LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Former U.S. president Ronald Reagan's 1987 remarks on trade have sparked controversy after being used in an Ontario ad.

Did the dustup over Ontario’s $75 million Ronald Reagan ad — the one telling Americans that even the Gipper believed that, “over the long run, such trade barriers (tariffs) hurt every American worker and consumer” — expose two truths and a lie?

Late Thursday, President Donald Trump took issue with the ad in a Truth Social post, expressing concern that it twisted Reagan’s legacy and undermined his own tariff policies.

 

“The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs,” Trump wrote.

 

A source close to the administration noted that the White House must have been in touch with the Foundation over the matter.

Trump’s post did more than criticize the ad — it also scuppered the U.S.-Canada trade talks.

“TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A. Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.”

In one fell swoop, weeks of seemingly re-energized talks between the U.S. and Canadian trade teams came to a halt — negotiations that, according to the source, “were much further along than people knew.”

But some Canadian politicians, the source said, seem to be losing faith in the talks. “The message I got … was that ‘there’s all these asks, and what if we delivered all of them? What do we get in return?’”

“There’s a sense that, at times, it feels like a one-way street.”

Leaders from elsewhere in Canada had warned Ontario that the ad was likely to ruffle feathers. They pointed out that the Republican Party is nowhere near where it was when Reagan was president, the source said, and that a lot of people alive today cannot even remember him.

Trump purportedly derailed trade negotiations over Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s one-minute ad quoting another Republican. This has left Canadians wondering if the president’s response revealed a truth as to how serious he was about a long-lasting tariff deal.

 

But it wasn’t just the ad that upset Trump.

According to the source, the White House was also angered by Mark Carney threatening Stellantis with legal action after the automaker announced plans to move Jeep Compass production from Brampton, Ontario, to the U.S.

Ford’s confrontational approach toward Trump is popular with a lot of Canadians. “Given the anti-American sentiment in Ontario, I think that, electorally, the elbows-up approach works for him,” said the source. It may not help the trade talks or Canada’s relations with the U.S., but it lays bare the divide over the preferred leadership style for the conservatives.

 

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, an ideological hardliner, is still smarting from his stunning loss to Carney last spring and now faces a leadership review in January. If he loses, the leadership style of the Conservatives could soon shift and look more like Ford’s aggressive pragmatism. That obviously would not bode well for a breakthrough in US-Canada talks.

And as for the lie? It’s not really a lie so much as a departure from standard diplomatic protocols. According to the source, Ambassador Kirsten Hillman has been party to the negotiations, but other diplomats have not. Instead, “Carney has a shadow government. He doesn’t seem to trust the diplomatic service, and he wants to work around them,” the source said.

“Carney is basically treating these negotiations like how he used to do mergers and acquisitions when he was a banker,” the source said. “He’s apparently brought in people who are trusted friends and allies … and he doesn’t want the negotiations going beyond a very small group of people.”

Ford announced on Friday that he would stop running the Reagan ad on Monday to allow for trade talks to resume.

But whether it’s diplomats or Carney’s buddies involved, nobody needs to pack their bags for more negotiations until Trump decides to lift the freeze, which means the future of Canada-U.S. trade negotiations is as uncertain as ever.

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.


Participants in the weekly walk in Thornhill, Ontario of Jews and non-Jewish allies who have called for the release of the hostages taken in Israel on October 7.

This Sunday marks the final “Run for Their Lives” walk in Thornhill, Ontario, a weekly event held in a local mall for the last two years. It was organized by Toronto resident, Michelle Factor, as one of approximately 250 weekly walks around the world bringing together Jewish and non‑Jewish allies every Sunday to demand the safe return of hostages held by Hamas.

The Thornhill walk began as a gathering of 60–80 walkers and became a weekly affirming of “Chai” (life in Hebrew), with the walkers wearing red to symbolize bleeding hearts, and including prayers led by rabbis and the singing of Hatikvah. However, now that the last 20 living hostages have been returned, the event is coming to a close.

Run for Their Lives was inspired by a video from Rachel Polin Goldberg, mother of one of the captives, calling on communities to start or join walks in their neighborhoods.

The organization spanned several continents with chapters in Vancouver, Victoria, Helsinki, Paris, Braunschweig, and beyond. Factor launched the Thornhill event on Day 100 of the hostages’ captivity.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DPeutIfD_qJ/?hl=en

NP spoke with Michelle Factor about the meaning of the walk and marking the last one. Here is what she had to say:

Michelle, how does it feel to be doing the last of these walks this weekend?

