. It will come up again and again and has come up again and again over the period of our relationship.

Why do you think Franklin’s invasion is forgotten in the history of both Canada and the United States?

Well, there’s a lot of reasons for that, but broadly speaking, we don’t talk about it, and I’m saying “we,” and I’m going to say Canadians and Americans, but we’ll start even just with Franklin. Franklin didn’t talk about it because it was a failure, and he didn’t write any personal letters that have survived from Montreal. So there’s a big blank there. When historians want to write about this period, there’s no primary material for them to write about. You know, what Franklin did, what he thought, how he failed. That leaves a gap, and historians can’t write about that in particular, and then it doesn’t filter down into popular culture. In movies or songs or documentaries, the Americans, more broadly, don’t talk about it because it doesn’t fit with their founding myth. I mean, the founding myth of the United States is that they rose up as one, as victims of British tyranny, and threw the British out. But invading the neighbouring colony at the same time doesn’t fit with this whole image of victims and, you know, going for justice. So they don’t, they don’t talk about it much. Then here, in Canada, we don’t talk about it much for a number of reasons. The French Canadians, for them, the big event of that era was not the American invasion. It was the British conquest of 1760 because that changed their world completely, and with the invasion, no matter who won, whether it was the British or the American colonists, the French Canadians were still going to be ruled by English-speaking Protestant foreigners. So for them, in their histories, the conquest, it looms much larger than the invasion, and English Canadians don’t talk about it, because most of them weren’t here yet. There were about 2,000 English speakers in Canada, or the province of Quebec, when the invasion took place. So that wave of loyalists from the American colonies, from the United States, that happened after this invasion had not taken place. So when you mention the American invasion to someone educated in English Canadian history, they immediately say, “Oh yeah, the War of 1812,” because their ancestors were around to play a part in that, but not so much in this earlier invasion. But the two invasions involved the same attempt by the Americans to take over what was then considered Canada.

 He Did Not Conquer: Benjamin Franklin’s Failure to Annex Canada by Madelaine Drohan.

The final thing would be, our politicians have always been a bit hesitant to sort of poke the Americans by reminding them that in 1775, despite their best efforts, they could not conquer Canada. So it doesn’t become something that people wave the flag and say, “Oh yeah. You know, this was a great moment for Canada,” at least not to an American audience. And for events in the past to actually take hold of our collective memory, somebody actually has to champion them, like (then) prime minister (Stephen) Harper did with the War of 1812. The people do this because they have a use for it. At the time, prime minister Harper was trying to accentuate Canada’s British connection, and so he talked about the War of 1812 because, in fact, the British military played a big part, if not the biggest part, in repelling the Americans, and he commissioned a statue on Parliament Hill. He had events, and it’s that kind of thing that you need for an event to firmly take hold in the story that Canadians start telling themselves about who we are and how we came to be here and why we’re not American.

Does this history teach us anything about the current secessionist movement in Alberta?

There were about 2,000 English speakers in Canada, or the province of Quebec, at the time of the invasion, and many of them were American colonists who had moved to Canada when they thought that Canada would be a British colony just like theirs. In other words, they have the same laws, you know, English speaking and that. And they were quite disappointed by the Quebec Act, because, you know, that sort of solidified Catholicism and French laws. And so, when the American colonists invaded, a lot of these English-speaking merchants supported the invaders because they shared the same views. You know, in fact, they had been Americans not too long ago. So now I’ll translate that over to Alberta. Alberta was settled by a lot of people from the United States. So there is a certain group there that sympathizes with the American way of life and the American viewpoint. So I could see it as being quite natural that they think it wouldn’t be a big deal for Alberta to actually become part of the United States, because they think that it would be much similar to what their ancestors had, and that whereas the eastern part of Canada was not settled mostly, it was settled by loyalists in Ontario, but also from France, so they don’t have that same outlook.

Is there anything else you’d like to mention?

There’s one big thing, and that is, right now, Canadians are upset, quite rightfully so, about the aggressive turn that the American government has taken against Canada. And people keep going back and saying, you know, we’ve had 70 years of friendship, which is true, 70 years of working together. But if you sort of step back a little further and take a look at the longer sweep of history, you’ll see that relations between the people who lived in Canada and the people who lived in what’s now the United States, were hostile for several centuries. You know, they were at war from the beginning of European settlement in the early 1500s, the two sides were at war, and really, relations didn’t warm up, they became wary in the early 1900s and both sides had invasion plans still for the other right up to the start of the Second World War. So my point is that this peaceful period that started from the Second World War on, everybody thinks that’s the norm for Canada-U.S. relations. But in fact, if you look at it in the longer term, it’s actually an aberration, and the norm was hostile relations. So we have to ask ourselves right now, is the aggressive rhetoric coming from Donald Trump, is that a departure from the norm, or is that a return to what the norm used to be? And I think that’s a really important point that people have to think about when we’re thinking here in Canada, how we are going to react?

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.


Telephones at Doug Duffy's telephone museum in Belleville, Ont. who the wide variety of styles once available. [Photo By Peter J. Thompson/National Post]

It’s an ordinary, old black pay phone, its push buttons faded by decades of fingers pressing the numbers.

But I like to call it the world’s most beautiful pay phone, thanks to its front-row view of the majestic, 300-million-year-old Mount Rundle. I first stumbled across this juxtaposition of 20th-century technology and timeless nature a few years ago at a campground just outside of Banff, Alta. Sadly, when you lift the telephone receiver now, there’s no dial tone — just dead air.

Whenever I see an old, decommissioned pay phone or, even more rarely, a rotary dial phone, I’m transported to a time when the landline telephone played a major role in all our lives. I was an early adopter. So enamoured with this marvel of communication was I that for my third birthday, I asked for and received a toy version of our family’s rotary dial phone. Later, I gladly risked a tongue-lashing for the opportunity to listen in on other people’s conversations on my grandparents’ party line, their ancient wooden wall telephone a portal to the daily gossip in their rural Manitoba community.

After my dad had a teen line installed in our basement rec room, I’d jabber endlessly with my best friend, who lived right across the street. During this golden era of telephone anonymity, we also made prank calls across the city, recording our shenanigans on a cassette player, a gift from my eldest brother. We got so good at it, my friend’s parents played those recordings at adult-only house parties. (One of our biggest hits was a series of calls to downtown Winnipeg hotels on the eve of the Shrine Circus, posing as Hungarian lion tamers needing a place to stay with our “pets.”)

After high school, my entanglement with the telephone continued. As an Alberta-wide directory assistance operator, I was on the phone about 30 hours a week, reading out telephone numbers from my cubicle in a windowless downtown office space, a setting straight out of the Apple TV series

Severance

. In its early days, we “telephone girls” (a term coined in the late 19th century for the mostly female profession) would look up the numbers in phone books at our stations, but soon small computer terminals replaced paper. After my shift, which involved talking to several hundred people at about 27 seconds per call (yes, we were timed), I’d sometimes join my friends at Slack Alice, a restaurant a few blocks away. The short-lived Calgary hangout’s calling card was a landline phone at each table where you rang up your fellow diners, a kind of analog version of today’s dating apps.

