WASHINGTON, D.C. — Darya Kosilova’s online vintage store, specializing in garments from the 80s and 90s, has drawn attention from celebrities, including Hailey Bieber.

Her Vancouver-based Cherish the Label has been in business for five and a half years, and for much of that time, Kosilova has enjoyed six-figure years, with nearly 90 per cent of her sales going to the United States. But this year, orders have dropped amid trade tensions, and Kosilova is concerned that things are about to get a whole lot worse.

Like many small business owners, Kosilova has shipped the vast majority of her U.S.-bound parcels without incurring duties because the contents, valued under $800, qualified for the de minimis exemption. But as of Friday, Aug. 29, President Donald Trump is cancelling the 95-year-old trade policy that allows these low-value goods to enter the U.S. duty-free.

“I only have one of everything in stock, so it takes a lot of effort and push on my end to get this product out into the world, and I can only sell it once,” Kosilova said. “So, if all of a sudden my market just disappears, it’s a big impact.”

With nearly four million de minimis packages entering the U.S. each day, international businesses and shippers are scrambling to determine whether they can still get their products into the U.S. — and at what cost. The new duties will be at the country of origin’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariff rate or, for six months, at a flat duty rate ranging from $80 to $200 per package.

While many Canadian products qualify under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and can avoid the new duties, that’s only true of businesses that meet the CUSMA rules of origin — a certification process many small traders previously ignored due to the de minimis exemption.

Now, sellers of Canadian-made goods are scrambling to obtain proper certification. As a curator of vintage clothes, however, Kosilova cannot easily provide the required documentation to prove where components of her sales items were made.

How we got here

De minimis, which means “of trifling importance,” was set up to spare the U.S. government from having to collect duties on imports of little value. It started in 1938, under the Tariff Act of 1930, allowing for imports of up to $1 in value to enter the U.S. duty-free.

While many countries offer some form of a de minimis exemption, Washington’s level became an outlier. Over time, the values grew. By 2015, it was $200, with roughly 134 million de minimis parcels entering the U.S. A year later, the limit rose to $800, and 220 million packages flooded in, and by last year, a whopping 1.36 billion units arrived.

More than half of those shipments came from China, which has long been accused of using the exemption to send fraudulent products and illicit drug components into the U.S. market. So few were surprised when Trump ordered that the de minimis exemption be suspended for China and Hong Kong in May. The rest of the world was told via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that it had until July 2027 before the exemption would expire — but an executive order issued under IEEPA in late July upended that, catching many off guard.

Canadian businesses have made good use of the exemption, with just over 85 per cent of Canadian exporters shipping to the U.S., according to Statistics Canada.

Fearing the worst

Larger Canadian businesses are used to dealing with clearing customs and paying duties. But now, small and medium-sized businesses are trying to work out solutions for shipping in bulk and, where needed, leasing warehouse space in the U.S.

Mark Becker, CEO of Wisconsin-based G10 Fulfilment, a 3PL company offering storage and inventory management, said small Canadian businesses either have to “figure out how to get the customer to pay more for their product,” or they will have to stock goods in a U.S. warehouse. Or both, given that the latter adds operational costs.

This is especially true for businesses whose products contain components originating from places like China, Vietnam, or India, because the new duties relate to the origin countries, not the sellers’.

Jesse Mitchell, director of business development for Strader-Ferris International, a Canadian & U.S. customs brokerage, cross-border logistics, and warehousing company, offered an example: If an international business ships a $200 shirt to the U.S. but that shirt was originally made in China for $10, the duty could end up being several times more than the cost to make it.

“Those companies are going to be in big trouble,” said Mitchell. “If they owned a 200,000 square foot warehouse in Canada and 80 per cent of their business was in the U.S., they’re going to be shot,” he said, noting how they will have to downsize in Canada and open a warehouse in the U.S.

But even businesses selling CUSMA-compliant products are worried.

Lucie Quigley, owner and president of Gutter Saver Pro, based in Musquodoboit Harbour, Nova Scotia, is proud to make her ladder gutter protectors in Canada — notably with Texas-made plastics — but worries she may soon have to move products to storage in the U.S.

