LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

At first, Hamilton police “strategically followed” the bus thief as he drove passengers around on a made-up route.

A man who stole an idling city bus in Hamilton took passengers on a nighttime joyride through the city — making stops, letting riders on and off, and even made someone with an expired bus pass put money in the fare box, police said.

A potentially devastating alarm came to Hamilton Police from the city’s transit operator, Hamilton Street Railway, at 9 p.m., Tuesday: A man had climbed behind the wheel of a city bus after the driver stepped out for a short break.

With about 10 passengers on board, the man pulled the bus out of the McNab Street Bus Terminal in the heart of downtown and onto the city’s dark, snowy streets.

Police officers responded quickly but initially stayed discreetly back, Const. Trevor McKenna said.

“We typically would pursue something like this, but because of this situation, for safety purposes, we strategically followed, which means that there were no lights or sirens. We kept our distance and we just kind of monitored where they were going,” he said.

“We didn’t want to spook him and make him do something suddenly or lose focus on what he was doing. He’s driving a full-size bus on our roads, pedestrians are out, it’s dark. We’re getting into the wintry weather.”

Busses have GPS trackers on board and HSR officials knew where the bus was and could guess which way it might go.

Officers were amazed at what happened next.

The driver didn’t roar off or speed recklessly. There wasn’t a rampage or injuries. Rather, he drove reasonably.

For a few minutes, everything seemed normal on board and passengers didn’t seem to notice, McKenna said.

“He was following the rules of the road. He was making the scheduled stops along the way and letting people come and go. It’s not like he was threatening in nature or holding them there.

“It was when the bus started going off the designated route — it was his own personalized route, he was going down side streets — some passengers noticed. Once they noticed that, they engaged in a conversation with him. One witness was saying that they were giving him directions.

“But when he did come to (bus) stops, he would make the stop, open the door and let people on or off. And he stopped somebody who was looking to use a Presto card that was expired. He actually charged them money and made them put it in the machine and they got on for their ride.”

The man drove the bus up the Hamilton Mountain and after about 15 minutes police moved in, on West 5th Street near Gateview Drive.

“He was confronted. We told him to exit the vehicle. He declined. So then our officers did have to go in and physically remove him,” said McKenna.

He wasn’t wearing an HSR uniform. Police don’t know if he had previous driving experience.

A 36-year-old man of no fixed address was arrested and charged with theft, possession of stolen property, obstruct police and drive while prohibited.

“Ultimately, there were no collisions, there were no injuries, not even a dent,” McKenna said.

There are also, so far, no answers to why.

“It comes across as more of like a joyride. He got on, whether he was on the influence of a drug or if it’s mental health, that I can’t answer, but it’s not like he was trying to impress anyone or filming himself or had somewhere to be. He just kind of took it for a joyride and ended in that location, and that’s where he was arrested,” McKenna said.

“Sometimes things happen with no rhyme or reason.”

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | 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.


The Arctic polar vortex could bring extremely cold temperatures this holiday season.

If you’re among the Canadians hoping for a white Christmas this year, there’s good news and bad news.

The good news is that some forecast models point to conditions favourable for snowfall.

The bad news is that it’s due to the Arctic polar vortex, which could also bring extremely cold temperatures this holiday season.

Using information from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and Global Forecast System (GFS), weather researcher Andrej Flis from Severe Weather Europe recently highlighted an atmospheric warming event in late November that could result in frigid polar air moving south in mid-December and lingering for up to two weeks.

For those unfamiliar, the ever-spinning vortex of cold atmospheric winds is a normal part of the planet’s climate, just as is its counterpart over the Antarctic.

During the winter months, as the vortex strengthens with more cold air in the stratosphere, the polar jet stream in the troposphere shifts northward to keep it stable.

While it will often weaken at times in the winter, Flis said a burgeoning high-pressure anomaly near the pole in November could create a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event — when air temperatures increase well above normal in the atmospheric layer seven to 50 kilometres.

When that happens, the vortex falters, the jet stream takes on a different shape and the colder air is pushed out. Depending on weather patterns, it may spill into middle-latitude parts of Canada and the U.S. more accustomed to milder conditions, resulting in extreme cold and heavy snowfall. The timing, he noted, is happening earlier than normal.

Such was the case last January and again in March, though the latter had less severe weather outcomes for most.

“It’s extra cold, it’s got a duration to it and it’s crisp,” explained David Phillips, senior climatologist emeritus with Environment Canada. “It doesn’t even have to set a record; it’s just so bone-chilling cold that everything kind of stops and then what wears you down is the duration.”

Flis is cautious in his predictions and notes that not all SSW events produce cold and snowy surface weather.

Phillip didn’t have access to the weather models Flis used, but said, “this is about as good as science gets for something like this so far in advance.”

“And he’s got it right, and I don’t think he also overstated the situation,” he told National Post in an interview.

Phillips explained that, like weather in general, not all perturbations to the vortex will behave the same way, and this current one could very well have its own “character or personality” at ground level.

Warming temperatures in Canada and whether the continent is experiencing a La Niña or El Niño year are also factors, but he said the opposite climate patterns affected by the Pacific Ocean temperature have become less reliable predictors in recent years due to climate change.

“Those things have changed the playing field, too, so that’s another factor that has to be always worked into these recurrent things,” Phillips explained.

The approaching winter will be of the La Niña variety, which typically means colder temperatures and more snow out west, and more snow for Eastern and Altantic Canada.

It’s much too early to say where in Canada the polar vortex blast may arrive, but Flis predicts a northerly flow from Western Canada down into the U.S. and slowly moving east across the continent with no mountains to block it.

“It doesn’t stop at the border. There are no tariffs on this kind of thing,” he said, teasing that “Americans will blame Canada” for the cold snap.

Once it ends, however, Phillips said there’s still a long winter ahead.

“It doesn’t mean if we get this thing in December that we won’t get one in January or February. Sometimes we could have two or three.”

He also wants Canadians to know that not every extended period of snow is related to

the polar vortex.

“It’s just cold air travelling on the jet stream and it comes south and then freezes for a week or two weeks and then it disappears.”

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.


This screenshot from a video taken at the Students Supporting Israel event on Nov. 5, 2025 shows a man pushing back an anti-Israel protester who broke through a glass door.

In the wake of a violent anti-Israel protest at an event hosted by Toronto Metropolitan University students on Nov. 5, two prominent Jewish organizations are calling on the Ontario government to act.

“We expect change,” the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs in Toronto wrote in a Nov. 12 post on X. “Universities must be held accountable for protecting Jewish students.”