These were unimaginable dinosaur days, where the telephone was plugged into a wall, the wires inside leading to an outside telephone wire, reaching from the house to telephone poles, which would then connect us with the outside world. Today’s younger digital natives can hardly fathom a phone that is only as mobile as the length of an extension cord. They may have seen a rotary dial phone on the hit TV series

Stranger Things

, but might be stumped by how to operate one. While a smartphone has a voice-to-voice conversation function, like its predecessor the landline, why talk when you can text?

Still, today’s cellular freedom is evolution of the technology their parents and grandparents knew. That wired communication world we experienced for a good century will soon be no more, as more people choose cellular service over landlines, and aging copper phone lines get replaced by VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol). In other words, even if you still covet your landline phone, it won’t be the same, ever again.

This story, then, serves as a tribute to a beloved bygone era as the telephone we once knew heads toward history’s round file.

Bell vs. Meucci

For the technology that dominated much of 20th-century life, we have a Scottish-Canadian-American to thank. After all,

Alexander Graham Bell

was the first to get a U.S. patent approved, on March 7, 1876. He wasn’t the only one, however, experimenting with how to send vocal sounds along a telegraph wave; several wily aspiring inventors hoped to exploit the telegraph cables pumping out Morse code across the United States.

“The telegraph was the first technological miracle,” says Bob Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University in Syracuse, N.Y. “Before that, any message could only go as fast as you could physically carry it. The telephone was the second miracle.”

The controversy over just who was the true inventor of this second 19th-century technological miracle — Bell, Elisha Gray, Antonio Meucci or a number of others — has raged right into the 21st century. In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution that “the life and achievements of

Antonio Meucci

should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged.” Ten days later, Canada’s House of Commons passed a motion declaring Bell, a one-time resident of our country, the telephone’s rightful inventor.

Then there’s science journalist Seth Shulman’s The Telephone Gambit, which lays out a convincing case that Bell likely swiped Gray’s idea, in what Shulman calls “one of the most consequential thefts in history.” More recently, Benjamin Brown, professor emeritus of physics at Marquette University, in the 2020 proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, published a paper entitled, “The Bell Versus Gray Telephone Dispute: Resolving a 144-year-old Controversy.” It made yet another compelling case, this time for Bell.

For now, let’s stick with the then-29-year-old Edinburgh-born Bell, who did manage to get that U.S patent ahead of the pack. Thankfully, Bell’s suggestion to answer a ringing telephone with the nautical “Ahoy-hoy” wasn’t as successful. While that phrase would later live on in the popular animated TV series The Simpsons, it was Bell’s friend and sometimes adversary, Thomas Edison, who insisted on “Hello” as the default greeting. Bell didn’t use either on his first telephone call in Boston on March 10, 1876, when he called his assistant Thomas A. Watson in an adjacent room, simply saying, “Mr. Watson — come here — I want to see you.”

Not everyone was immediately smitten with the brave new world of telephony. U.S. president Rutherford B. Hayes responded to Bell’s demonstration for him by saying, “That’s an amazing invention, but who would ever want to use one of them?” On Oct. 6, 1877, the popular science magazine Scientific American described Bell’s invention as nothing more than a “beautiful scientific toy.” Prime minister Alexander Mackenzie ordered it removed from Rideau Hall not long after its installation in late 1877, a decision overruled by Lady Dufferin, wife of the governor general. The amateur singer, having regaled her friends over the crackling line, was already sold on its entertainment value.

Others had a downright utopian view of the new invention. In his 1910 book The History of the Telephone, Herbert N. Casson said the device not only “marvellously extended the facilities of conversation,” it also altered the urban landscape, making such developments as skyscrapers possible. “It has literally abolished the isolation of separate families and has made us members of one great family,” the Canadian author, a former Methodist minister, stated with evangelical fervour. “It has become truly an organ of the social body.”

Claude Fischer advises anyone reading early writings about the telephone to take such glowing pronouncements with a grain, even a pound, of salt. “It didn’t really change American life, but people adopted and adapted the technology to pursue culture ends that they would have pursued anyway,” says Fischer, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley and author of the book America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Everyday activities that were cumbersome before, such as arranging meetups with friends, says Fischer, were made much easier thanks to the telephone. “It became sort of part of the furniture in a home.”

He also doubts the assertion that it radically altered the urban landscape, although the telephone did cut into the roles of messenger and “errand boy,” jobs that would return with a vengeance a century later with the proliferation of online delivery businesses such as Amazon and Skip The Dishes. “They already had pneumatic tubes,” Fischer says, referring to the transport system for documents and other items built into many office structures. Those writing about the telephone were often mere mouthpieces, he says, for the telephone companies. “They weren’t interested in publicizing things that did not make the industry look good.”

Despite the avalanche of early favourable reviews, the telephone elicited deep suspicion in certain quarters. Some feared electric shock by merely touching the new device. Others complained that it would be the death of letter writing, a tool for criminality, and a way to seduce wives and teenage daughters. “There was a concern expressed that when a man went to work and a wife was at home, there was no screening of who might approach her,” says Fischer, who adds that people also worried about the lack of privacy from party lines, those early shared lines (hooked up to the same local network) that could be used by several households. “Some wrote about telephones creating a nervous state of mind from the ringing and constant interruptions.”

Still, the die was cast. In 1877, the first white pages phone directory was published in the United States. A one-pager printed on cardboard with 50 Connecticut names but no phone numbers — the operator would connect you — it would spawn generations of both white- and yellow-page books, providing a historical record of sorts. That same year, the New York Telephone Company published a booklet entitled Winning Friends by Telephone, telling readers that, “The voice with the smile wins.”

Women ‘forbidden to use the phone’

Fast-forward a few decades, and the telephone was now part of the fabric of daily life. By the 1940s, nearly half of Americans had a landline in their household; in Canada, just over 20 per cent. That first one-page phone directory had spread across the continent, and, in bigger markets, the pages numbered in the hundreds, this time with numbers and addresses attached. At the lick of a finger, the Yellow Pages helped you find a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker.

The technology first touted as a boon for business was an indispensable home item. The early days of needing a switchboard operator to help place every call had been replaced by automatic switchboards (you still needed “0” operators to connect long-distance calls), and many of the fears about the downfall of society hadn’t materialized, even though scammers and pranksters proliferated (“Is your refrigerator running? Then you better go catch it!”). Thanks to the laying of underwater transatlantic cables, you could call Grandma in Liverpool as easily as your next-door neighbour, albeit at astronomical long-distance prices that wouldn’t come down until late in the 20th century.