It’s truly a bittersweet ending. I’m so grateful that the 20 living hostages are finally home, but it’s sad to think we won’t be gathering as a community on Sundays anymore after two years together. As a group, we’ve decided that this weekend will be a celebration of life for the 20 who returned home most recently, while we continue to pray for the 13 souls who have not yet been brought back for proper burial. Run for Their Lives began as a way to walk and run for those who could not. While we’ll always keep praying for the 13, this weekend is a moment to celebrate that our hope and prayers for the living have been answered.

What memories of past walks would you like to share?

One of my most cherished memories is from our very first walk. It was January 14th, 2024, minus 20 degrees Celsius, and yet it was one of our largest gatherings … Our biggest turnouts were always on significant dates, like the commemoration of October 7th, and when Rabbi (Doron) Perez joined us to share the story of his son, Daniel Perez (murdered on Oct. 7). Daniel’s quote, “If not me, then who?” has stayed with me throughout these two years. It inspired me to keep going because if I don’t, who will? I’ve also carried my own message with me each week: “If they can hate us, I can love you.” It’s something I remind my walkers of every Sunday that we choose love and unity in the face of hate.

How has this walk been connected to others elsewhere?

There are now 184 Run for Their Lives groups around the world. As a lead, I’ve had the privilege of connecting weekly with other group leaders, cheering each other on, sharing posters, and offering support.

In June, I joined the Israel Parade in New York City and had the chance to walk alongside other Run for Their Lives groups from around the world. We’ve built a strong global community, and our group chats will stay open indefinitely so we can continue to communicate and support one another. Not all groups are finishing this weekend. Some will keep walking until all 13 souls are returned.

Are you planning anything special to mark the event?

We’ll begin the celebration with prayers, including a new one for the 13 remaining souls, for the State of Israel, and for the IDF soldiers who continue to fight tirelessly. I’ll also be giving a short speech to thank our community for their commitment and strength. We’re honoured to have Mayor Steven Del Duca of Vaughan and MPP Laura Smith of Thornhill joining us. For the first time since January 14th, 2024, we won’t be walking in silence. Instead, we’ll be dancing and playing music to celebrate life and unity.

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.


Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks to workers at a campaign-style event at Integrity Tool and Mold in Oldcastle, Ont. on Friday, Oct. 24, 2025.

OTTAWA — Pierre Poilievre used to share a piece of advice when it came to political campaigning.

There were two things candidates need to talk about and talk about relentlessly, he instructed a room full of young conservatives at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy in 2009, back when he himself was still a fresh-faced MP.

The first thing to talk about is the people you want to represent. And the second thing is the future.

“Everything is about the future,” he told the crowd at the networking conference.

More than 15 years after his words emphasizing the future, Poilievre is coming off

a week-long controversy over his comments

about a former prime minister who has

quickly become ancient history

to most Canadians.

Some in his party believe the Conservative leader ought to listen to his own advice.

Poilievre’s recent comments to the YouTube channel Northern Perspective,

where he called the leadership of the RCMP “despicable”

over its handling of Trudeau-era scandals, triggered a bad news week for the Conservatives.

Two former Conservative staffers who worked under former prime minister Stephen Harper wrote op-eds in the Toronto Star, sparking questions about Poilievre’s leadership. The tumult also touched a nerve with some current Tory MPs, who in turn shared their concerns with others across the party, as well as anonymously with reporters.

The week brought

a frenzy of rumours about a possible potential floor-crossing

from the Conservatives to the Liberals.

A handful of MPs spoke out in defence of Poilievre.

And so far, nothing has come of it all.

Instead, Poilievre is faced with a more mundane, but no less serious problem. Some Conservatives, including some MPs, have privately been harbouring doubts over Poilievre’s chances in the next election, not only because of his style and reluctance to turn the page from his Trudeau-era tactics,

 

but also because of the present circumstances.

Namely, U.S. President Donald Trump’s economic threats, which polling shows push Canadians to prefer Prime Minister Mark Carney.

National Post interviewed more party insiders, former candidates, those inside the Conservative caucus and campaign managers about Poilievre’s chances of someday defeating Carney and how Conservatives could win, six months after the Tory leader’s first major electoral defeat. National Post granted sources the ability to speak on background, in order for them to express themselves freely.

As the reality of the Trump trade war sets in, with Carney seemingly unable to prevent widespread job losses, some party sources say that the battle will increasingly be waged on the domestic front, a territory that benefits Poilievre.  Conservatives could win back voters 55 and older by chipping away at Carney’s positioning as Canada’s economic manager-in-chief.