The CIJA added that “(h)ate and intimidation have no place in our schools.”

The X post was directed at Conservative

MPP Nolan Quinn

, who is minister of colleges and universities, expressing expectations that he will “take immediate action.”

The event was organized by TMU student organization Students Supporting Israel. It was part of a university campus tour of Israel Defense Forces soldiers speaking to students about their military experiences.

The protest was spurred on by an Instagram post from another student organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, which directed protesters to the off-campus location where the event was being held.

Before the event began, protesters descended on the location, creating chaos and destroying property.

The following day, TMU manager of media relations, Jessica Leach provided a statement to NP stating: “The university is deeply concerned by an incident that happened off-campus (on Wednesday). TMU condemns any acts of aggression, intimidation, or violence and our thoughts are with any students who may have been injured during the incident.”

Leach added that TMU would cooperate fully with the police. Officers arrived at the scene after reports that “a group of demonstrators forced their way into a building.”

There were five arrests, according to Toronto police. The charges included forcible entry, obstructing a peace officer and unlawful assembly.

B’Nai Brith Canada has joined CIJA in condemning the attacks. In its own X post on Wednesday, it said a joint letter is calling on the province “to hold universities accountable for allowing hate, intimidation, and double standards to take root. Institutions have failed to act to protect Jewish students who have been threatened, targeted, ostracized, and silenced. That must end.”

Further, the organization said the province “must compel its post-secondary institutions to enforce existing policies, discipline students and university-affiliated groups that incite hate and sow division, and ensure that Jewish students receive the educational experience that they are entitled to.”

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


The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Toronto headquarters. (National Post photo)

The CBC is at a watershed moment, observes longtime CBC insider David Cayley. The previous era of Canada’s publicly funded broadcaster has exhausted itself, Cayley concludes, and in the new era that’s unfolding, what the country desperately needs and deserves is a dialogue, not a monologue.
“Everything ends in time,” he observes, “and I believe that (CBC’s) properties, its idea that it would belong to the audience, that it would stake its legitimacy on the audience, has brought it to a place where it has only one preferred audience — and can’t address the rest of the country, and can’t get outside or above or beyond the assumptions it shares with that audience — so it’s become a kind of boutique.”
Between 1971 and 2012, Cayley worked as a producer, documentary-maker and program host at CBC Radio. Much of his career was spent at Ideas, a program that explained current affairs to Canadians and introduced people across the country to a range of themes and thinkers. More recently, he authored The CBC: How Canada’s Public Broadcaster Lost Its Voice (and How to Get it Back), a book published this year by publisher Kenneth Whyte’s Sutherland House. It arrives at a moment of particular resonance: The CBC’s British equivalent, the BBC, is embroiled in a bias scandal that cost it two top executives and faces the real risk of a fall from grace. 
When he and I connect online to chat about his latest book, David sports a tweed jacket, and a soft wool scarf is elegantly wound around his neck. A print of Caspar David Friedrich’s painting, The Lonely Tree, hangs on the wall just over his shoulder.
“I’ll be 80 in March,” he tells me. “You know, I can’t really be cancelled. I’m so old,” he laughs, infectiously. What motivates a man in his 80th year to publish — not just a historical expose of the CBC, but a call to action?  “Well,” he smiles, “T.S. Eliot said old men ought to be explorers. I like that … I have nothing to fear, really.”
“The book I’ve written is probably, to be frank with you, a bit of an iceberg,” David suggests. “I mean, most of its bulk is still … below the surface and not expressed in the book.” I agree; while it’s not an esoteric text nor is it light-reading. I’ve read the book in a slow, savouring kind of way; it provokes a lot of thinking.
The recent federal budget dropped an extra $150 million on the CBC “to strengthen its mandate to serve the public and to better reflect the needs of Canadians.” Budget 2025 also says, “the government will explore modernising CBC/Radio-Canada’s mandate to strengthen independence.”
What, exactly, can that mean? David assures me, he’s not privy to Ottawa’s thoughts about how our public broadcaster can be strengthened, modernized or made more independent. But, he suggests, with a twinkle in his eye, there are likely partisan influences: “The Conservatives want to defund the CBC, so we (the Liberals) want to re-fund the CBC.”
More seriously, David observes, when Prime Minister Mark Carney talks about the public broadcaster, he often says “the CBC exists to combat misinformation.” But what exactly does Carney mean by “misinformation,” David asks.  Is it fact-checking — pointing out untrue things being said — or is it “misinformation” when someone says something another person believes to be wrong?
David’s book is full of case studies in Canada — situations that became minefields — because the CBC chose to disregard the perspectives of others who think differently and jumped to a “finished view” of an issue. “A finished view,” he asserts, “is an ideology.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, David explains, so much unsubstantiated stuff was put into people’s heads as science, when it couldn’t possibly be science. “What the public interest demanded at the beginning of the pandemic,” David writes in his book, “was careful deliberation. What the CBC delivered was thoughtless cheerleading.”
The pandemic, he reports, provoked extensive and deep-rooted scientific disagreement, but news of this disagreement never reached the public. What the opponents of quarantines and vaccine mandates were spreading was characterized as “misinformation,” David explains, but governments were allowed to change their message, again and again.
For example, he reports, “the shot was localized in your arm; the ingredients will not spread throughout the body.” Whoops. That proved not to be true.  “The virus was definitely of natural origin and only a dangerous wingnut could believe it may have been manufactured in a lab, right? Whoops! Now the CIA believes that.”
“So there was a constant change in what the story was, right?” he posits. “Well, that wasn’t misinformation, was it?”
David describes the freedom convoy that descended on Ottawa — in response to the quarantines and vaccine mandates — as an emerging public that the CBC didn’t want to hear. “I know they were noisy, rude in certain ways,” David says, “but they still arrived in Ottawa with a lot of the country going with them, and with a proposition, a conversation, I would argue, proposition to present, which is that you have gone too far.”
Another example, David cites, is NDP MP Leah Gazan’s private member’s bill proposing to outlaw residential school denialism in Canada. “We have a bill in Parliament right now,” David laments, “outlawing a perfectly reasonable view of residential schools.” And, he adds, we have a disgraceful situation in Quesnel B.C., “where the mayor was attacked by his council because his wife read and distributed a book that nobody has read, but if anybody did read it, it would simply be an alternative narrative of residential schooling.”
“I don’t think you can have history unless you are allowed to have competing views of history, and not a compulsory narrative,” David asserts. “So if our history is composed entirely of compulsory narratives, and the CBC is full of these compulsory narratives, these orthodoxies that cannot be questioned, then we have effectively no history. It’s too dangerous.”
David’s recommendation? “The CBC needs people who are sufficiently engaged — intellectually, spiritually, culturally — that they can face these questions. That don’t just turtle.”
I’m curious to learn why his book is dedicated to Harold Innis, an eminent pioneer of Canada’s political economy, not much remembered by Canadians. Few people will know Innis inspired Marshall McLuhan. I know because Innis grew up on a farm in southwestern Ontario, where he taught and mentored my paternal grandfather.
Innis, David responds, claimed there needs to be a place — withdrawn from immediate political urgencies — where we can think, because thinking is so hard to do.
The CBC could offer up that place, David dares to suggest; a public broadcaster could provide space to accommodate currently antagonistic standpoints.  To do so, David implores, CBC must recognize it has become a monoculture that actively excludes competing points of view and depresses intellectual inquiry.