While the black rotary-dial landline had long since replaced the upright candlestick model and the hand-cranked, wooden wall version, this era was on the cusp of a design explosion. Different colours for phones, a development often marketed to women, were on the horizon. It was a full-circle moment for half the population, who in the telephone’s earliest days were shut out from the action. “At the beginning, women were forbidden to use the phone,” wrote Michele Martin in her book Hello Central? Gender, Culture and Resistance in the Formation of Telephone Systems. “Business was supposed to have the priority.”

By 1959, that attitude was all but a dim memory when the Princess Telephone hit the market. I still remember seething with envy when, visiting my American cousin Sylvia, I spotted a pastel pink Princess Telephone on her nightstand. What girl in the mid-20th century wasn’t lured by its whimsical advertising slogan? “It’s little! … It’s lovely! … It lights!”

The Princess Telephone was the creation of the American design firm of Henry Dreyfuss, one of the first celebrity industrial designers of the 20th century. Dreyfuss also brought the world the Western Electric Model 500 telephone, a sophisticated upgrade to the Western Electric Model 300, the ubiquitous phone of the 1930s and 1940s and one of the first to incorporate the handset, dial and bells into a compact, easy-to-use unit. While the Princess Telephone, whose handset rested firmly on a flat, ovoid base, was an esthetic hit, it wasn’t Dreyfuss’s shining form-meets-function achievement. The base was so light, it moved when the phone was dialed, and it didn’t come with an internal ringer, so you had to mount one on the wall.

Still, a good argument could be made that it helped usher in a bold new era of design for the home telephone, which until the late 1980s had to be rented, rather than outright purchased, from your local phone company. Two superstars of phone design would soon follow: the Trimline (1965), another Dreyfuss design that had the dial on the handset, a kind of a preview to the cellphone; and the Contempra (1968), the first Canadian-designed and manufactured telephone, courtesy of Ottawa industrial designer John Tyson.

Advertised as being “shaped to fit your hand like a glove,” the Contempra’s handset sat between the user’s shoulder and cheek, the coiled cord stretching well across a room. It boasted the new feature of push buttons, rescuing us from the tyranny of the rotary dial. It also came in the popular colours of the day, olive green and burnt orange, harvest hues that matched many refrigerators, stoves and fondue sets.

While the Keebler Elf, Garfield the cat and other novelty phones that flooded the market in the 1970s were popular in some quarters, it was the 

Contempra

 that would eventually make its way into New York’s Museum of Modern Art and The National Gallery of Canada, and be immortalized in a 1974 Canada Post stamp commemorating 100 years of the development of the telephone. “People get excited about the newest iPhone coming out,” says Bob Thompson. “But the range of telephone styles today is considerably less than what we had before.”

Although Doug Duffy views all the beauties in his collection of more than 100 vintage telephones and payphones as “show stoppers,” he knows which ones he’d scoop up from his Belleville, Ont., basement if there were a fire or flood: his three rare Contempra prototype phones, one of which he found a few years ago in a thrift store for $2.50.

Recently, the retiree was contacted by industrial designer Cliff Read, who had worked under Contempra’s creator, John Tyson. Read offered him a treasure trove of phone memorabilia, including a 1996 Nortel Prototype Wallet Phone and a 1977 Northern Telecom prototype Alexander Graham Plane Phone. Duffy is now in the process of uploading the images and drawings to his website (

oldtelephoneroom.ca

) for other vintage phone addicts to admire.

This latest acquisition is a cherished addition to a collection of more than 1,000 documents, manuals and other assorted telephone paraphernalia Duffy squirrels away in his basement, the oldest phone being a 1905 Strowger with an 11-digit dial, which at the time of this writing saw one for sale for more than $11,000 on the vintage phone selling site oldphoneworks.com. His wife, Janice, “tells everyone who comes in the same thing, ‘No phones on the staircase, everything stays in the basement,’” says Duffy, sheepishly admitting that some items have recently spilled over to the garage. “It does have a phone booth in there now, but it’s a beauty, an old 1940s wooden one.”

Telephone as plot device

As the telephone firmly embedded itself in 20th-century domestic life, it also made its way into our hearts and imaginations. On TV and in the movies, the telephone was more than just a prop: it often helped to drive the narrative, whether that was slapstick comedy, dramatic tension or sheer terror. The Three Stooges frequently used them as weapons, tangling one another up in long phone cords (1947’s Brideless Groom); Maxwell Smart’s shoe phone (Get Smart, 1965-1969) and the Jetsons’ video phone (1962-1963) both hinted at the technology’s 21st-century future; Lily Tomlin’s Ernestine and her “one ringy dingy” made her a star (Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In, 1968-1973); and who could forget Carol Burnett’s Mrs. Wiggins (The Carol Burnett Show, 1967-1978), the inept office secretary whose frustrated boss, Mr. Tudball, could never get her to properly use the office desk phone?

The incessantly ringing telephone, the line that didn’t get picked up or a slammed-down receiver became a go-to storytelling device, spicing up many a thriller or horror film. No one capitalized on it more effectively than legendary film director Alfred Hitchcock. While his fellow director Edgar G. Ulmer used a phone cord as an actual murder weapon (Detour, 1945), that was too obvious for the cinematic trailblazer. Hitchcock employed it in more subtle ways, whether that was Grace Kelly’s terrified expression as she listened in on a call from Ray Milland planning out her murder (Dial M for Murder, 1954), Cary Grant’s increasingly panicked calls from payphones (North by Northwest, 1959); or Tippi Hedren fleeing into a phone booth to avoid being pecked to death (The Birds, 1963).

“The telephone was the 20th-century version of the oasis in the desert, the thing you desperately needed to get to,” says Thompson of one of its narrative contributions. “It connected you to the grid, which was the web of telephone wires.” With the advent of mobile phones, he says, “all that drama ended in one fell swoop.” Thompson notes that the infamous line from the 1979 horror flick When a Stranger Calls — “It’s coming from inside the house!” — would “make no sense” to today’s younger generations.

Like the big and small screens, the telephone also made its way into the music of the day, from heartbreakers like George Jones’s Wrong Number (1965) and Jim Croce’s Operator (1972), to more upbeat tracks like Blondie’s Hanging on the Telephone (1978). It was immortalized by the likes of Andy Warhol in art pieces such as “Telephone, 1961” and other pop art works. Warhol was so enamoured of the telephone that, when he died in 1987, he left behind an impressive collection. Warhol’s beloved Telequest Hot Lips phone today sits in the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The telephone also made its mark during the 1950s-era craze of breaking records. In this case, it was phone-booth stuffing. The popular-but-oh-so-dangerous stunt, immortalized in a 1959 Life Magazine photo showing 22 American college students squished into one, was a re-enactment earlier that same year of a feat in Durban, South Africa, when 25 students reportedly packed into a phone booth. Sadly, in the American attempt, a Plexiglas panel in the booth popped and the students weren’t able to match the South African’s impressive, if highly inadvisable, accomplishment.