Quigley has a certificate of origin under CUSMA, so she should receive a zero per cent tariff, but she fears she’s still not in the clear. She cited confusion and said that based on what she has gleaned from shippers, she believes she has two options. “I either have to pay for clearance on every shipment, and the pricing around that is not very transparent … or I have to look at finding a warehouse in the U.S.”

Thousands of entrepreneurs are looking for U.S. warehouse space, but they’ve only been given a few weeks to pivot — and it’s a process that normally takes many months.

Becker says he is quoting more Canadian businesses at the moment than he ever has, but he can’t offer immediate solutions. “I’m already starting to get into the busy season,” he said. “By October, I can’t be moving new customers in. It would just be a recipe for disaster [before the holidays].”

But it’s not just Canadian firms vying for U.S. space – it’s global. “We’re talking hundreds of thousands of companies that are in trouble that now need to find footprints in the States,” Mitchell said.

Given the rapid pace of change and the confusion around pricing, several countries or their mail carriers — including France, Germany, Japan, the UK, Australia, Austria, India, Denmark, and Switzerland — have suspended some shipments to the U.S. as they await clearer guidance. Shipping delays and uncertainty, in turn, are bound to lead to supply chain hiccups.

Clark Packard, a research fellow and trade expert at the Cato Institute, expects the U.S. policy change to raise shipping costs and shipping times, while hurting small and medium-sized businesses in both Canada and the U.S.

“A small business in the United States that’s buying products, coming from Canada or wherever, under the de minimis exemption, you should expect significant delays and higher prices,” he said.

Still, many shippers, businesses, and U.S. authorities are thrilled by the change.

The fentanyl crackdown

According to the Centers for Disease Control, an estimated 48,422 Americans died last year from fentanyl overdoses – down from 76,282 in 2023. De minimis shipments, particularly from China, have long been blamed as an easy conduit for sending precursor chemicals for fentanyl into the U.S.

Brian Townsend, a retired supervisory special agent with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, spent years fighting the fentanyl scourge in America. In fact, in retirement, he’s still fighting – providing drug training to first responders, parents, and youths.

The DEA and other U.S. authorities are tackling the drug problem from many angles, and one of them is the mail system, he explained.

“Drug traffickers are using the de minimis loophole to send fentanyl and other illicit drugs and contraband, knowing that it’s going to go through no or minimal inspection,” Townsend said.

Most trade experts recognize the advantage of closing this path for illicit drugs. Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, said he and his colleagues want the U.S. to maintain the de minimis exemption at $800.

“But throw China out of it. That’s been our position,” he said, acknowledging that de minimis shipments from China are used to smuggle drugs.

Reducing the number of packages flooding the U.S. market will reduce the workload for customs and postal workers, experts noted. Between 2016 and 2024, there was over a 500 per cent increase in parcels flowing into the U.S. under the exemption.

Finally, getting rid of de minimis could help boost some firms doing business in the U.S. It makes it harder for bad players to manipulate the system and underprice U.S. competitors with fraudulent customs forms and even fraudulent products, Becker said.

It should give those who are committed to doing business in the U.S. “a fair shot,” he said, of not being undercut by those skirting taxes to win on price.

Still, with so much fluctuation in U.S. trade policy this year, many are wondering whether the change will stick.

What’s next?

Quigley, for one, hopes Mark Carney can come to an agreement with Trump that will help reverse the trade tensions, including the scrapping of de minimis.

“Our prime minister is not doing what he promised in his campaign,” she said. “He promised to negotiate and to come up with a good deal.”

Many trade analysts and Carney himself have pointed out, however, that Canada already has the most favourable trade deal with the U.S. under CUSMA, so it’s unlikely that a tête-à-tête will change a Trump policy impacting the globe.

For now, Canadian business owners should plan on the de minimis exemption disappearing.

“I can tell you we are planning on it not coming back,” said Becker.

But for those hoping to see de minimis revived, there is a legal challenge that could change the game, said Hale.