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 visitor crosses the border between Vermont and Quebec at the Highway 55 Port of Entry on March 13, 2025.

A national travel association in the United States says spending by visiting tourists is projected to fall to just 80 per cent of pre-pandemic levels this year, a drop of $5.7 billion from last year. And Canada is a big part of the reason.

“Total inbound travel spending is forecast to fall 3.2 per cent to $173 billion for the year,” the U.S. Travel Association says in its

latest travel forecast

. “Significantly fewer visits from Canada are the primary driver of this decrease, and the volume of visits from countries other than Canada are expected to be flat,” it adds.

According to the association’s numbers, last year saw 20.2 million Canadians visit the United States, down slightly from 20.5 million the year before, but an increase from the previous three years, during which the pandemic slowed travel worldwide.

However, the group predicts only 15.7 million visitors from Canada this year, a drop of 4.5 million. And its long-range forecast suggests it will take until 2029 for those numbers to surpass 20 million again.

 A truck with vehicles crosses the Blue Water Bridge border crossing into the United States from Sarnia on April 3, 2025.

Meanwhile, arrivals from Mexico this year are expected to increase to 17.9 million from 17 million last year. And overseas visits are projected to drop slightly, to 34.2 million this year from 35.2 million the year before. This means that any net loss in the number of visitors is almost entirely the result of fewer Canadians visiting the U.S. this year.

The news isn’t all bad, however. The association predicts that total travel spending — business, leisure and domestic — will increase modestly for each of the next five years, though it will take several years for all of those numbers to reach pre-pandemic levels.

“International inbound travel is projected to decrease in 2025 for the first time since 2020, but to resume growth in 2026, driven by U.S.-hosted events such as the FIFA World Cup and America 250 celebrations,” the report notes.

Still, the group remains cautious about its hopes for future travel. “Despite lowered growth expectations, risks remain,” it says.

On the domestic front: “Consumer uncertainty remains significant, and if broader economic conditions deteriorate, travel is likely to decrease as well.”

 United States President Donald Trump looks towards Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as they raise their glasses during a toast at a working dinner in Gyeongju, South Korea on Wednesday, Oct 29, 2025.

In terms of visitors from abroad, it adds: “the U.S. risks further decreasing international inbound visits based on potential increases in visa fees, extended wait times for visa applications and renewals, and negative sentiment towards the U.S. in key markets.”

During Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit to the U.S. last month, a reporter asked U.S. President Donald Trump: “What do you say to Canadians that don’t want to go to the U.S. now because of your 51st state talk, because of the trade war, the tariffs, and the fear of also being detained at the border?”

Trump did not answer the question directly,

but he did say

: “It’s something that will get worked out. There’s still great love between the two countries.”

Meanwhile, some U.S. tourist destinations have taken it upon themselves to reach out to woo potential Canadian visitors.

Kalispell, a city of 25,000 in Montana, about 125 kilometres south of the B.C. border, recently released the

Canadian Welcome Pass

, which provides discounts on accommodations, tourist attractions and shopping. (Canadian ID required; expires Jan. 16.)

“We miss you, Canada,” the city says on its website. “If there’s one thing we know about Montana and Canada, it’s that we’ve always been friends. For the last several months, our countries have been going through some things. But there’s one thing we know and it’s this – we miss you.”

The site adds: “While we wish we could make everything okay between us again, we know that things aren’t that simple. But we also know that we can’t continue to sit by and do nothing. Which has led us to this – our Canadian Welcome Pass.”

 People protest U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and his threat to annex Canada as the 51st state, in front of the American embassy in Ottawa on March 4, 2025.

Last summer, the city of Burlington in Vermont announced it would rename one of its central avenues from

Church Street to Canada Street

until Labour Day (or Labor Day as it’s known there).

And the state of California rolled out an entire

“California Loves Canada”

campaign, with television ads and a logo featuring a maple leaf in the centre of a heart, superimposed over the state shape.

Whether these initiatives will coax Canadians back remains to be seen. Data from

Statistics Canada

show that visits by Canadians to the U.S. fell 23 per cent in the first seven months of 2025 compared to the same period last year. And polls

continue to indicate

that Canadians are wary of crossing the border.

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.


Canadian anthem at the Rogers Centre before the Toronto Blue Jays host the Los Angeles Dodgers in Game 1 of the World Series on Friday October 24, 2025. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun/Postmedia

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.

Not making headlines, not going viral, not inciting outrage — that’s now the public test for national anthems, because outrage, at least professed outrage, is what follows when musicians change lyrics, deviate from the melody or sing too casually.

“The hardest song in the world to sing is a national anthem,” Grenon said afterwards. “People have a strong, subjective idea of how it should be done, and no two people have the same idea.

“It might feel like you’re stepping into a trap. It’s only one minute and 20 seconds, but that one minute and 20 seconds has a lot of impact … It can rarely make you but can definitely break you.”

This season’s unusual run by the Toronto Blue Jays, Canada’s only Major League Baseball team, meant a live performance of O Canada was staged ahead of each of seven World Series games. All seven renditions brought an artist’s style and vision and, collectively, revealed the joys and challenges of a national symbol as a performance piece.

A lot of baggage was unpacked on the international stage through these performances, disclosing the complexities, traditions, frailties and fervour surrounding Canada’s national anthem. As a song, O Canada reflects the country: both are plagued by history, complicated by language, and messed with by politics.

JP Saxe, a Canadian Grammy-nominated musician, sang O Canada before Game 3 of the World Series. Unaccompanied by musicians, he carried the tune well and sang with reverence but was criticized for

changing the anthem’s words

, and for his low-key approach.