In England, the land of the iconic red phone booth (you can buy a full-size replica online for around $2,000), they called the stunt the “Telephone Squash,” and someone had to be able to make a call in order for it to count. Sadly, I could find no photographic evidence of the British version, although the 

Daily Mail

did recently publish a 1980 photo of heartthrob crooner Tom Jones posing in one of those iconic British red phone booths, wearing the kind of white swim bottoms the Brits call a “budgie smuggler,” a term that originated in Australia. I’d call that an impressive stunt.

Caller ID, Call Waiting and *69

While the 1983 unveiling of the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X cellular phone got some attention (it cost more than $15,000 in today’s dollars), the developments that made the biggest splash in the 1980s and 1990s were of the landline variety: the cordless phone, Caller ID, Call Waiting and the answering machine.

The cordless phone finally untethered us from the phone cord, and served as a kind of dress rehearsal for the cellphone that was soon to invade, and transform, daily life. Caller ID, whereby the incoming call number was displayed, brought in a whole new era of phones that, along with a screen to see the incoming call, often included an answering machine that was either part of the phone equipment or attached to it.

Once again, the introduction of this new technology was met with both suspicion and excitement.

“We perceive it as the best technology available for thwarting obscene and threatening and harassing phone calls,” Peter J. Ventimiglia, director of media relations for New Jersey Bell, said of Caller ID in a 1990 New York Times article. While today most of us can’t imagine answering a phone call without knowing who’s on the other end, back then privacy advocates were alarmed by what they perceived as an infringement of the caller’s privacy rights — not to mention a big setback for all us teenaged prank callers.

For a time, there was an easy fix: You could press *69, and your line would dial up the last person who called. You could also prevent numbers from being displayed permanently upon request, or by simply pressing *67 before dialing; which, by the way, has nothing to do with today’s “6, 7” phrase popular with Gen Alpha (those digital natives 15 years and younger) meant to confuse the rest of us, and which Dictionary.com declared 2025’s Word of the Year.

Growing social anxiety

Speaking of Gen Alpha, most wouldn’t know how to operate a rotary dial phone if their lives depended on it. While fewer than half of Canadian households still have a landline, 95 per cent of Canadian households now possess at least one cellphone. According to Tom Keenan, you can no longer even compare a landline to a cellphone. One, says Keenan, a professor in the school of architecture, planning and landscape at the University of Calgary, is something you talk into; the other, in the case of a smartphone, is a completely different animal. “Cellphones are computers and radios, with a telephone function,” says Keenan, the author of Technocreep: the Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy.

Because of this, most young people have let that last function fall by the wayside. In a recent survey by U.K.-based firm USwitch.com, a full one-quarter of respondents ages 18 to 34 said they would never answer a ringing phone. This has led to a generation of younger adults with such an aversion to speaking on any kind of phone that they don’t even know how to properly converse. To remedy the problem, coaches and courses have popped up across North America and Europe.

Mary Jane Copps, who started her business The Phone Lady (thephonelady.com) 20 years ago, is arguably one of its true pioneers. “Telephobia absolutely exists and it’s getting more common,” says Copps from her Halifax home, about the phobia that isn’t in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), but is recognized by a growing number of psychologists as falling into the family of anxiety disorders.

“It’s a fear of the unexpected,” says Copps, whose business plan in the early days revolved around etiquette, but who is increasingly focused on helping her clients get over their telephobia. “It’s the improvisational aspect of conversation that many have no experience in.”

Copps is often contacted by managers in the fields of banking, law and hospitality to coach their younger employees, who prefer the control they have while texting, emailing or using social media. While her teachings may sound like plain old common sense to those who grew up chattering away on the phone, Copps insists it’s a vital skill that can be taught. “If you can’t have a conversation in which you can listen to someone else’s point of view, or state your own, that can be very limiting.”

Cellphones ‘made us more reachable’

These days, those old landline telephones are popping up all over. When Mandy Farmer was in the planning stages of launching the Hotel Zed chain in British Columbia a decade ago, she scoured thrift stores for working landline telephones to use in guest rooms. “I wanted our hotels to rebel against the ordinary,” says the CEO of Accent Inns and Hotel Zed, her three Zed hotels in Kelowna, Victoria and Tofino, which are decorated in mid-century modern style. While her older guests enjoy the sentimental walk down memory lane, Farmer says her Millennial and Gen Z customers are “obsessed with vintage, like vinyl, thrifted fashion and quirky, old-school tech and decor.”

Jamie Elder, whose Osoyoos, B.C., store, Unity, caters to a young demographic, loves the conversations that his collection of colourful old phones, boom-boxes and other 20th-century curios inspire.

“People start sharing stories with their kids about growing up with rotary dial phones and pay phone booths,” says Elder, who has been operating his shop catering to skateboarders and beachgoers for three decades. “Living in a retirement community, I’m always finding old phones at garage sales,” he says of his collection of scores of old telephones, which includes a working pay phone he uses as the store’s phone. “They’re some of the best things we ever made in the 20th century.”

While the traditional copper-wire landline telephone may be riding off into the sunset, plugging a phone into a wall is making a comeback in other ways. In a recent issue of The Atlantic magazine entitled, “

The Dumbest Phone is Parenting Genius

,” writer Rheana Murray examined the emergence of landline “pods,” whereby parents are teaming up with other parents to form a community of landline networks for their kids’ friends, a compromise to opening the floodgates of social media to impressionable young minds.

While the evidence of a massive rush back to landlines is still in the anecdotal stage, people such as the University of Calgary’s Tom Keenan think that’s a very wise idea, for many reasons. “I’ll always have a landline, which is somewhat more private,” says Keenan, who adds that the sound quality on even a VoIP landline is superior to a cellphone. While the VoIP system means that if your power goes out, so does your landline, he’ll continue to straddle both worlds.

“The cellphone is superior for urgency, but that’s its fatal flaw,” says Keenan, whose book Technocreep and its detailing of the privacy risks from cellphones would make any reader rush to reconnect their landline. “It’s made us more reachable, which is both good and bad.”

As for this analog native, I confess that, after receiving one too many nuisance calls on my landline, a few years ago I cut the cord and went full cellular. I’ll always cherish, though, those days of the landline telephone in all its copper wire glory, a more innocent time when we weren’t constantly on our phones reading, texting and falling down the social media rabbit hole, and a telephone could only do that one, marvellous thing: bring us together through the age-old art of conversation.


A large grizzly bear on the side of the road in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta.