And with Carney set to deliver his first budget in a little more than a week, it could be a turning point for the prime minister’s electoral honeymoon, especially with Trump abruptly ending trade talks with Canada late on Thursday night, once again highlighting Carney’s inability to secure a trade deal.

For the Conservatives to turn whatever opening that provides into a future path to victory, one senior Conservative put what Poilievre needs to do succinctly:

“Stop sounding like Donald Trump.”

With Carney more than willing to take Conservative ideas, what’s left, the source said, becomes a test of leadership.

The controversy created by Poilievre’s RCMP comments “magnified” simmering concerns over the leader’s instincts to launch aggressive attacks and stirred frustrations that he lacks the capacity to change, one caucus member said. What made matters worse, they added, was the fact that Poilievre targeted police — an odd look for a party that usually stands with law enforcement.

The party has nonetheless embarked on some of its own changes. Where Conservative MPs had long been restricted when it came to doing media interviews, they are now being given more freedom to talk to the national press.

And party spokeswoman Sarah Fischer confirmed a committee is eyeing changes to the party’s candidate nomination process. During the election, last-minute appointments from party leadership and a lack of nomination contests were a major concern among the grassroots and candidates themselves.

Others point to Poilievre doing more major media interviews and engaging more cordially with members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, rather than squabbling with reporters when he disapproved of their questions.

But for some, whatever efforts the leader has made do not appear to go far enough — or to be sticking. A second caucus member described their own doubts about winning under Poilievre as entirely having to do with his tone, rather than his preparation or ideas.

While winning remains possible, it is not certain, they said.

Whatever misgivings some in caucus may have about those chances, it does not match the deep popularity Poilievre enjoys with the party base and the voter coalition he has assembled, which includes more young people and other low-income and working-class voters, particularly in the trades. Then there are the supporters who flocked to him over frustrations borne out of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the April election, it added up to more than 8 million Conservative voters and 41.3 per cent of the vote share.

To win the country, Poilievre first needs to keep winning with the party, which is far less of a challenge than convincing swing voters that he’s prime minister material. It helps that there appears to be no one inside the party currently organizing against his leadership.

Ben Woodfinden, who worked as Poilievre’s director of communications until the last election, argued that the issue of likability is less important for a Conservative leader.

A Conservative does not need to be adored to win, he said, but must be viewed as serious and competent, much like how Canadians saw former prime minister Stephen Harper.

“Presenting a version of Pierre, which is there … that is serious and competent and looks like a prime minister, I think, is part of what they need to do. People don’t have to love him.”

With Carney unafraid to show himself as a prime minister who spends a lot of time outside of Canada (he’s currently on a nine-day trip to Asia), Woodfinden added there’s an opportunity for Poilievre to showcase himself as someone who is laser-focused on Canadians, and on issues like crime, immigration, and the cost of living.

 Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre arrives on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025.

Ginny Roth, who worked as Poilievre’s director of communications during his 2022 leadership bid, said an open question for the Conservatives is how to best connect with voters in a way that differentiates them from the Liberals.

“When Poilievre was at his strongest, it was because he had a sort of fearless desire to lead public opinion on major issues, and not just pointing out what was bad about the situation, but talking about how he would do things differently,” she said, pointing to his crusade against the consumer carbon tax, as well as drugs and crime.

“He should do that again.”

A third caucus member said crime remains a significant issue for Conservatives, with fear rising in major cities, not likely to be allayed by the

Liberals’ recently announcing a new bail reform bill

.

The raw numbers from the spring election are also seen as encouraging, with the Tories having captured many new ridings, winning seats in NDP-friendly parts of Southern Ontario, and coming close to victory in Liberal strongholds once thought impenetrable, like Brampton, Ont..

The MP said that while Conservatives lost some of their traditional voters aged 55 and older in the last election, the party believes that cohort, who were alarmed over Trump, are now undergoing “buyer’s remorse,” now that they’ve seen Carney in action.

But Philippe Fournier, of the polling aggregator 338Canada.com, said the latest polling data from Leger and Abacus do not yet suggest a softening of that demographic for the Liberals.

In fact, he says the Liberals still have “some runway” when it comes to Canadians’ patience.

Still, with no immediate threat to his leadership and the overwhelming support of party members, Poilievre has a good deal of runway of his own when it comes to keeping his job.

Eventually, though, what Conservatives will judge him on is whether he has what it takes to take the job of prime minister away from Mark Carney.

National Post

staylor@postmedia.com

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 man wears a pro-pipelines t-shirt as Prime Minister Mark Carney announces five megaprojects under consideration for fast-tracking during a news conference in Edmonton, Sept. 11, 2025.