To be fair, he was singing in Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, packed with U.S. fans, so he could never get the rousing sing-along or applause Grenon later received.

But Saxe did choose to change the anthem’s lyrics, which always causes some bother. Instead of singing “our home and native land,” as the official lyrics say, he sang: “our home on native land.” Saxe didn’t respond to requests for an interview, but that change is typically a purposeful political one, referencing unsettled Indigenous relationships.

At Game 5, Rufus Wainwright, a Montreal-raised singer-songwriter, also took to the field to sing O Canada in Los Angeles.

He changed the anthem’s words, too

, but differently.

Wainwright sang “that only us command” instead of the official lyric “in all of us command,” apparently meant as a poke at U.S. President Donald Trump’s statements about the United States swallowing up Canada. Through his management, Wainwright declined interview requests for this article.

Between Saxe and Wainwright, ahead of Game 4, Canadian Music Hall of Fame inductee

Deborah Cox sang O Canada, also in Los Angeles

. Canada’s anthem scrutiny is such that despite her moving rendition, it was marred by a brief but audible drop at an unfortunate moment.

The lyric used to be “in all thy sons command,” until a gender-neutral version was officially adopted in 2018 to make it “in all of us command.” That change was controversial at the time, still is for some, and remains a change Canadians of a certain age can slip on when singing from memory. It’s also a line recently changed by some artists, as Wainwright did.

Maybe all that tension played with her head, but the voice of Cox, 51, dropped significantly in the middle of that line, picking up again on the word “command.” It sparked a conspiracy theory that broadcasters edited the audio to cover up a gender reference or anti-Trump sentiment.

Cox said she has performed both Canada’s and the United States’ national anthem in the past, sometimes both at the same event, but performing at the World Series “was like nothing that I’ve ever experienced.”

“To me, the anthem is inspirational for who we are and aspirational for how we see ourselves in the future,” Cox said.

“Singing the anthem is always challenging because everyone knows the lyrics and melody, and you will be judged by millions; that comes with the assignment. I decided to stay present, pay attention to the lyrics, and let that guide my emotions. Now picture yourself singing the anthem at the World Series for the visiting team; the tension is high, especially after the record-setting Game 3 the night before,” she said.

“Honestly, I didn’t know how the Canadian anthem was going to be received under the circumstances, but I was pleasantly surprised by the response from the fans.”

Cox didn’t directly address the slip when asked, but she did suggest she wasn’t trying to change any of the anthem’s words: “I was proud to sing the Canadian national anthem; yes, it’s slightly different in a couple of places, but it is the anthem as it is written to represent the nation today.”

Robin Elliott is a Canadian music historian and professor of musicology at the University of Toronto, where he holds the Jean A. Chalmers Chair in Canadian Music. Over the years, he has watched public outrage unfold over national anthem performances. He has also thought a lot about what makes a good anthem and how O Canada stands up.

“I think it’s a great national anthem,” Elliott said. “It’s simple, it’s memorable. There is a really lovely modulation partway through that, musically speaking, is very satisfying.

“A national anthem should have a melodic range, which a group of people can sing together, because the whole purpose of the national anthem is to bring a large group of people together,” he said. “That’s one of the problems with the American national anthem. It’s got a very wide melodic range and it’s difficult to sing. The Canadian national anthem is better suited to group singing.”

A tune almost as old as the country

Canada’s anthem’s odd history makes it something of a Frankenstein’s monster — cobbled together over more than a century from various parts in different languages at different times.

The tune for O Canada, and the original lyrics, in French, are almost as old as the country. They were penned just 13 years after Confederation but took 100 years to officially become Canada’s anthem. O Canada wasn’t officially named Canada’s anthem until 1980.

Before O Canada, those in English Canada used Britain’s anthem as their own — God Save the King, or Queen, depending on who sat on the throne. That wasn’t as popular in French-speaking Canada, making the origins of a new anthem a decidedly Quebecois affair.

The music was composed by Calixa Lavallée to accompany a poem written in French by Adolphe-Basile Routhier.

Lavallée was born northeast of Montreal, in a village that now bears his name, and became a musical pioneer. He’s an odd national hero for Canada. Raised in the tradition of European concert music, he went on to find fame in the United States, joined a minstrel troupe, performed in blackface, fought in the American Civil War, was wounded, and returned to Quebec, all by the time he turned 22.

In 1880, Lavallée was asked to set a score for a national song to mark Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations in Québec City. He wrote the melody to O Canada, at first called Chant National, before moving to Boston and advocating for Canada to be annexed by the United States. Some music scholars have since suggested Lavallée’s score is a medley of sorts, borrowing portions from Mozart, Wagner, Liszt and Matthias Keller.

The words accompanying Lavallée’s composition were written by Routhier, a Quebec lawyer who later became the province’s chief justice.

“The song only had words — official words — in French for its first hundred years,” said Peter Kuitenbrouwer, author of Our Song, a book on the history of the anthem for young Canadians, and recently a book on another heritage touchstone, called Maple Syrup.

“In the French version, the word Canada only appears once. It never gets repeated,” he said.

“The rest of the song becomes this weird and deeply arch-Catholic kind of screed or something — ‘your arm knows how to carry the sword and carry the cross.’ It’s very, very Catholic and hard to know what it has to do with Canada, in some ways,” said Kuitenbrouwer.

The song became popular in Quebec, and the melody was introduced to English Canada in 1901, when a version was played on a royal visit to Canada by the future King George V and his wife Mary, the future Queen Consort. Over years, all sorts of different English lyrics were written for it.

“It turned out everybody was singing completely different words in different parts of Canada. They had all written their own,” said Kuitenbrouwer.

In 1908, Robert Stanley Weir, another Quebec judge, wrote an English version that finally caught on. Born in Hamilton, Ont., he moved to Montreal as a child, where he became a lawyer and later a prominent judge with an interest in poetry.

Weir’s words remain the backbone of the official English lyrics, with tinkering over the decades.

O Canada is often referred to as an “English translation” of the French song, but it isn’t. The English lyrics are a completely new creation. Had the French lyrics just been translated into English, it would never have been accepted as the national anthem.

Various pushes for the government to declare official national anthems stalled and stumbled. It took a threat to national sovereignty to get it done. Soon after the first referendum by separatists in Quebec in 1980, the federal government passed the National Anthem Act to make O Canada the official national anthem with both French and English words.