Bear attacks have loomed frighteningly large in the headlines this year. The most terrifying was a grizzly attack on a group of

B.C. schoolchildren and teachers

out on a hike in late November.

Four people — three children and an adult — from Acwsalcta School near Bella Coola were seriously injured and airlifted to Vancouver for treatment.

In October, a B.C. man was attacked by a grizzly that ripped his scalp, tore off a finger and broke some of his bones. He fought back,

punching, biting and shooting it in the leg

. However, he succumbed to his injuries three weeks later, the Vancouver Sun reported. Also in October, an

Alberta hunter was mauled by a grizzly

and airlifted to hospital. The bear was shot and killed by the man’s hunting partner. The attack came just a few

days after the killing of the first grizzly bear under a provincial program to deal with problem animals, reported the Calgary Herald. Two hikers on a trail near Prince George, B.C. were hospitalized after a grizzly attack in October. Back in July, a married couple were e-biking near Creston, B.C., when a grizzly attacked, putting the husband in hospital.  

In June, Parks Canada reported that a

black bear was euthanized in Alberta’s Waterton Lakes National Park after acting aggressively toward humans. “While this was an isolated incident, we want to remind visitors that wildlife and public safety is a shared responsibility — we all have a role to play,” Parks Canada told the Herald.

According to numbers published in a report by

The Origins Foundation

, an organization dedicated to documenting stories about hunting, wildlife habitats and conservation, grizzly attacks appear to have grown, and fatalities may be increasing: there were six fatalities in Canada in 1990-1999 and five in the five years spanning 2020-2025. For black bears, there were four fatalities in 2020-2025, eight in the 1990s.

In assessing broader attack numbers, the foundation states:

“The number of grizzly bear attacks surged to 11 in the 2020–2025 period — more than double that of any previous full decade. Since this figure covers only half a decade, the annual rate is significantly higher than in earlier periods. If this trend continues, the next decade could see a record number of grizzly fatalities.”

Regarding black bears, the foundation says: “Black bear attacks peaked at nine in the 2000–2009 decade. In the first five years of the 2020s, there have already been eight attacks and four fatalities, suggesting that the total for the decade could surpass past periods if the current pace continues.”

Most fatal grizzly bear attacks in Canada occur in British Columbia and Alberta, while fatal black bear attacks are distributed across multiple provinces, reflective of where these two species of bear live. 

According to estimates by Parks Canada, the grizzly population there is 691 in Alberta and up to 16,000 in British Columbia. The federal service says there are 65 in Banff National Park, 109 in Jasper National Park, 11 to 15 in Yoho National Park and nine to 16 in Kootenay National Park. In it’s latest

report on grizzlies

from September 2025, “up to 20,000 grizzly bears remain in western Alberta, the Yukon and Northwest Territories and British Columbia.”

Dr. Andy Derocher, a biology professor at the University of Alberta who has been studying bears for 40 years, told National Post in an email that grizzlies are suffering habitat loss or habitat degradation.

And with no hunting, he says, we can expect the grizzly bear population to increase to the level sustainable by their environment, then “expect more bears to disperse into areas they don’t currently live — places where we killed them all historically.” Grizzly bear hunting has been closed since 2017 in B.C. and 2006 in Alberta, he notes. Black bear hunts are managed across most of their range in the United States (35 states) and Canada, according to a report he co-wrote,

Bears in North America: Habitats, hunting, and politics

.

“Now add in more people moving further into the wilderness using ATVs, electric bikes, horses or hiking, and there is a greater chance of conflicts. Over time, we have seen more human-bear conflicts in parts of Alberta as grizzlies expand their range. I expect B.C. will have a lot more grizzly bear-human conflicts.”

Grizzlies, he says, have been sighted “in places they’ve not been seen before, such as the high Arctic, Manitoba, possibly in Ontario, Vancouver Island, Texada Island (in B.C.’s Strait of Georgia, where a grizzly was recently shot).

Annie Pumphrey, senior wildlife policy analyst with the BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, echoes this concern: “I would say that humans are crossing into zones (that bears inhabit) more so than bears crossing into human zones. In B.C. alone there are over 600,000 kilometres of resource roads which bring people deep into the backcountry with relative ease … Increased development is blocking (bear) travel corridors, leading them to seek alternative territory. Also, increasing drought is pushing bears into human-use areas in search of poorly secured human attractants (food, garbage and wildlife).”

Nonetheless, Derocher says concern about fatal bear attacks is unfounded. “The chances of being killed by a bear is similar to that of being killed by a bee sting. Bear attacks are extremely rare. I’d be far more worried about driving on the TransCanada Highway in winter than a bear attack.”

Both he and Pumphrey say stats on bear attacks aren’t reliable. How an attack is defined is “fluid and poorly defined,” says Derocher, ranging from one breaking into your cabin to injury and death. Moreover, there is no government database accounting for all bear encounters.

More to the point, Pumphrey contends, is that looking to bear attack statistics “diverts attention from the factors that matter most,”  which is “responsible human behaviour in bear country.” That includes managing items that can attract bears. It also includes knowing when and where to enjoy the outdoors so you will avoid bear encounters, she says.

Pumphrey contends timing may be more important than geography. “There is evidence that there are more bear attacks in fall to early winter.” That could be due to a variety of factors, such as hunting (for other wildlife). And in late fall, she notes, “bears enter a physiological state where they have heightened metabolic demand, which means they are foraging for food at higher rates to build fat reserves for winter.” Bears are more likely to be stressed at that time, she adds.

When attacks do occur, Pumphrey says they are more common with grizzlies than black bears. “There is an evolutionary reason for this. Black bears evolved in more forested areas where they could more easily avoid conflict with other bears by climbing trees or concealing themselves in the forest, which is why they are more likely to flee from perceived threats. Grizzly bears evolved in more open landscapes such as the prairies/tundra, where escape options are limited, and as a result are more likely to display defensive behaviour … to scare away perceived threats without engaging in physical contact.”

And many grizzly and black bears use “trail systems just as humans do.” Moreover, says Pumphrey, the bears will not back off their trails. “There are many reports of bears ‘following’ people, ‘attacking’ or ‘hunting’ them, when in the majority of cases the bear is simply walking down a pathway in the same direction as you are, and if you step off the path they will typically just walk right past you.”

In other words, she warns, stay on human hiking trails. “In popular areas with defined trails, bears will learn where people typically go and where to avoid them. Venturing off-trail into the backcountry increases your risk.”

Canadian and

U.S.

park services offer similar advice about how to stay safe in bear country.

First off is to make noise while hiking, says

Parks Canada

. And while bear spray is advised, don’t rely on it to keep you safe, says Parks Canada, noting its effectiveness will vary with wind conditions and distance from the bear. And note that it is not a repellent, says the

U.S. National Parks Service

, so do not apply to your body or equipment.