A near-majority of Canadians support the development of a new oil pipeline to meet international demands for energy, and economic demands at home, while nearly three-quarters say pipelines are important to Canada’s economic future,

new polling from Leger shows

.

In an online survey of just over 4,000 Canadian adults from coast-to-coast, 49 per cent said they support the Alberta government’s plan for a new oil pipeline connecting the province to the northwest coast of British Columbia, opening up markets for Canadian energy in Asia.

In early October, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced that Alberta would submit a proposal to the federal government’s Major Project Office to build a crude-oil pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast for export. The province is putting $14 million towards early study and regulatory work, but is hoping that a private company will take over the project. It has reignited head-butting between Alberta and B.C., provinces that have feuded in the past over energy developments.

Whatever politics are at play, 72 per cent of poll respondents, agreed that new pipelines are “important to Canada’s economic future.” A further 55 per cent are confident that pipelines can be built while adequately protecting the environment.

When asked about prioritizing pipeline development or climate goals, 45 per cent of respondents answered that they’d like “A balance of both.”

“Canadians don’t see this as a black and white issue,” said Jennifer McLeod Macey, senior vice-president of public affairs at Leger. “They want to grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time.”

Leger’s survey also showed significant differences of opinion, depending on region. Support for pipeline development is strongest in Alberta at 63 per cent, and lowest in Quebec, at 41 per cent.

“The data shows just how regional this debate remains in our country,” Macey said. “Alberta and the Prairie provinces certainly differ from the rest of Canada, and Quebec is very much a distinct society.”

Support for new pipelines also differed significantly between genders. At 58 per cent, men were far more likely to support Alberta’s new pipeline project, compared to just 40 per cent of women.

“It’s really surprising to me when we look at the sentiments of men versus women on a number of issues, and we see this in the energy space as well,” Macey said. “Men tend to lean more conservative, and women are more likely to hold a neutral or unsure opinion on a given issue.”

Macey said the data also reflects a “generational shift in priorities” when it comes to energy and the environment. Support for Alberta’s new project was just 40 per cent among 18-34 year olds, compared with 56 per cent among their counterparts aged 55 and older.

Macey added that sentiments have shifted significantly in the past 25 years, particularly when it comes to balancing the environment with Canada’s energy needs: “It’s no longer the case of environmental impact versus the economy. It’s really all intertwined and I think there is a greater understanding among Canadians of a balanced mix between the two.”

The data also suggests support for pipelines is being influenced by the ongoing trade war between Canada and the United States.

“People are concerned about the reliability of our energy, and recognize the growth that pipelines bring for Canada as a whole. Natural resources are a huge piece of the puzzle,” Macey said. “We’re in unprecedented times, and Canadians are concerned about energy bills, and this country’s economic future.”

“Canadians want things that are both practical and principled,” Macey said. “Energy progress is a part of that. We’re not looking for an extreme. We’re looking for balance.”

The polling was conducted among an online panel of 4,099 respondents between Oct. 17 and Oct. 19, 2025. Results were weighted according to age, gender, mother tongue, region, education and presence of children in the household in order to ensure a representative sample of the Canadian population.​ For comparison purposes, a probability sample ​of this size yields a margin of error no greater than ±1.5 per cent, (19 times out of 20).

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.


Canadians will soon join other non-American citizens in being photographed when entering and leaving the U.S. The biometric data collection will used to improve identity verification, combat visa overstays and reduce passport fraud, says the Department of Homeland Security. This photo shows the Transportation Security Administration's new facial recognition technology.

The U.S. will soon require all non-citizens, including Canadians, entering and leaving the country

to be photographed

as part of new Department of Homeland Security regulations.

The security initiative is intended to build a comprehensive biometric data collection aimed at improving identity verification, combatting visa overstays and reducing passport fraud. It will involve the use of facial recognition technology matching live images of travellers with government records at all entry and exit points, including airports, seaports, and land borders.

The new regulations state that “the best tool to combat passport fraud is to utilize the digital photos contained in e-passports to biometrically verify that a person who presents a travel document is the true bearer of that document.”

And, further, that U.S. Customs and Border Protection biometric tests using facial comparison technology “support this conclusion.”

The DHS has been mandated by various federal statutes, notes the new regulations, “to create an integrated, automated biometric entry and exit system that records the arrival and departure of aliens, compares the biometric data of aliens to verify their identity, and authenticates travel documents.”

A reference to 9/11 and the continued threat of global terrorism is cited in the regulations, as well as “a

United Nations Security Council resolution

adopted in 2017, calling on member nations to increase aviation security and implement systems to collect biometric data to identify terrorists.