By then, it had largely fallen out of favour in Quebec. Kuitenbrouwer said it is rarely sung in Quebec, except at Montreal Canadiens games, even though the French lyrics have not changed since Routhier wrote them.

Weir’s English version, meanwhile, has repeatedly been changed, not always for the better.

Some of the English anthem’s controversial parts — the divisive masculine-only pronoun and mentioning “God” — were not in the original. Weir wrote, “True patriot love thou dost in us command,” which is closer to the 2018 official change that returned to a gender-neutral stance. The reference to God was inserted earlier at the insistence of politicians.

It was opposition to the English anthem’s gender reference that sparked a wave of unofficial adaptations by singers who neutered the “sons.”

When the Conservative government under Stephen Harper announced the anthem would be made gender neutral in 2010, a backlash scuttled the plan. By the time of a final parliamentary vote on the change in 2018, in a Liberal government under Justin Trudeau, it passed with Conservative MPs boycotting the vote.

‘An expression of our truth’

Grenon, 44, who performs under the name SoulBear, has sung many national anthems around the world, and not just Canada’s anthem.

“I don’t know how many anthems I’ve sung,” he said. “I’ve sung for the NHL, for MLB, CFL teams, for Toronto Raptors, for the F1 in Montreal. I’ve sung the American national anthem very often,” he said. He has publicly sung the national anthems of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Trinidad and Tobago.

“I’ve sang their national anthems in their nations,” he said. “That’s always very, very tricky. You kind of walk on eggshells because you want to honour the people who are asking you to do this task.”

Last February, at the NHL’s 4 Nations Face-Off game in Montreal between Canada and the United States, when Canadian anger over Trump’s calls to annex Canada was fresh and fierce, Grenon was asked to sing both countries’ national anthems.

“That’s actually the first and only time, thank God, that I got viral online. I got viral twice that day. Once for the American anthem, once for the Canadian anthem. During the American anthem, I got viral due to the fact that everyone was booing so loud that you could barely hear the anthem. And then during the Canadian anthem because, at some point, I stopped singing and I just turned the mic to the crowd, and the crowd went nuts. They just sang so loud.”

Even so, another artist singing O Canada in that same hockey series drew far more headlines and attention than SoulBear did.

Chantal Kreviazuk, the renowned Winnipeg-born singer-songwriter, opened the second game between Canada and the United States by

singing O Canada at the final in Boston

. She changed a lyric for a political purpose. She sang, “True patriot love, that only us command.”

Even after the tense overtime win by Canada that night, people were still talking about Kreviazuk’s lyrical licence. She posted photos from the night of her crib note — the altered line written on her hand in mascara. Although many supported her, she was widely insulted online.

“I am sorry if my performance of our national anthem rubbed you the wrong way,” Kreviazuk posted online afterwards.

“I am sorry if you think that we’d be better off annexed … Art to me is an expression of our truth. And in this very peculiar and potentially consequential moment I truly believe that we must stand up, use our voices and try to protect ourselves.”

She remained unrepentant. She flogged mugs, T-shirts and hoodies displaying the words “that only us command” and, last month, she posted a video of

her singing the anthem the same way, at home

, in honour of the Blue Jays.

It was Kreviazuk’s line that Wainwright reprised at the World Series, just as Saxe mimicked Canadian singer Jully Black,

who sang “home on native land”

in 2023 when signing O Canada at an NBA All-Star Game.

After Black’s performance, she said she did it “to acknowledge the country’s theft of Indigenous land,” and was praised by the Assembly of First Nations.

SoulBear likes Kreviazuk and seemed uncomfortable when asked about her changing the lyrics, but he admits he didn’t like it.

“Every artist has a different way to see it. For me, whenever I go and sing a national anthem, it’s always a distinct honour for me to sing it. But it’s also never about me. This is about the people of Canada. It’s about patriotism … It’s meant to reflect on our rich Canadian history and to restore that sense of community and pride.

“If people are still talking about it, it’s probably because you didn’t do too good.”

SoulBear’s traditional attitude to the anthem is influenced by his 25 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He recently retired from the air force in Winnipeg and will mark the change in professions this summer with the release of an album.

When riding high on the music charts, Canadian band Triumph played in some of the biggest venues across North America. There was the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, the Astrodome in Houston, Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto, even a slot on the legendary 1983 US Festival in California that set an attendance record of 375,000, according to Guinness World Records.

Gil Moore, Triumph’s drummer and co-vocalist, isn’t shy about big stages and large crowds but he has never performed the national anthem for a crowd. And he wonders if he wants to.

“I like to hear the national anthem. If I was to sing it, first of all, I’d be scared to death, so I think I would probably pass,” Moore said. “It’s a funny thing to say for someone that’s sung on big stages in front of a lot of people, but somehow singing the national anthem is a scary proposition.”

An artist singing O Canada really lays it on the line.

“I think it’s because so many people will fumble it miserably. And then there’s the second aspect, the ones that go off script. I’m very much a traditionalist on this. I believe that if you sing the anthem, you do it straight and you respect the national anthem. And the way you respect it is you sing it the way it was written. You don’t change the words, you don’t try to inject your signature on it, you let the national anthem be the signature of Canada,” Moore said.

“There’s a way to express yourself politically, but I don’t think it’s when you’re singing the national anthem. It’s not a time to shove your political views, whatever they are, into the conversation.

“Don’t make it a me moment instead of an us moment.”

Other countries have had similar outcries and “me moments” with their national anthems, but they have a different quality than in Canada.

In Britain, there was Damian Lewis opening the British Grand Prix in 2023 with his

crooning rendition of God Save the King

, accompanied by saxophone. It sparked a roasting for sounding American, and a bit corny, with comparisons to an Elvis impersonator.

The famously prickly patriots of the United States certainly call out musical missteps when they see them. Tinkering with O Canada might trigger mean messages and unflattering headlines, but messing with The Star-Spangled Banner has higher stakes.

Last year, country music singer

Ingrid Andress belted out an acrid, squawking rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner

before a baseball game, sparking mocking mayhem. Wags said it was so bad she united the divided nation in disgust. After a flash flood of criticism, she apologized to the country, said she was drunk, and checked into rehab as penance.

A sultry, blues rendition of the American anthem at the

NBA All-Star game in 2018 by Fergie

, the Black Eyed Peas singer, was accused of missing the gravity and patriotism of the moment. Her untraditional pacing, bounciness and vocal flourishes also made it unsingable by everyone else.