Any day now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., should deliver its decision on the legality of Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. If the court affirms a lower court decision against the tariffs, it could mean the de minimis exemption — also an IEEPA measure — could return for some imports.

“The Department of Justice says any potential court order scrapping the IEEPA tariffs would revive de minimis,” Hale explained.

Most experts said some level of de minimis makes sense, but they want to see a lower level to protect against a flood of low-value shipments and better policing of the process to avoid fraudulent and illicit goods from entering the U.S. market.

National Post

• Canadian buyers are fleeing U.S. hotspots, leaving Sunbelt realtors reeling
• ‘Canada can’t replace U.S. market’: Trade expert discusses high stakes in upcoming CUSMA review

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 new study from

McMaster University

says eating meat will not lead to a higher risk of death. It may even offer protective benefits against cancer-related death.

These conclusions run contrary to advice provided by the

Canadian Cancer Society

and in several other studies noted by the

U.S. National Institutes of Health

.

The McMaster researchers published their findings in

Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism

, after analyzing data from nearly 16,000 adults, 19 years and older, from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Researchers looked at how much animal and plant protein people typically consume, then asked whether those patterns were associated with risk of dying from heart disease, cancer or other causes.

They found

no increased risk of death

associated with higher intake of animal protein. On the contrary, the data showed a modest but significant reduction in cancer-related mortality among study subjects who ate more animal protein.

“There’s a lot of confusion around protein – how much to eat, what kind and what it means for long-term health. This study adds clarity, which is important for anyone trying to make informed, evidence-based decisions about what they eat,” explains Stuart Phillips, professor and chair of the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University, who supervised the research.

The team employed advanced statistical methods to estimate long-term dietary intake and minimize measurement error.

“It was imperative that our analysis used the most rigorous, gold standard methods to assess usual intake and mortality risk. These methods allowed us to account for fluctuations in daily protein intake and provide a more accurate picture of long-term eating habits,” says Phillips.

The researchers did not find any associations between total protein, animal or plant, and a risk of death from cardiovascular disease or cancer. When both plant and animal protein were included in the analysis, the results remained consistent, suggesting that plant protein has a minimal impact on cancer mortality, while animal protein may even offer a small protective effect.

The findings support eating animal protein as part of a healthy diet.

“When both observational data like this and clinical research are considered, it’s clear

both animal and plant protein foods promote health

and longevity,” says lead researcher Yanni Papanikolaou, MPH, president, Nutritional Strategies.

The McMaster study focused on animal protein, not specifically on red meat. Nonetheless, the findings are counter to a large body of scientific thinking about red meat and cancer, such as research published by

the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The Canadian Cancer Society explicitly states that the intake of red and processed meats should be limited: “Eating red and processed meat increases cancer risk.”

Instead the Cancer Society recommends that we eat a variety of proteins, generally choosing alternatives to red and processed meat. (Red meat includes beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton or goat.)

While not pointing to particular studies on its website, the Cancer Society says: “Research shows a connection between processed red meat and cancer” and if chicken, turkey and fish don’t contain preservatives, they are “better choices” than processed red meats.

It lists several foods that are good sources of protein that can replace red meat: fish and seafood; chicken and turkey; dairy such as yogurt, cheese and milk; legumes such as beans, peas, lentils and soybeans; nuts and seeds’ and eggs.

The McMaster researchers offered the caveat that observational studies such as this one cannot prove cause and effect. However, they can be valuable for identifying patterns and associations in large populations, they added.

It should also be noted that this research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). (The organization was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.)

• Why we feast on meat and hate on vegans
• Health Canada backs down from nutrition warning labels for ground meat after criticism

 

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.

Thousands of Quebecers are asking Disney’s streaming service to maintain Quebec-French-language dubbing for The Simpsons, after a change in broadcasting rights left the issue in limbo for the first time in more than three decades.

Teletoon, which is owned by Corus Entertainment, had an agreement with Disney+ to air new episodes of The Simpsons as well as Family Guy and American Dad. The broadcaster also provided a local dub for the show, using Quebec actors speaking in the local dialect, which is distinct from that spoken in France.