Biometric data collection can involve use of an advance passenger information system (APIS), common to airline security, for example. The CBP intends on building galleries of an individual’s photographs using such systems. But for crossings on foot or in privately owned vehicles that may not be possible, so it may build galleries using photographs of non-citizens who “frequently cross” a specific entry point, taken there to “become part of a localized photographic gallery.”

Biometric data collected at land borders will be retained for future verifications.

Under the regulation, set to take effect on Dec. 26, U.S. authorities could also require the submission of other biometrics, such as fingerprints or DNA.

The new regulations will apply to all non-citizens, including minors under 14 and seniors over 79, who were previously exempt from some biometric requirements.

The CBP has been collecting biometric data from certain non-citizens upon arrival in the U.S. since 2004, says

Bloomberg

, but the new rule marks a significant expansion of that data collection. New advances in facial comparison technology allow the agency to roll out broader inspections for entry and departure, the CBP told Bloomberg.

The new regulation will eventually apply to Canadian travellers entering and exiting the U.S., including at vehicle border crossings. However, DHS is still working out the technical challenges involved in doing so, as

noted in the regulations

. “CBP has not analyzed the costs and benefits for implementing a facial comparison-based biometric entry-exit program for vehicles at land ports and private aircraft, or for exit at sea ports and pedestrians at land ports because CBP is still in the process of determining the best way to implement biometric entry-exit within each of these unique environments.”

Canadians staying in the U.S. for over 30 days, including snowbirds, must already comply with

fingerprinting and registration

requirements.

Most public comments submitted in response to the 2021 proposed regulations opposed them, with many people citing privacy concerns. However, the final rule released today by DHS doesn’t make substantive changes to that proposal.

DHS will open a new public comment period for 30 days after the regulation is published in the U.S. Federal Register on Oct. 27.

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.


General view of production along the Honda CRV production line is shown during a tour of a Honda manufacturing plant in Alliston, Ont., Wednesday, Apr. 5, 2023.

OTTAWA — An Ontario government anti-tariff ad posthumously narrated by Ronald Reagan is no doubt racking up plenty of views after being cited by Donald Trump as a rationale for cutting off cross-border trade talks. One thing viewers won’t learn from the controversial TV spot is that Ontarians can thank Reagan’s protectionism for the province’s thriving network of Japanese-owned auto plants and parts manufacturers.

“It’s hard to draw a direct line, but Reagan used a careful blend of carrots (and) sticks in his dealings with the Japanese that Canada was able to emulate,” said Greig Mordue, an expert in automotive and advanced manufacturing policy at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

When Reagan took office in the early 1980s, Detroit’s “Big Three” automakers were getting decimated by a new generation of cheaper, more fuel-efficient Japanese vehicles. Rather than continue to watch the American auto sector bleed out, Reagan decided, in one of his first major foreign policy manpeuvres, to cut a deal with Tokyo.

Wielding the threat of a hard import quota, Reagan convinced Japanese officials in May 1981 to voluntarily limit auto exports to the U.S. by

roughly 33 per cent

, equivalent to a

tariff rate exceeding 60 per cent

.

Canada’s then trade minister Ed Lumley negotiated a

cap on Japanese vehicles

entering the Canadian market the same year.

To skirt the de facto tariff, the Japanese automakers set up their own plants in North America. The first of these sprung up

in the American Midwest

, but it wouldn’t be long before they spread north of the border.

Honda became the first Japanese entrant in Canada in 1984, announcing

a new plant in Alliston, Ont

. Toyota broke ground on

its first Canadian plant

in Cambridge, Ont., two years later.

Mordue said that a number of factors made Southern Ontario an attractive destination for Japanese car manufacturers.

“Just basic stuff, like lots of cheap land, no neighbours, close to rail and highways,” said Mordue.

He added that Japanese car companies have historically preferred to set up shop in small towns where they can be the primary employer.

Today, Southern Ontario is home to seven Japanese-owned auto plants and dozens of Japanese car parts manufacturers, supporting

roughly 30,000 jobs.

Mordue said that lessons from Reagan-era auto sector diplomacy can be applied to Canada today.

“Historically, Canada’s auto sector has done the best when it’s attached itself to the ascendant automaking power: in the 1960s, that was the U.S., in the 1980s it was Japan, today it’s China,” said Mordue.

National Post

rmohamed@postmedia.com

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.


Former U.S. president Ronald Reagan's 1987 remarks on trade have sparked controversy after being used in an Ontario ad.