In September there was even criticism for

country singer Robert Mizzell, who sang the American anthem

at a special NFL game played in Ireland. Although born in the United States, Mizzell has lived in Ireland for decades. His sin was glancing at the lyrics hidden inside the cowboy hat he held during his performance. He later said it was “a song that I hadn’t sung in 30 years.”

The queen of pricking American patriotic pride remains actress

Roseanne Barr. In 1990, she amateurishly sped through the anthem

at a baseball game. Booing almost drowned her out. When she finished, she turned to the crowd, grabbed her crotch and spat on the ground. The reception was fierce. U.S. President George H.W. Bush called it “disgraceful” while aboard Air Force One. A columnist compared it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. She had death threats and lost work, was spat on in restaurants and grocery stores, and needed police protection for two years, she later said.

Those performances were unorthodox, and some poorly executed, but even Barr didn’t mess with the actual lyrics.

Just as it took an existential threat to Canada to spur the government to designate an anthem to be a symbol of the nation, the current threat from Trump has aroused a renewed sense of patriotic energy among Canadians. That can be seen at public events when people are asked to rise for the singing of the national anthem. Crowd singing has rarely been stronger, especially if an event involves an American team.

Even now, however, there are usually moments of dissonance among mass singings of O Canada. While musically it is an easy tune, politics, linguistics and government tinkering get in the way.

For starters, there are lyrics in both official languages, which bring confusion when a singer switches between them or starts in a language not expected. Young people who are used to a blended-language version from school can be caught off guard when it is sung all in one language. There are some who, because of old memories or stubborn dissent, still sing the old lyrics. Older Canadians may even stumble over the “God keep our land” line that was adopted in 1980.

Mix a bunch of kids in with a group of seniors and any rendition will likely clang with a jumble of lyrics. Add in those who only encounter the anthem at an occasional sports game, are new to the country, those who are just terrible singers, and it can be a sorry mess up in the stands.

Elliott, the musicologist, said it may also just be part of the Canadian character.

“In general, Canadians are shy about performing in public, singing in public. It’s not in our nature to do so. At sports events, very few people are usually singing along with the national anthem.”

He also says the venue matters. Elliott enjoys concerts by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. He said that after Trump’s recent threats, the orchestra reinstated a practice that had lapsed decades ago — starting each performance with a rousing orchestral performance of O Canada.

The classical music crowd joyously and loudly joins in. “It’s really quite stirring,” he said.

“There are a lot of reasons for criticizing a national anthem, because a national anthem has an unrealistic — indeed, impossible — set of expectations to fulfil. No piece of music is going to be satisfying and enjoyed by everybody,” said Elliott. “The fact that O Canada is closely aligned with classical music traditions, which are enjoyed by maybe five or six per cent of the population, it starts from the back of the field.”

“There’s nothing illegal about changing either the music or the lyrics to O Canada. They are both in the public domain. Nobody owns the rights to the music or the lyrics. There’s no legal proscription against changing the lyrics or the music.

“But once upon a time, there was no tinkering with it. The lyrics of the national anthem were sung exactly as transmitted by the federal government. Then the federal government itself started tinkering with them,” Elliott said. “I think that unleashed a whole new round of rethinking the lyrics … They’ve caused people to start finding other aspects of the lyrics that maybe don’t enjoy such group consensus.”

He said modest changes by artists don’t offend him; they display contemporary relevance, within limits. They should be serious, important, and not mocking, he said.

But there is also something comforting and important in knowing what to expect when someone steps up in public to sing the national anthem and the crowd can easily sing along.

“I think there’s so few things that bind Canada together as a country that let’s at least have this. The whole participatory singing of music binds people together,” said Elliott.

There were other visions and styles of O Canada sung at this World Series games that offered a diverse palette.

At

the opener in Toronto,

a high bar was set by the spectacle of 500 robed singers and musicians out on the field. Voices of Fire, a U.S. choir, sang both anthems and they were joined for O Canada by an orchestra of Toronto musicians.

Also in Toronto, ahead of Game 2, Alessia Cara, the first Canadian artist to win a Best New Artist Grammy, sang a bright and passionate O Canada; and singer and actor Noah Reid, best known for his role in Schitt’s Creek, sang a note-perfect O Canada, all in English, ahead of the closing Game 7.

Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | X:


Former Vice President Kamala Harris in a BBC interview while in London on her book tour in October.

Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris is making a Toronto stop during the fall 2025 tour to support her new book, 107 Days.

A hardcover copy of the book sells for

$42.00

. But if you want a ticket to her Nov. 16 appearance at Toronto’s Meridian Hall, you’ll pay significantly more.

It’s

a 15-city tour

that launched on Sept. 24 in New York City, taking Harris across North America in support of her memoir about the 2024 presidential campaign, released at the end of September.

Each event will involve an intimate conversation with her about the campaign, as well as her vision for the country’s future.

In an August

Instagram post

, she wrote: “107 Days is my candid and personal account of the shortest presidential campaign in modern history. Over the next few months, I will travel our country to share behind-the-scenes moments, lessons learned, and how we keep moving forward together.”

Original prices

for tickets at Meridian Hall ran between $60 and $175, but the ticket for Harris’s appearance is so hot that resale tickets are running much higher.

A resale ticket for a balcony seat on

Ticketmaster

is going for $297.50. A seat near the back of the orchestra (floor) section is $327.25, while one near the front costs $2,766.75.

On the website for ticket reseller,

Seat Geek

, a seat near the back is running $340. Near the front, you’ll pay $2,493.

Another reseller,

StubHub

, has one bargain near the back of the floor seats for $279, compared to one near the front for $1,798. Balcony seats span $256 to a whopping $8,650.

Tickets are going fast on

TicketsCenter

, running $403 at the back to $4,643 near the front.

VividSeats

has a similar price range.

Other stops in the tour included American cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Houston, San Francisco, Atlanta, Washington D.C., Chicago, Portland, Nashville and Miami.

Other than Toronto, the tour included an international stop in London on Oct. 23.

All general admission tickets

include a copy of the book

, sold through each tour-venue’s partner bookstore, in support of local literary communities.

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 Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in April 2011.

A relative of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi has been given another chance to remain in Canada by arguing he was much closer to the brutal authoritarian regime than immigration officials thought he was.

Seraj Essaadi El Ferjani Ahmed, a citizen of Libya, has been in Canada since 2017 and appears to be the nephew of a notorious member of Gaddafi’s inner circle, a man so loyal he was fleeing with Gaddafi when the leader was caught by rebels in 2011 and killed.

Ahmed came to Canada to study aviation and was denied refugee protection by Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) last year. He appealed that decision to the Federal Court.