But when Corus chose not to renew the broadcasting rights for The Simpsons, which enters its 37th season in the fall, dubbing also came to an end. Already even the 36th season has not yet been dubbed.

Joshua Biasotto told National Post that he started a petition last Thursday when he heard that the show was not being renewed, and spoke to Gilbert Lachance, who voices Krusty the Clown for the Quebec version.

“I asked him what can I do to help and he said you can protest,” Biasotto said. “So I launched a petition two minutes after that. In two hours I had 500 people sign.”

As of Wednesday afternoon the petition had more than 27,000 signatures. “It went way further than I imagined it would,” Biasotto confirmed.

His

petition at Change.org

runs under a banner that translates as “Let’s save the Quebec dubbing of The Simpsons.”

“For decades, the Quebec version of The Simpsons has been an integral part of our collective imagination. It has allowed entire generations to embrace the series thanks to its high-quality dubbing, rooted in our language and culture,” it says.

“We sincerely hope that Disney+ will continue the adventure of dubbing this series in Quebec and ensure its broadcast in dubbed French in Quebec. The public is insistently demanding it: losing these versions adapted to our linguistic reality would be a huge cultural loss.”

Biasotto is a fan of the show, but

many Quebec actors

who provide the French-Canadian voices of Simpsons characters have also taken up the cause by sharing his petition on their Facebook pages.

Viewers of The Simpsons on the Disney+ service can switch to French, but it’s European French.

“That is really not the same thing,” said Biasotto. “The slang is really different from Quebec, and that’s why it’s so important for us Quebecers to have our version.”

Not only has there been a Quebec dub since the first season in 1989, but Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, has said

the Quebec version

is his favourite dub in the world.

“In the first season there’s a reference to Montreal and Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean,” Biasotto said. “It’s not in the American or the French from France version. We adapt certain gags with our local references and our manners.”

He added that Disney has long been at the forefront of producing local dubs for its movies and TV shows, all the way back to the animated film The Little Mermaid, which was also released in 1989.

Corus said exclusivity rather than cost was the reason for its decision. “After reviewing our portfolio, we opted to acquire more exclusive content for our channel,” Julie Godon, general manager of French-language specialty channels at Corus, said in a statement to the Canadian Press.

“With Disney+, among others, offering dubbed episodes, we no longer had exclusivity for The Simpsons for several years,” she said, adding that “since 2019, the decline in viewership of the series was significant enough to make us reconsider broadcasting it.”

National Post has reached out to Disney+ for comment. Biasotto is also hoping to hear back from them. “I’m sure they’ve heard about it now,” he said.

• Marge Simpson lives to die another day
• The Simpsons predicted Florida parents’ outrage over statue of David’s nudity, fans say

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.

Taylor Thomson, the 66-year-old middle child of Canada’s billionaire Thomson family, is

suing

her former friend after a crypto investment, bought by the two friends and allegedly recommended by a psychic, went south.

Now an

Uber driver

, 47-year-old Californian Ashley Richardson is representing herself. She lost her personal wealth in the doomed crypto investment. Thomson reportedly lost US$80 million. It also cost them their friendship.

The two friends reportedly met back in 2009 at a Malibu house party.

Richardson grew up in an affluent part of Monterey County, Calif., attending an elite prep school and skiing by age two. She built a career designing social-media campaigns for companies like Ford Motor and McDonald’s. But Thomson’s wealth was of in a different ballpark. “We would go somewhere for a few days and she’d be buying houses like other people buy mugs,” Richardson told the

Wall Street Journal

.

However, money didn’t interfere with their relationship, Richardson says. “The reason we could be friends is because there was no financial connection.”

She claims she could be defensive about the way people used Thomson. At an art fair in London, she says attendees descended on Thomson. “People know who she is and know she will drop millions. It was nauseating.”

The friendship collapsed in 2022 after the cryptocurrency they invested in crashed within a year.

Thomson has accused her former friend of making hundreds of thousands of risky trades behind her back, according to the Wall Street Journal. Richardson denies the allegation and blames the billionaire for destroying their friendship and leaving her struggling to make ends meet.