Canadian and American politicians are reacting after Donald Trump condemned an anti-tariff advertisement by the Ontario government.

The ad, which features an audio clip from a radio address of the late former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, was

called “fake”

by the current U.S. president. Trump also said all trade negotiations with Canada are “hereby terminated.” Reagan

made the radio address in April 1987

.

In a

statement

, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute said the ad “misrepresents” Reagan’s address. It also said that the Ontario government “did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks.”

But former Alberta premier Jason Kenney disagreed in a post on X.

He said the foundation does not “own copyright on the public domain statements of a president uttered 40 years ago, and disseminated by the White House.” He called it “laughably ridiculous” that such statements were subject to copyright limitations.

He asserted that the ad did not misrepresent Reagan’s address at all.

“In fact, everything he ever said about trade, before and after becoming President, is consistent with his principled opposition to tariffs,” he wrote.

The foundation “knows these things” he said, “but it is obvious” that their leadership is “easily intimidated by a call from the White House.”

Former Quebec premier Jean Charest posted a video of Reagan’s address on X, thanking Trump for “drawing our attention to a historic and foundational document in the Canada-U.S. economic relationship.”

“I invite everyone, especially our American friends, to listen to President Reagan’s full speech and form their own opinion about what he was truly saying,” said Charest.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had previously run a

campaign inviting Canadians to travel

to the western state, quoted Reagan in a post on X.

“Here are the words Trump doesn’t want you to see,” he wrote.

A quote from Reagan followed that said:  “When someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products… Markets shrink and collapse, industries shut down and millions of people lose their jobs.”

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew showed his support for the Ford government’s ad.

“President Trump’s tariffs go against Ronald Reagan’s legacy. Doug Ford’s ads are good — keep them on TV,” he said.

A video shared by Kinew in the post shows him appearing on the screen of an old television. He addresses Manitoba residents, saying that the ad is accurate and powerful. “It’s clear that these ads are working,” he said. “If you throw a rock at a lake, and you don’t hear a splash, you’ve probably missed.”

Michael Reagan, the son of the late president, is the president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. He

said

he watched a news story about Trump cancelling tariff negotiations with Canada. “However they left out that the ad that was used was a lie,” he wrote in a post on X.

In a separate tweet, he

said

“Trump responded correctly” with a thumbs up emoji.

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 still from the movie John Candy: I Like Me, TIFF's opening-night film.

It’s an incident that tells you a lot about John Candy. He was hard at work on Only the Lonely, the 1991 film that would help affirm his credibility as a dramatic actor. But it also marked an occasion when the famously affable Candy lost his cool when he realized that his legendary co-star, Maureen O’Hara, was not receiving the respect she deserved.

His top billing and seven-figure salary ensured luxury treatment for Candy during the shoot. That included the provision of an opulent trailer on location. Such was not the case for O’Hara: despite her status as a reigning queen of Hollywood during the 1940s and 1950s, she had been assigned something insultingly basic.

Thanks to a meticulously researched biography of the revered Canadian comic, we now have the straight goods on what happened.

An angry Candy demanded the producers find a better trailer for O’Hara who had been coaxed out of retirement to play his mother. Otherwise, he warned, he would turn over his own celebrity trailer to her.

Shortly afterwards, a huge trailer “magically” arrived for the 71-year-old O’Hara.

The incident may show Candy exercising a hard-edged display of star power, but he was no prima donna. That’s the judgment of veteran entertainment writer Paul Myers, whose new biography of the Canadian superstar arrives this month. Indeed, Candy was greatly loved by those who knew and worked with him, and it was entirely characteristic of him that he should distribute some 200 free Thanksgiving turkeys to cast and crew members during the Only the Lonely shoot.

“But he did have issues whenever he saw injustice,” Myers tells Postmedia. “I’m not equating him with Mother Teresa but he was certainly very high-minded over how he was treated and how people around him were treated.”

So coming to Maureen O’Hara’s defence was part of Candy’s nature. He was similarly protective of crew members: if he saw one of them subjected to unfair abuse by a producer or director, he would intervene. “If he saw that someone was being paid less than they should have been he would speak to a producer. Whenever he had issues with anybody, it was because of some perceived core of injustice. There have not been that many people in the industry who were as personally caring as John Candy.”

As for Candy’s artistry, both with his defining work in comedy, going back to his early triumphs with Second City Toronto and television’s SCTV, and his later emergence as a dramatic actor: “He was very intelligent, very intuitive, very creative.”

John Candy: A Life In Comedy

Paul Myers

Anansi

But above all Candy liked people. “He loved his family, but he also loved the teamwork. He was in his happiest place interchanging with others.”