Here are some safety tips:

  • If you encounter a bear, the first rule is to stay calm. The bear wants to know you’re not a threat.
  • Pick up small children and stay in a group.
  • Don’t drop your pack. It can provide protection if attacked.
  • Back away slowly, don’t run. Bears can run as fast as a race-horse, both uphill and downhill.
  • Talk calmly and firmly. If a bear rears on its hind legs and waves its nose about, it’s trying to identify you. Remain still and talk calmly so it knows you are a human and not a prey animal. A scream or sudden movement may trigger an attack.
  • Do not run, but if the bear follows, stop and hold your ground.
  • Do not climb a tree. Both grizzlies and black bears can climb trees.
  • Leave the area or take a detour. If this is impossible, wait until the bear moves away. Always leave the bear an escape route.

The advice for how to handle an attack varies depending on what type of bear you have encountered.

If you are attacked by a

grizzly

bear, says the U.S. National Parks Service, leave your pack on and play dead. Lay flat on your stomach with your hands clasped behind your neck. Spread your legs to make it harder for the bear to turn you over. Remain still until the bear leaves the area. Fighting back usually increases the intensity of such attacks. However, if the attack persists, fight back vigorously. Use whatever you have at hand to hit the bear in the face.

The service says you shouldn’t play dead if you’re attacked by a

black

bear. Try to escape to a secure place such as a car or building. If escape is not possible, try to fight back using any object available. Concentrate your kicks and blows on the bear’s face and muzzle.

    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.


    People in Toronto protest the implementation of a QR code COVID-19 vaccine passport by the Ontario government, Sept. 1, 2021.

    They were contentious, unprecedented and among the policies that drove long-haul truckers from across Canada to overtake Ottawa’s downtown core for nearly a month.

    Now a new paper explores under what conditions vaccine certificates should, or shouldn’t ever, be considered again.

    “If you look at some of the language used even during the convoy, it was ethics language. It was informed consent; it was around freedom and liberty and coercion,” said co-author Maxwell Smith, director of Western University’s Centre for Bioethics.

    “These are profoundly ethical ideas. We need to confront that these are the sorts of concerns that people have and motivate things like the convoy. We need to get ahead of them to actually ask: were these measures coercive? Do they infringe on freedom in a way that we think is unethical or unjust?”

    COVID began cutting its swath across the globe six years ago, when, on Dec. 31, 2019, reports of a strange “viral pneumonia” of unknown cause were first reported to the World Health Organization’s China Country Office, marking the beginning of a global pandemic that has contributed to the deaths of seven million people worldwide, according to WHO.

    In Canada, vaccine certificates — individualized QR codes available in paper or digital form granting the fully vaccinated entry to restaurants, bars, theatres and other “high risk” settings — were implemented in 2021 and gradually phased out throughout 2022.

    Future pandemic planning needs to go beyond stockpiling medicines and personal protective gear and building more ICU beds, said Smith. It’s also crucial to grapple with the fraught ethical conflicts COVID raised and ask, “What would we do differently?”

    In their recently published paper, Smith and his colleagues propose that as three factors increase  — pathogenicity, meaning the ability of the virus to harm the person infected, the prevalence of the virus itself and the protective effects of any vaccine — so, too, do the justifications for considering vaccine certificates.

    Lower levels, they said, diminish the justification. In addition, “we then need to determine when we, collectively, think a pathogen is ‘sufficiently’ severe, prevalent, etc to. justify the use of vaccine certificates,” Smith said.

    Higher scores for all three “will provide stronger justification for trade-offs with liberty,”

    Smith and his co-authors, the University of Ottawa’s Cecile Bensimon and Dr. Kumanan Wilson, wrote.

    Their proposed framework could “quickly and clearly” sweep away arguments for using vaccine certificates, they said. “In other cases, it may offer compelling reasons” to seriously consider their use.

    “If we don’t try to answer those questions and maybe try to socialize those answers with the Canadian public, we’ll be facing the exact same protests or confusion or contention with a future threat that we faced during COVID,” Smith said.

    Vaccine certificates were deployed during the early waves to enable partial or full reopenings “whilst protecting the public’s health amidst an ongoing pandemic — two important goals for any pandemic response,” the paper says.

    They were also widely criticized for violating individual liberty and autonomy, creating a “me-them” environment and even splitting families apart. Critics have called them

    “scientifically questionable,”

    polarizing and stigmatizing —  part of far-reaching policies that imposed “the largest infringement on civil rights and liberties

    in living memory.

    They were originally based on several objectives: prevent transmission and make dining indoors and other gatherings safer, and reduce the burden of illness, disease and death. While the shots reduce the risk of severe outcomes, it became clear they weren’t providing “sterilizing” immunity, meaning complete protection. Vaccinated people could still get infected, and infect others. Immunity wanes over months.

    An absence of sterilizing immunity — a vaccine that completely interrupts transmission of the virus — weakens the case for vaccine certificates, the paper says. “But it’s not the case that (COVID shots) did absolutely nothing in terms of the reduction of infection or transmission or severe illness,” Smith said.

    “The all-or-nothing sometimes clouds our judgement.”

     A customer has her COVID-19 QR code scanned by the manager of a fitness club in Montreal as the Quebec government’s COVID-19 vaccine passport comes into effect, Sept. 1, 2021.

    How much impact vaccine certificates had during COVID is hard to disentangle, said University of Toronto medical microbiologist and infectious diseases specialist Dr. Allison McGeer.

    “It is probably impossible to judge, in the setting of a pandemic, because there was so much going on at the same time. Teasing apart what was the effect of travel bans versus vaccine certificate requirements is really hard to do,” McGeer said.

    “There’s a sense in moments of crisis you do what is the right thing now and pick up the pieces later,” she said.

    One study

     estimated that 290,168 additional people in Canada received their first dose in the seven weeks after provinces announced proof-of-vaccination polices, “a 17.5 per cent increase over the number of vaccinations estimated in the absence of these policies.” But it was short lived: Uptake returned to “preannouncement levels,” or lower, within six weeks. The mandates remained in place for at least four months.

    Quebec and Ontario were the first to introduce vaccine passports, in September 2021. By then, 82 per cent of those 12 and older in both provinces had already had one dose of a COVID vaccine. One study found that the number of first doses administered over 11 weeks increased by

    23 per cent in Quebec, and 19 per cent in Ontario.

    Overall, estimated coverage increased by 0.9 percentage points in Quebec, and 0.7 percentage points in Ontario, over the first 11 weeks, the authors wrote.

    “By virtue of saying, ‘Going to restaurants, bars and theatres is conditioned upon you being vaccinated,’ that meant more people got vaccinated,” Smith said.

    Whether that made those settings safer by virtue of everyone there being vaccinated “is a lot harder to measure,” he said. “We sometimes use a proxy: Did they have any broad population effects?”