Richardson also claims

the heiress made a pass at her

during a 2019 trip to British Columbia. A Thomson spokesperson denied this, telling the WSJ: “This is all false.”

“After spending years living a lavish lifestyle on Ms. Thomson’s dime, Ms. Richardson has taken her bogus story to the media in an attempt to extract more money from Ms. Thomson — which we know because Ms. Richardson has threatened multiple times she will do just that,” a spokesperson for Thomson told

The New York Post

in a statement.

The crypto investment came about due to a newsletter subscription Richardson had that was put out by celebrity psychic Michelle Whitedove. Her recommendation to invest in Persistence crypto coin got Richardson’s attention, and she raised the possibility with Thomson, who allegedly sought advice from her own psychic, Robert Sabella, an astrologer she regularly consulted, according to the New York Post.

“Taylor trusts her own instincts and would use Robert as a sounding board,” Thomson’s spokesman told the WSJ, “but by no means would she make substantial life decisions based on his suggestions.”

Richardson put most of her savings into the coin while Thomson reportedly poured in more than US$40 million. Richardson

claims

she reined in the heiress when Thomson suggested spending another US$60 million on the token after successful early gains.

Thomson also allegedly wrote an email to her brothers, who own the largest stake in the Thomson fortune, accusing them of restricting her ability to invest family wealth in the crypto market, the WSJ reports.

Thomson’s spokesman told the WSJ that an email was never sent.

The Thomson family is worth a reported $98.15 billion and Maclean’s named them Canada’s richest family in 2024. Woodbridge, the family’s holding company, owns about 70 per cent of the shares of Thomson Reuters as well as The Globe and Mail and a minority interest in the Montreal Canadiens.

Woodbridge and the Thomson brothers didn’t respond to the Wall Street Journal’s requests for comment.

Control of the Thomson family empire has passed down the male line. Taylor is the middle child and only girl. Her efforts to forge her own path led to occasional periods of estrangement, sources familiar with the family told the WSJ.

Thomson initially pursued a career in acting, training at the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She performed with Shakespearean theatre companies in Massachusetts and Los Angeles and had roles in the U.S. TV show Matrix and Canadian drama Forever Knight. In 1999, she had a daughter.

During their trading spree, Richardson says she spent as much as 20 hours a day researching cryptocurrencies and executing trades for Thomson — at times stewarding US$140 million of her friend’s investment, according to the WSJ.

Then the crypto market crashed in 2022. Richardson lost everything and Thomson, feeling betrayed, hired lawyers to get her money back.

Thomson sued Richardson and Persistence in 2023, seeking at least US$25 million for their alleged role in roping her into the investment. Her lawyers accused them of lying about the potential returns, aiming to bring in a “whale” or wealthy individual whose investment in the crypto coin would show up publicly in the digital investment record, boost its reputation and entice other potential investors.

According to Thomson’s lawsuit, Persistence allegedly rewarded Richardson an undisclosed kickback or finder’s fee of $783,702 worth of the coin. Richardson countered she and Thomson agreed on a finder’s fee but that it would only be paid if Thomson’s investment was profitable after a year. Richardson now says she ultimately received nothing.

In July, Thomson and Persistence settled for an undisclosed amount.

Richardson has filed a countersuit for US$10 million, alleging Thomson has defamed her. She claims in her court filings that Thomson decided to invest on her own. She also claims she never made a trade without Thomson’s approval and always did her best to “minimize losses.”

“Because of you I have lost everything, and you decided to sue the person who had nothing left to lose,” Richardson wrote in one of her last messages to Thomson, reports the WSJ. “

I loved you

more than anything.”

One of their final interactions via text involved Richardson calling Thomson a “rich motherf–king sociopathic b–h,” according to the WSJ. “Send your f–king goons to take my life. Please, you have destroyed me,” she added.

• Thomson heir lists her Los Angeles house for $43 million
• Forbes’ Billionaires List has 76 Canadian entries. Here’s who they are

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.

WestJet’s argument that passengers shouldn’t be compensated for any flight disruptions stemming from safety issues, regardless of the circumstances that led to the problem, did not fly with the Federal Court of Appeal.