More than three decades have passed since John Candy died in his sleep at the age of 43 in Durango, Mexico. He had been filming Wagons East, the last of a dreary list of carelessly chosen projects redeemed only by his formidable comic presence. It was an unhappy coda to a career cruelly cut short.

Yet, he had an acute awareness of his own mortality, and he would express surprise when he turned 40 that he was still alive. The warning signals were always there: a father who had died at the age of 35; a lifelong struggle with his weight that at one point saw it balloon to 375 pounds; anxiety attacks that often forced him to summon up all his willpower to overcome them; an innate fear of loneliness.

He was never self-destructive in the reckless vein of a Charlie Sheen or Chris Farley. He was too dedicated to his craft for that but he was also dangerously careless about his health — and that troubled Steve Martin, his co-star in the hugely popular Planes, Trains & Automobiles. Martin, who admired Candy greatly, worried that he was on an “uncontrollable spiral of damaging his health … that he was betraying himself for some reason that I don’t know.”

Some earlier writings about Candy have suggested that he was imprisoned in a very dark place psychologically and that the refusal of friends and colleagues to talk about him following his death is indicative of a coverup. Myers encountered no such stonewalling in researching the present book. He wanted to create a “narrative of truth” and there was no shortage of people willing to help in an outpouring of affection.

“I got close to people like Dan Aykroyd, Steve Martin, Catherine O’Hara, Martin Short, Eugene Levy, Chevy Chase, Tom Hanks — and they were all eager to tell me their memories of John Candy Yes, they were candid at times, yes they were alarmed about him at times, but the ‘darkness’ some people talk about has been overplayed.”

 Author Paul Myers said he wanted to create a “narrative of truth” when he was researching his book which eventually became John Candy: A Life in Comedy.

For sure, however, there were struggles to keep personal demons at bay.

“I don’t think I realized at first how much he had to endure as a large person,” Myers says. ‘There were so many fat-shaming jokes. Even the press and other people would talk to him about being a large guy — and how painful that was for him. Yet he was expected to laugh along with it, especially since he was a comedian. A comedian doesn’t get angry — you go along with it … you don’t want to be labelled as difficult.”

Myers is not only celebrating the Candy legacy here. He’s also celebrating the remarkable explosion of creative comic talent that occurred more than half a century ago in Toronto. It was a flowering that had its roots in such disparate events as a local production of the musical, Godspell, and the decision to transplant Chicago’s famed Second City culture north of the border. It was productive soil for people as prodigiously gifted as Candy and his friends.

“Second City Toronto was uniquely different from Second City Chicago,” Myers says. “Their creativity was uniquely Canadian but also exportable. They ran in a different direction and created a very Canadian form of improv. Something amazing happened — and it would play well to the world. This is something I’ve always been interested in, especially now when we’re wondering what makes us different from the Americans.”

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.


Arizona's highest mountain, 12,634-foot Humphrey's Peak.  A Canadian man was one of two hikers struck by lightening there on Wednesday.

A Canadian man is one of two hikers who was struck by lightning on Humphreys Peak near the city of Flagstaff, Arizona, reports Northern Arizona radio news network,

Great Circle Media

(GMC).

The

Coconino County Sheriff’s Office

said two people were struck by lightning on Wednesday morning. The sheriff’s office told several local media outlets, including GMC,

AZ Central

(

USA Today Network

), as well as the local

FOX

and

ABC

affiliates that one of the hikers was from Flagstaff and the other was from Canada.

They were traveling separately and did not know each other, reports GMC.

According to the website,

Live Science

, 90 per cent of people survive lightning strikes without a mark, but are often left with nerve damage, neurologic symptoms akin to post-concussion injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Hiking conditions in the area had worsened quickly due to storms throughout the morning.

According to the local

ABC News

affiliate search and rescue crews were deployed on foot to the area where the men were located. Helicopter rescue operations were grounded because of weather conditions.

First responders made contact with the men round mid-afternoon on Wednesday.

The man from Flagstaff was extracted, treated by medical personnel and released.

Later in the afternoon, the Canadian hiker was extracted by search and rescue teams.

According to the Sheriff’s office, the Canadian’s injuries made it more difficult for them to descend, says

GMC

. The rescue team had to get the man to a utility terrain vehicle with a stokes basket, which is a stretcher designed for use where there are physical obstacles that impair movement.

Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Jon Paxton told

AZ Central

confirmed late in the day that both hikers had been rescued and were being treated at a Flagstaff hospital.