His unusual argument is the IRB said it was safe for him to return to Libya because Libyans with “a low-level association with the regime” were not targeted, only “high-ranking officials in the Gaddafi regime or who had close associations with his family or with security forces” were in danger.

Evidence presented in court, however, suggests Ahmed’s uncle is Mansour Daou, who was not just a run-of-the-mill Libyan functionary.

Daou, also spelled Dhao and Dao in different translations into English, was named as Gaddafi’s top security official, one of the few men trusted with the dictator’s safety during the 2011 revolt against his 42-year rule who was with Gaddafi to the very end.

After interviewing Daou in captivity within days of Gaddafi’s overthrow and death, The New York Times described him as “the leader of the feared People’s Guard, a network of loyalists, volunteers and informants.”

Daou said he was Gaddafi’s cousin.

In an interview with CNN around the same time, Daou said that in the days leading to the fall of Tripoli, he was with Gaddafi’s second son, Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi before joining Gaddafi in Sirte, where the teetering leader made his last stand.

Gaddafi and another son, Mutassem, decided to make a run for Gaddafi’s birthplace in a convoy. Daou, also described in contemporary news accounts as leader of Gaddafi’s personal bodyguards, was in a car with Gaddafi when the convoy was hit by a NATO jet. They fled on foot and hid in drainage pipes.

Video of the chaotic capture shows a bloody Gaddafi being dragged from a concrete drainpipe. He was dead shortly afterward. Daou said he lost consciousness from wounds by then and did not witness Gaddafi’s death.

Ahmed was about 16 at the time.

He was born in Libya in 1995, which was 26 years after Gaddafi seized power in a military coup in 1969.

Ahmed wasn’t alive during much of Gaddafi’s turbulent reign, an era which made the African dictator a household name around the world through his fierce denouncement of the West, cozying up to the Soviet Union, sending assassins around the world to kill dissidents, and sponsoring international terrorism.

Ahmed was born during international sanctions against Libya for Gaddafi’s sheltering terror suspects in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner that exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 people onboard and 11 more on the ground. Libya later paid US$2.7 billion to the families as a condition of lifting sanctions.

Ahmed was about 16 at the start of the Arab Spring movement in 2011 that sparked widespread revolt against Gaddafi’s rule. As a civil war raged, an international no-fly zone was imposed over Libya, enforced by NATO forces. A NATO airstrike killed one of Gaddafi’s sons and three grandsons.

 A Libyan National Transitional Council fighter points out a large concrete pipe where ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was captured, in the coastal Libyan city of Sirte on October 20, 2011.

During that mayhem, in August 2011 — two months before Gaddafi was killed — Ahmed fled Libya with his family, court heard.

He told the IRB that he had lived on a farm in Libya with his immediately family but fled when it was “exposed to bullets.” They went to live at his uncle’s house in southern Libya.

“The uncle’s house was destroyed with the heavy weapons in the downfall of the Gaddafi regime in the fall of 2011. They left Libya with almost nothing and went to Egypt,” court was told.

It appears the uncle who gave them shelter was Daou.

In 2014, Ahmed went to South Africa, a country Gaddafi had good relations with during much of his time in power, to pursue a career in aviation. He returned to Libya in 2015, at age 20, to have a passport issued and returned to Egypt to be with his family and continue as a student.

Ahmed came to Canada in December 2017, court heard. He arrived with a student visa to study aviation, court heard. Three years after arriving in Canada he claimed refugee status, seeking protection from returning to Libya.

During Ahmed’s refugee proceedings, a computer drive was entered as evidence by his former lawyer. Court heard it contained a video of his uncle’s house being attacked, “pictures of my uncle with Gaddafi,” and handwritten references to “Uncle Mansour” above a photo of a man who was later identified as Mansour Daou, court heard.

The computer files also included photos purporting to show the “residential building where my cousin, Ahmed Hamad AI-Ferjani, was staying” when he was killed. He said a few of his family were killed during the civil war.

After Ahmed’s refugee hearing in 2022, his asylum claim was rejected. A refugee adjudicator said he had an alternative country to settle in, namely Sudan, where his father was born.

His internal appeal was heard the following year and the IRB again refused Ahmed’s claim for asylum, saying he had proven neither a well-founded fear of persecution nor that he faced a risk to his life or to cruel and unusual treatment or a danger of torture if he returned to Libya.

He appealed that decision to the Federal Court, and Judge Ekaterina Tsimberis issued her decision on Monday.

Ahmed’s lawyer, Gökhan Toy, had complained to the court that the IRB cherry picked the evidence, selecting a few passages from the government’s package of information, and ignoring Ahmed’s evidence given to the IRB.

Tsimberis found the IRB’s decision was unreasonable.

She said there is no explanation in the IRB’s decision on how the adjudicator concluded Ahmed was “a Libyan with a low-level association with the regime” in the face of contradictory testimony and evidence suggesting close family ties to Gaddafi and his ruling regime, through his uncle.

“The Decision does not contain any indication that the (refugee appeal division) assessed Mr. Ahmed’s evidence, which gives rise to an inference that the evidence was overlooked,” Tsimberis wrote.

She ordered the government to send Ahmed’s case for a new determination by an officer previously uninvolved in the matter.

Ahmed’s lawyer did not return requests for comment by publication deadline.

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | 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 newsletters here.


Cameron Davies, leader of the Republican Party of Alberta, is pictured with his truck in Red Deer, Alta. on May 7, 2025.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Another Alberta separatist has travelled south of the border to woo American conservatives.

In recent months, members of the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), a separatist organization, have boasted of meetings in Washington, D.C., with senior-level officials from the U.S. administration. Now, the only political party affiliated with Alberta’s independence movement, the Republican Party of Alberta (RPA), is making its own waves south of the border.

RPA leader Cameron Davies said he is visiting U.S. President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort this week and that he met last week with undersecretary-level officials at the White House. In between these talks, he met with radio and podcast host Megyn Kelly and political commentator Tucker Carlson in New York, and with potential 2026 congressional candidates in the swing state of Pennsylvania. A member of Davies’ team shared a photo with the National Post of him posing with Kelly and Carlson.

Davies said that while he’s at Trump’s property in Palm Beach this week, he plans to share the same message he has with the others — that an “independent Alberta Republic is beneficial not only to Albertans, but also to the United States of America as a key ally and partner, both economically and for North American security.”

Davies would not divulge whether he had a meeting scheduled with Trump — and it’s unclear whether the president will even be in Florida during his stay. But, “if the opportunity arises,” he said, “I will have a productive conversation.”