    At the time, hospitals were overwhelmed by a Delta-driven wave. “We didn’t have enough beds to go around,” Smith said. Doctors were considering rationing critical care. “The more vaccinations we had out there, the lower the risk of people being hospitalized. So, generally, you saw a lower severity of illness occurring,” Smith said.

    Were vaccine certificates coercive? “That’s a tough question,” said Smith. “They did put pressure on people to get vaccinated. We wanted to live our lives. It didn’t force us to do it, but it did put pressure on us to do so.”

     Supporters line a highway in Rigaud, Que., waving flags and signs at Freedom Convoy truckers headed to Ottawa to protest COVID vaccine mandates, Jan. 28, 2022.

    He and his co-authors didn’t apply their framework to COVID. They don’t answer whether the COVID vaccine certificates, and the trade-offs with individual liberty, were justified. But they said it isn’t enough to satisfy the three conditions set out in their paper alone. Other considerations  include whether the use of vaccine certificates “represents a tolerable approach to balancing public health aims with individual liberty and autonomy.”

    “Questions such as this cannot be answered by science alone,” the paper reads. “Determining the point at which benefits are sufficient to justify proof-of-vaccination requirements requires making value judgments about what outcomes matter most (and for whom), what measures are necessary (and for whom) and whether those measures are proportionate or legitimate.”

    “The value judgments of my co-authors and I are less important here than what the Canadian public values, since these are big policy decisions,” Smith said.

    In addition to requiring proof of vaccination for many indoor spaces, vaccines were mandated for hospital staff, 268,000 federal public servants in “core public administration,” including members of the RCMP, college and university students returning to campuses and cross-border truckers.

    Smith thinks the framework could be applied to mandates as well. “But I think there is some nuance that would change the moral calculus in important ways.”

    People working in hospitals and health care have stronger ethical obligations to take steps to protect patients, he said. “Prevalence doesn’t necessarily need to be high to justify requirements in those settings.

    “And because even so-called ‘mild’ diseases can severely harm or kill more vulnerable people, pathogenicity needn’t be high either,” he said.

    Courts in Canada have generally found that governments had the authority to introduce vaccination requirements, he said.

    “I think infringing on liberty is one thing. But I think the more important question is whether it was an unjust infringement on liberty,” Smith said.

    “If we care about the most vulnerable people in society, we need to think about what sort of reductions of my own freedom might be necessary in order to protect other people’s freedom.”

    The country was in a state of lockdown, Smith said. “Everything was closed, and it seemed the safest way forward, given the prevalence of the virus.

    “We were looking for a way out.”

    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 daily newsletter, Posted, here.


    Tom Christie, a retired RCMP officer, was assaulted by a group of teens in a Calgary Park in July 2004. He's still fighting Veterans Affairs for compensation for his injuries.

    Tom Christie believed he was doing his job when he waded into a crowd of drunken, rowdy teens at a Calgary park.

    Instead, the teens turned on the vacationing Mountie in July 2004, striking his body upwards of 50 times, leaving the front-line RCMP constable with a head injury and setting Christie up for a battle with Veterans Affairs Canada, which handles compensation claims for Mounties, that’s been going on now for two decades.

    Christie was biking with his three sons around 8 p.m. on July 23, 2004. He remembers confronting the group of four or five teens after sending his boys, ages eight, 10 and 13 at the time, home.

    Based on his training, Christie believed he couldn’t ignore potential trouble, even though he was on vacation.

    Recruits “were told we were on duty 24/7; that if you saw a situation, you had to intervene,” he said Tuesday in an interview from Calgary.

    “You just can’t walk away.”

    The teens were throwing their empty cans on the ground, Christie said.

    “There were senior citizens walking. There were moms with their kids in swings,” he said.

    “I went over to talk to the kids to get them to clean up and it didn’t go well. Some of them ended up attacking me and knocking me down.”

    From there, he doesn’t recall much about the beating. “I was told that I had said, ‘I’m going to phone Calgary Police Service.’ And that’s when the violence started.”

    A 17-year-old and a 15-year-old were eventually convicted for beating him up. “They received seven months each for aggravated assault,” Christie said.

    After receiving a decision earlier this year from a Veterans Affairs reconsideration panel indicating he was entitled to full compensation for his closed head injury and left facial nerve palsy, Christie, now 67 and retired, figured the fight was over. But he learned recently that compensation will equate to nothing.

    “I am now appealing again as there are lingering issues. After all, I was booted in the head 30 times,” Christie said. He is seeking compensation to make up for his reduced quality of life and pain and suffering.

    According to Veterans Affairs, it considered neuropsychiatric testing performed on Christie the year after his attack, his annual RCMP medical exam from 2011, and a note from a doctor written a decade later.

    “Based on the information we reviewed, your disability remains assessed at nil at this time,” according to an Oct. 28 letter Christie received from Veterans Affairs.

    It went on to say Christie is “entitled to receive treatment for this condition,” but he does “not qualify for a monetary benefit.”

    When that letter landed, “I thought, ‘Oh my God, here we go again,’” Christie said. “The long battle to get the point established where I was considered to be on duty took a long time and a lot of work. It’s like the left hand’s not talking to the right hand at Veterans Affairs.”

    The decisions from Veterans Affairs come on the heels of an October 2024 Federal Court ruling from Justice Phuong Ngo indicating that it was wrong to deny Christie compensation for the head injury he suffered while he was on vacation because it was not directly connected to his RCMP service, even though a report at the time clearly drew that link.

    Christie, an RCMP officer from April 1982 until November 2013, spent the last two decades trying to convince authorities he was acting as a police officer when he approached the drunken teens causing a disturbance in a green belt near Calgary’s Shawnessy Community Centre.

    “Although (Christie) was not in uniform at the time, he considered it his duty as an off-duty police officer to intervene,” Ngo said last year.

    Christie wound up in a hospital trauma ward for six days with head injuries.

    He “experienced significant and ongoing difficulty” because of his injuries, said the judge.

    Christie “was unable to return to work until late 2004, at which time he was only able to work half days in the office for a maximum of three to four days per week,” according to her ruling.

    He “suffered post-concussion difficulties, amnesia and cognitive and perceived neurological abnormalities,” as a result of the attack, Ngo said. “It is also clear that (Christie’s) memory of the events in question was affected as a result of the injuries he sustained.”

    Veterans Affairs had been denying Christie disability benefits for his head injuries since July 2005, concluding that they weren’t “directly connected” with his RCMP service.

    The judge pointed to a hazardous occurrence investigation report prepared just days after the attack, while Christie was still in hospital. Veterans Affairs had discounted it for decades, believing wrongly that it was made two years after Christie’s assault. The report noted “he was off duty but acting in his capacity as a police officer.”