The carrier was appealing a decision from the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) that awarded Owen Lareau $1,000 because his WestJet flight from Regina to Toronto was cancelled less than an hour before departure on July 18, 2021, due to a crew shortage.

“The appellant’s proposed interpretation of the safety category would effectively defeat the consumer protection scheme established by the regulations to redress the acute imbalance in market power to which passengers have historically been subjected in relation to air carriers. It must be rejected,” Justice Gerald Heckman wrote in a recent decision out of Toronto from the three-judge panel that dismissed WestJet’s appeal.

After Lareau’s flight was cancelled, WestJet provided him with a hotel and meal vouchers. But the airline declined his request for compensation for inconvenience under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations because the flight “was cancelled due to crew member availability, and that this cancellation was required for safety purposes,” according to the CTA’s July 2022 decision under appeal.

A review of this country’s transportation system conducted a decade back found “Canadians were very concerned with the unsatisfactory treatment of airline passengers affected by delays, cancellations, and denials of boarding,” Heckman wrote in the appeal court decision dated Aug. 25.

“The review concluded that legislative and regulatory reform was needed to ensure the fair and reasonable treatment of air travellers.”

In 2019, the federal government brought in regulations forcing airlines to compensate passengers “for inconvenience caused by a disruption” within their own control.

But it made an exception for safety issues, the use of which should be limited to events “that cannot be prevented by a prudent and diligent carrier,” according to the CTA.

WestJet “argues that passengers should receive no compensation for any flight disruption that arises in response to a safety issue, regardless of the circumstances that have led to the safety issue, including a carrier’s failure to take reasonable measures to develop and implement a reasonable contingency plan to mitigate the disruption,” said the appeal decision. “Moreover, in the appellant’s view, the agency’s interpretation of the safety category cannot stand because it puts pressure on carriers and their personnel to choose to operate flights unsafely in order to avoid paying their passengers compensation.”

Air Canada, an intervener in the case, agreed with WestJet that the CTA’s “test for the safety category ignores whether a disruption is required for safety purposes and asks instead whether it was foreseeable and could have been prevented by a prudent and diligent carrier.”

In Lareau’s case, his flight was cancelled, according to WestJet, because the airline couldn’t find a first officer that day for his flight from Regina to Toronto.

“In the appellant’s view, on the plain and ordinary meaning of the definition of ‘required for safety purposes,’ the cause of the situation that leads to a safety issue, including whether it is due to the actions or inactions of a carrier, does not matter, except with respect to the carve-out for disruptions resulting from issues identified on scheduled maintenance. The only question is whether, in the circumstances that presented, whatever the cause, delaying or cancelling the flight was required by law in order to reduce risk to passenger safety.”

According to the appeal court judges, “a disruption that is within a carrier’s control” is one the airline has “the power to influence or direct, or over which it can exercise restraining or directing influence.”

In that context, said their decision, “it should go without saying that under no circumstances should the prospect of a carrier paying compensation for a flight disruption factor into safety decisions made by carriers or their crew members in the exercise of the discretion afforded to them under the governing regulatory framework.”

WestJet’s proposed interpretation of the safety exception “could deny compensation for disruptions that result either from the carrier’s lack of diligence in carrying out its day-to-day operations,” Heckman wrote, “or from a deliberate decision to privilege its economic interests. These outcomes are irreconcilable with the purpose of the regulations to institute a consumer protection scheme that corrects the acute imbalance in market power between air passengers and air carriers that predated the regulations.”

The judges didn’t stipulate who should pick up the legal tab. “As no costs are sought, I would award none,” Heckman wrote.

• Two class actions seeking compensation for travellers hurt by Air Canada strike
• Supreme Court upholds rules on passenger compensation in win for air travellers

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.

OTTAWA — Nearly six in 10 Canadians feel their country is more dangerous than five years ago, before Russia invaded Ukraine, India was linked to the murder of a Sikh-Canadian and Canada reckoned with the scourge of foreign interference.
 

In fact, only a paltry three per cent of Canadians believe Canada is a safer place now than it was five years, according to a January Ekos poll done on behalf of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and recently published online.
 