At more than 12,600 feet, Humphreys Peak is the highest point in Arizona. It is a part of the San Francisco Peaks.

It’s not the first time someone has been struck by lightning on Humphreys Peak, reports the Arizona

FOX News

affiliate.

In July 2016, a 17-year-old hiker died and two other teens were injured after being struck by lightning on Humphreys Peak.

NP has reached out to the Sheriff’s Office for comment but did not hear back before publication.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.


A portrait of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan hangs behind U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2025.

The decision of the Ford government to run an anti-tariff advertisement using the voice of former President Ronald Reagan has led to an abrupt halt to trade negotiations between Canada and the United States.

The ad, which was

shared on social media

by the Ontario premier on Oct. 16, borrowed

<a href="%7B%22provider_name%22:%22YouTube%22,%22provider_url%22:%22https:%5C/%5C/www.youtube.com%5C/%22,%22object_url%22:%22https:%5C/%5C/www.youtube.com%5C/watch?v=5t5QK03KXPc%22,%22html%22:%22%22,%22type%22:%22oembed%22,%22channels%22:%5B%22desktop%22,%22tablet%22,%22phone%22%5D%7D&t=181s” rel=”noopener noreferrer” target=”_blank”>an audio clip of Reagan’s radio address in April 1987

. U.S. President Donald Trump called it “fake.” He also said the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute announced that the advertisement was done “fraudulently.”

“Tariffs are very important to the national security and economy of the U.S.A.,” said Trump in a

post

on Truth Social on Thursday. “Based on the egregious behavior (sic), all trade negotiations with Canada are hereby terminated.”

“Canada cheated and got caught,” Trump said in another

post

, on Friday. “They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like tariffs, when actually he loved tariffs for our country, and its national security.”

Meanwhile, the Ronald Reagan foundation shared its own

statement

. It said the ad “misrepresents” the address, and added that the Ontario government “did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks.”

On Friday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford seemed to stand by the ad. “Canada and the United States are friends, neighbours and allies. President Ronald Reagan knew that we are stronger together. God bless Canada and God bless the United States,” he said in a

post

on X.

Read the Ontario advertisement and Reagan’s address in full.

What Ontario’s anti-tariff ad says

When someone says, “Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,” it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works, but only for a short time.

But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens. Markets shrink and collapse. Businesses and industries shut down and millions of people lose their jobs.

Throughout the world, there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition.

America’s jobs and growth are at stake.

What Ronald Reagan said on April 25, 1987

My fellow Americans:

Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan will be visiting me here at the White House next week. It’s an important visit, because while I expect to take up our relations with our good friend Japan, which overall remain excellent, recent disagreements between our two countries on the issue of trade will also be high on our agenda.

As perhaps you’ve heard, last week I placed new duties on some Japanese products in response to Japan’s inability to enforce their trade agreement with us on electronic devices called semiconductors.

Now, imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take. And in a moment I’ll mention the sound economic reasons for this: that over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. But the Japanese semiconductors were a special case. We had clear evidence that Japanese companies were engaging in unfair trade practices that violated an agreement between Japan and the United States. We expect our trading partners to live up to their agreements.

As I’ve often said: Our commitment to free trade is also a commitment to fair trade.

But you know, in imposing these tariffs we were just trying to deal with a particular problem, not begin a trade war.

So, next week I’ll be giving Prime Minister Nakasone this same message: We want to continue to work cooperatively on trade problems and want very much to lift these trade restrictions as soon as evidence permits. We want to do this, because we feel both Japan and the United States have an obligation to promote the prosperity and economic development that only free trade can bring.

Now, that message of free trade is one I conveyed to Canada’s leaders a few weeks ago, and it was warmly received there.

Indeed, throughout the world there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.

You see, at first, when someone says, “Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,” it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works — but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs.

High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.

The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity.

Now, it hasn’t always been easy. There are those in the Congress, just as there were back in the thirties, who want to go for the quick political advantage, who will risk America’s prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than 5 million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports.

Well, I’ve never forgotten those jobs. And on trade issues, by and large, we’ve done well. In certain select cases, like the Japanese semiconductors, we’ve taken steps to stop unfair practices against American products, but we’ve still maintained our basic, long-term commitment to free trade and economic growth.

So, with my meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone and the Venice economic summit coming up, it’s terribly important not to restrict a president’s options in such trade dealings with foreign governments. Unfortunately, some in the Congress are trying to do exactly that. I’ll keep you informed on this dangerous legislation, because it’s just another form of protectionism and I may need your help to stop it.

Remember, America’s jobs and growth are at stake.

Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.

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.