Unlike the APP, an educational organization, Davies represents a political party, so these meetings could raise questions about transparency and foreign interference. Is he simply raising the RPA’s profile, or does he risk causing a diplomatic incident?

Chasing a referendum

In August, when Davies was asked about the APP’s recent chats with officials in Washington, he said it would be “improper” for him to have such contact with the White House until after an independence vote. So what’s changed?

“It’s becoming more and more clear that the current Alberta government has no intention of holding a referendum,” he said. “So, unfortunately, I think these are conversations that need to be had as an effort to increase the pressure on the existing United Conservative Party (UCP) to listen to the will of the people.”

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s office points to the legal process — a citizen-initiated law for putting forward referendums. “If there is support for independence,” Sam Blackett, Smith’s press secretary, wrote by email, “that process is the proper avenue for citizens to bring it forward for all Albertans to have a say on.”

Case in point, the King’s Bench of Alberta begins its constitutional review this month of the APP’s proposed referendum question: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?” The court must decide whether this violates the constitution or treaty rights, and if it passes, the APP can begin collecting signatures for a possible referendum.

Davies does not believe the court will approve the question. The UCP legislation, he said, has clauses that serve as a “poison pill on the referendum.”

The case is interesting because it raises constitutional questions about the impact of an independence referendum on Indigenous nations and their territories within Alberta, particularly whether such a vote would undermine treaty rights, according to Adrienne Davidson, assistant professor of political science at McMaster University.

Davidson also noted that a counter-referendum proposed by the Forever Canadian movement has drawn enough signatures and, to her mind, is more likely to be put to voters before an independence vote.

Thomas Lukaszuk, head of the Alberta Forever Canadian campaign, would prefer that neither his proposal to affirm Alberta’s place within Canada nor the APP’s independence question move to a referendum.

A “more wise pathway,” he said, is for Smith to pose his question to the Alberta legislature: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”

“If they vote in favour of my question, which I know they undoubtedly would,” said Lukaszuk, “then this matter is resolved.”

While Davies believes the APP’s constitutionality question will be shot down by the court this month, Jamie Tronnes, executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, a project of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, believes the APP’s question is “pretty straightforward.”

“I don’t think there’ll be much to question about that, so I don’t really have any concerns about the outcome. I think it’s going through the right process,” she added.

But if the UCP refuses to hold an independence referendum, as Davies anticipates, he said he wants voters to know they have a clear choice in the next election: “a political party that is actively seeking independence and planning for (it) by having conversations with our partners and potential future allies about what that would look like.”

That’s why he’s making the rounds with American conservatives.

Blackett notes that Premier Smith’s office is “not affiliated with (Davies) nor is he an elected member of Alberta’s legislature.”

Risky business?

A dual American and Canadian citizen and former U.S. Marine, Davies said he has colleagues and contacts within the Trump administration and that he met with those individuals last week at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

“We had several productive conversations around … Alberta independence and what an Alberta Republic would look like,” he said, noting that he met with folks from the Department of the Interior, Department of State, and the Department of War. They also discussed “what a strong partnership with an Alberta Republic might look like as an energy superpower with shared values and an economic zone,” he said.

The “very positive conversations” focused on national security, trade — including having a no-tariff partnership with the U.S. — and on freedom of movement between an independent Alberta and the U.S., similar to the European Union.

Davidson said Davies’s efforts might “reanimate the conversation” around independence in Alberta and galvanize the movement’s supporters, but she doubts that it will help expand support for separatism. She also noted that the moves could be dangerous.

“I think it also poses some potential risks to groups like the Alberta Republican Party,” she said, “particularly if they’re attempting to solicit what is essentially external foreign influence on an internal policy issue.”

“There are still some pretty stable constitutional perceptions of how trade gets organized and … who actually gets to say how people move between borders,” Davidson warned.

Tronnes is also concerned about the risks involved. She pointed first to the recent scandal involving Tucker Carlson’s interview with white nationalist and antisemite Nick Fuentes, which has divided U.S. Republicans and even caused internal tensions at the Washington-based conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation.

“Meeting with Tucker Carlson is not the flex that Cameron Davies might think it is,” she said.

“I would think that this might significantly backfire on the Alberta independence movement.”

Carlson’s latest scandal aside, Tronnes also thinks it’s risky to seek American influence in Alberta’s affairs.

“Just as Donald Trump did not like Doug Ford’s attempt to influence American politics with the ad, I don’t think Albertans would welcome the opportunity for Americans to influence our own internal politics up in Alberta,” she said.

Davies is clear that no money has exchanged hands and that discussions around U.S. financial support for Alberta’s independence would be premature at this point.

“This is the 10,000-foot view — looking at economic security, North American security concerns that a Republic of Alberta could be beneficial in solving,” he said, “and what those economic partnerships could look like in the future.”

Transparency is key, according to Tronnes, but even if Davies’s goal is just to win verbal support for Alberta independence from American conservatives, that’s “kind of misjudging the situation,” she said.

The RPA may think this is politically helpful to them, but Tronnes warned that this is likely “going to backfire in a big way.”

“Albertans are not looking to Donald Trump as a liberator,” she said. “They do not feel like right now is the best time to be going down to Mar-a-Lago, even for their own premier, much less someone who has not been elected to speak for Albertans.”

National Post

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


Toronto Police released this image of a person they say is the suspect in two incidents in the same area of the city.

The Toronto Police Service is asking for the public’s help in identifying a suspect wanted in two suspected hate-motivated offences.

In the first, on Sept. 15, police received a call regarding harassment in the Bathurst Street and Sheppard Avenue West area of the city.

It was reported that three youth victims were on a TTC bus in the area when the suspect engaged with the victims and made harassing comments to them.

The suspect was described as a female with blond hair, and was wearing a beanie hat.

Then on Oct. 31 police received a call regarding a hate crime in the same area.

In this instance, a youth victim was on a TTC bus in the area when the suspect boarded the bus and began to engage with the victim. The suspect made harassing comments to the victim before exiting the bus at Bathurst Street and Laurelcrest Avenue.

The suspect was described as a female with black hair, wearing a black jacket, red sweater and beanie hat. Investigators have determined that the suspect is the same person in both instances. An image has been released.

Police say the incidents are being treated as suspected hate-motivated offences, with the investigation being led by the Hate Crime Unit. They are asking anyone with information to contact them at 

416-808-3500

, Crime Stoppers anonymously at 

416-222-TIPS

 (8477), or at 

www.222tips.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.