The poll suggests the number of Canadians who feel Canada is more dangerous now than five years ago also more than doubled since 2021, the last time CSIS put the question to the public.
 

The reasons cited are all tied to the spy agency’s national security mandate and include international conflict, religiously motivated terrorism as well as foreign interference and transnational repression.
 

“Not surprisingly, in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, foreign interference in Canadian affairs, and an assassination on Canadian soil, tracking… indicates that Canadians are now significantly more likely to feel Canada has become more dangerous than they were in 2021,” reads the report.
 

Many of the findings are positive for CSIS, including “broad public confidence” in the spy agency, a large boost in awareness of its mandate as well as a strong majority (77 per cent) who believe its mission is “very important.”

But behind the numbers hides a more concerning trend for CSIS: Canadians’ trust in the agency’s ability to keep them safe from threats such as espionage, terrorism, violent extremism and foreign interference is dropping.
 

While three-quarters of respondents said they have confidence in CSIS to protect Canadians from national security threats, it’s a 10-point drop from 2021.
 

“Despite an increase in belief in the importance of CSIS, tracking… reveals a decrease in confidence in CSIS’ ability to keep Canadians safe,” the report reads.
 

Respondents were also torn on whether CSIS has enough independence from elected officials, with 36 per cent saying yes and 35 per cent saying no (and 29 per cent saying they’re unsure).
 

In a statement,
CSIS spokesperson Eric Balsam celebrated the positive findings and recognized that the agency still has much room for improvement.
 

“We are pleased that three in four Canadians indicate confidence in CSIS. We recognize that there is more work to be done, and will continue working hard every day to earn that trust through robust transparency and accountability efforts,” Balsam said.
 

The survey results will likely also give the Liberal government pause as it prepares to push C-2, an omnibus security bill with sweeping new powers, through Parliament this fall.
 

Tabled in June, C-2 was sold
by the Liberals as a border safety bill and a response to concerns raised by U.S. President Donald Trump, but its impacts are far wider reaching.

The controversial legislation i
ncludes sweeping new powers to intercept or search communications including mail, increased powers for police and CSIS to access information without a warrant and increased intelligence collection and sharing across the federal government.
 

As the government prepares to move the bill in Parliament, poll results suggest fewer Canadian trust either CSIS or the government to strike a balance between Charter rights and national security since 2021.
 

“Tracking… reveals that the proportion of Canadians who say they trust the federal government to strike a balance between security and civil liberties has decreased somewhat over the past few years (from 56 per cent in 2021 to 49 per cent currently),” reads the report.
 

Furthermore, the survey suggests less than half (47 per cent) of respondents agree intelligence agencies such as CSIS should have more power while 52 per cent think they respect current laws when collecting information about Canadian.
 

In an interview, former national security analyst Stephanie Carvin said the results suggest a bumpy road ahead for the Liberals’ Bill C-2.
 

“I would say the government is fairly well positioned… on the basis of the survey to make arguments, but is going to have to justify these infringements on civil liberties,” said the Carleton University associate professor in national security.
 

“It’s not yet clear how the Canadian public is going to receive C-2 and the impact of the debate on (CSIS) going forward in terms of its perception in the public,” she added.
 

In his statement, Balsam suggested CSIS was aware of the concerns surrounding C-2 and was making efforts to assuage them.
 

“CSIS has met with a number of groups across all segments of society, to ensure that proposed changes to the CSIS Act are well understood. These amendments were carefully crafted to balance Charter rights,” Balsam wrote.
 

“The proposed amendments to the CSIS Act will ensure that CSIS can continue to collect the information it requires to advance investigations. The amendments would not change the type of information that CSIS can collect without a warrant, nor would it expand CSIS’ mandate,” he added.
 

The Ekos survey polled 2,045 Canadian adults, including 1,040 online respondents, between Jan. 9 and 22. The margin of error associated with the total sample is +/- 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
 

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

• Liberal government tables border security bill with sweeping reforms and asylum claim clampdown
• Chris Selley: Liberals wrap much-needed refugee reform in a terrible privacy-invading package

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.