    Ngo sent Christie’s case back to a different Veterans Affairs reconsideration panel for another look, which resulted in the decision earlier this year granting him full compensation for his injuries.

    Christie said his short-term memory suffered after the attack. “I have check lists all over the place because of that.”

    He also has trouble sleeping and suffers from anxiety and constant fatigue — problems that surfaced after the July 2004 assault “that are still present to this day.”

    The attack had a profound effect on Christie’s family, especially his late wife, who passed away four-and-a-half years ago due to cancer. “After that, if I was ever late for something, she went into a panic.”

    His sons were “frightened to death” after the attack, Christie said. “They thought the kids were going to come up to the house and hunt us down. My poor wife was just stressed beyond belief, which of course added to my anxiety levels.”

    Christie now wishes he’d just phoned police rather than stepping in that day to school the rowdy teens.

    “But that’s water under the bridge. I can’t change the past,” he said. “I can only work on the future.”

    While he doesn’t know if he’ll ever get any compensation for his injuries, Christie isn’t giving up the fight.

    “This is just a matter of principle,” he said.

    If another Mountie is injured while off duty, but acting as police officer, Christie hopes his example will help them get compensation.

    “At least this is a precedent-setting case for them,” he said.

    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.


    Canadians are divided, with 41 per cent saying they trust Prime Minister Mark Carney, left, to manage Canada's relationship with the U.S. under U.S President Donald Trump, and 40 per cent saying they don't trust Carney to defend the country against Trump's political and financial decisions, according a Leger poll.

    Canadians

    are growing impatient with the lack of progress in Canada-U.S. trade relations, a new Leger poll suggests.

    Confidence also appears to be waning over whether Canadians can trust Prime Minister Mark Carney to defend Canada against U.S. President Donald Trump’s political firestorms.

    “I think time has not been kind to Prime Minister Carney, at this point anyway, in terms of not really showing that he is the man for the job,” said Andrew Enns, executive vice-president of Leger’s Central Canada operations.

    The dollar-for-dollar response to Trump’s tariffs against Canadian imports signalled the Liberal government was prepared to hit back at Trump’s protectionist measures, Enns said.

    “I think what’s problematic now, we’re not necessarily seeing action. And I think Canadians are starting to question the effectiveness of the government’s response,” he said.

    “It’s harder to put your finger on, what exactly are we doing? It doesn’t feel like we’re really even responding.”

    The poll exploring how Canadians are feeling about U.S relations and tariffs as the country ends out 2025 also found Canadians are more pessimistic than optimistic about what 2026 holds: 41 per cent expect trade relations to worsen, compared to 20 per cent who expect things will improve. Twenty-eight per cent foresee no change.

    “It’s a very measured Canadian population going into 2026 in terms of expectations,” Enns said.

    Saying it’s no longer time for “elbows up,” Carney announced in August that Canada was removing 25 per cent counter tariffs on $40 billion in goods imported into Canada from the U.S., except for those on steel, aluminum and autos.

    Carney said the move was designed to match the U.S. decision not to levy tariffs on goods compliant with the trilateral Canada-U.S.-Mexico (CUSMA) agreement, saying the countries had restored free trade on a “vast majority of our goods.”

    Canada failed to reach a trade deal before Trump abruptly terminated talks in October over Ontario’s controversial anti-tariff ad featuring clips of former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, a staunch supporter of free trade.

     U.S. President Donald Trump stands beneath a portrait of former President Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office of the White House on October 10, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

    According to the new Leger poll, 82 per cent of Canadians believe the U.S. tariffs have had a very (42 per cent) or somewhat (40 per cent) significant impact on the Canadian economy, while just 11 per cent said the impact has been “not very” or not at all significant.

    Liberal voters were more likely (89 per cent) to say the impact was significant, followed by Bloc Québécois and NDP voters, at 88 per cent each, and Conservative supporters (82 per cent).

    When asked how they have personally weathered the Trump tariffs storm, more than half of Canadians (56 per cent) said the tariffs have had a very or somewhat significant impact on their household finances and lifestyle, according to the poll. The proportion was higher still (63 per cent) among Conservative voters.

    However, when polled on the same question in June, more Canadians (66 per cent) felt the tariffs would have a major or moderate impact on their household finances.

    Enns said it’s difficult to separate out what’s creating the hardships meeting household budgets. “Is it the tariffs? Or is it this relentless inflation in the cost of living,” with grocery prices alone increasing

    4.7 per cent year-over-year in November

    , the biggest increase since December 2023.

    He said he was also struck by the level of distrust in Carney. Canadians are divided, with 41 per cent saying they trust Carney to manage Canada’s relationship with the U.S. under Trump, and 40 per cent saying they don’t trust Carney to defend the country against Trump’s political and financial decisions. Nineteen per cent were undecided.

    Support for Carney was higher among Liberal voters (89 per cent), older Canadians aged 55 plus (49 per cent) and those who believe the tariffs are causing a significant blow to the economy (45 per cent).

    “I thought (support for Carney) would be higher,” Enns said.

    When it comes to how satisfied they are with the Liberal government’s response to U.S. tariffs, again Canadians are somewhat split: 44 per cent are “very” or “somewhat” satisfied, and 43 per cent are dissatisfied.

    That compares to a Leger poll in early March, when the Carney Liberals announced its dollar-for-dollar response. Support for that policy tracked at 74 per cent.

    Canadians’ patience is starting to be tested, Enns said, “in terms of, are we seeing results, in terms of the strategy and in terms of, are we making real progress here?”

    “The prime minister has had a good half year in the office, technically a bit more, but certainly since the election, he’s had some time. The results haven’t been really great,” Enns said. “Depending who you talk to, some would say we’ve retreated on a few fronts with respect to how we’re dealing with President Trump and the White House administration.”

    Conservative supporters “were already pretty much convinced, ‘This ain’t our guy,’” Enns said. But Carney had latitude with NDP and Bloc supporters who trusted Carney was the best man for the job. Now, trust in Carney to manage U.S. relations is below 40 per cent among the NDP (38 per cent) and the Bloc (25 per cent).

    Only 11 per cent of Conservative voters said they trust Carney to defend Canada against Trump’s demands, according to the poll.

    “There is a bit of pressure building on the prime minister and his team to start to demonstrate some progress, which is really hard because I don’t think they necessarily are dictating the next steps here fully,” Enns said.

    However, with expectations for a rosier 2026 low, “for the prime minister’s office and the government, there is a potential to sort of exceed expectations if we can suddenly get into what appears to be a fairly productive round of negotiations around the CUSMA agreement, for example.”

    The online survey of 1,519 respondents aged 18 and older was conducted between Dec. 12 and 14. For comparison purposes, a probability sample of this size yields a margin of error no greater than plus or minus 2.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

    National Post, with additional reporting from Christopher Nardi

    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.