OTTAWA — Republicans on an influential House committee are pushing top Trump administration officials to pressure Canada to kibosh its controversial Online Streaming Act, which they describe as a “major threat” to the trade relationship.

In a July 31 letter obtained by National Post, 18 Republican members of Congress on the powerful House ways and means committee ramped up pressure on White House officials to get Canada to dump the “discriminatory” Act the same way it ditched the Digital Services Tax in late June.

“The fact that the Online Streaming Act already imposes discriminatory obligations and threatens additional obligations imminently is a major threat to our cross-border digital trade relationship,” reads the letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

“As bilateral trade negotiations continue, we urgently request that you engage with your Canadian counterparts to share our concerns and rescind the Online Streaming Act,” they added.

Greer, Bessent and Lutnick are at the forefront of negotiations with Canada for a new trade deal that Mark Carney’s government hopes will eliminate a host of new U.S. tariffs against key Canadian industries.

The letter sheds light on how a growing number of influential U.S. politicians are using ongoing trade negotiations with Canada to push back against Canadian digital policies that impacts American companies.

It also comes amid a growing trade war between both countries in which Republicans and President Donald Trump have been vocal about a plethora of commercial irritants with Canada.

The Online Streaming Act is a hotly contested law implemented by the Liberals in 2023. It brought online streaming platforms under Canadian broadcasting laws and regulation by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

Under the new law, the CRTC ruled last year that streaming services such as Spotify, Netflix, Amazon and Apple will have to pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenue into a fund dedicated to creating Canadian content.

The decision — which is estimated to cost the platforms $1.25 million each yearly — is

currently being challenged by Apple, Amazon and Spotify

at the Federal Court of Appeal.

While members of the prestigious U.S. House committee have previously raised concerns about the Act, it’s the first time a significant number of members have called for Canada to rescind it completely.

In their letter, the members of Congress tell the Trump officials that the streaming sector represents an “economic growth engine” for the U.S. and should be prioritized as part of negotiations seeking to dismantle “digital trade irritants” from Canada.

“The CRTC’s implementation of the Online Streaming Act… is deeply problematic. Online streaming services significantly differ from domestic broadcasters and the resulting CRTC decisions under the Act clearly discriminate against American companies, interfere with consumer choice, and harm American artists and right holders,” they wrote.

The signatories of the letter include Representatives Rudy Yakym, Lloyd Smucker, Adrian Smith and Brian K. Fitzpatrick.

Asked if Carney supports the Justin Trudeau-era Act or if it could find itself on the chopping block during ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S., PMO spokesperson Emily Williams declined to comment.

“With respect to the negotiations with the US, we can’t speak to the details of those (and) won’t negotiate in public,” she said in an email.

Earlier this year, Greer included the Online Streaming Act in his

most recent report on foreign trade barriers

as viewed by the U.S. administration.

“The rules include criteria that, based on available information, may effectively exclude Canadian streaming services from the new obligations, and under current definitions, would prevent U.S. suppliers from accessing the funding mechanisms that they will pay into,” reads the report, adding that the U.S. is monitoring the effects of the Act closely.

In a statement, advocacy group Friends of Canadian Media pooh-poohed the claims in the new letter and argued that the act protects Canada’s broadcasting and media sectors and the country’s cultural sovereignty.

“Our decision-makers here at home have already bent to American pressure once by scrapping the Digital Service Tax. They cannot make such a costly mistake again,” wrote the group’s senior director of government and media relations Sarah Andrews.

Last year, a bipartisan group of members wrote to President Joe Biden’s Trade Representative Katherine Tai arguing that the Act discriminated against U.S. companies.

“We are concerned that the music industry, including U.S.-based streaming companies and artists, will be harmed by Canada’s implementation of the Online Streaming Act,”

read the 2024 letter to Tai

.

On Tuesday, Carney suggested

he is considering substituting or rescinding another U.S. digital irritant, the Online News Act, to ensure local news is disseminated wider and faster two years after Meta banned access by Canadians to news on its platforms.

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

• Carney suggests he’s considering rescinding Online News Act
• Ottawa sides with CRTC to boost competitor access to fibre networks

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 politics newsletter, First Reading, here.

America’s most prestigious lawyers’ group is gathering in Toronto Monday, ironically to be greeted by an honour guard of redcoats from the War of 1812 in which American troops sacked the city.

As Canada and the United States are embroiled in a trade war, more than 1,700 people are expected to attend the American Bar Association’s meeting at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. On the agenda is tackling U.S. President Donald Trump’s law firm intimidation tactics. But first, their house of delegates will be greeted by two members of the Fort York Guard, student re-enactors wearing the historic red uniforms of America’s former enemy.

The fun part: the association’s house of delegates specifically asked to be greeted by the former-enemy redcoats.

“The American Bar Association, like so many professional associations in the United States, leans left. So, they’re going to come up with a plan there that maybe makes a statement to maybe twist Trump’s nose, as it were, the way the Americans used to twist the British alliance’s tail. So, that doesn’t surprise me at all that they would find a way of making a statement to show that they do not approve of his trade war,” said Donald Hickey, a retired Wayne State College history professor The New Yorker dubbed “the dean of 1812 scholarship.”

He suspects the two countries will eventually resolve their differences. “I’m sure they’ll work it out. This is just a little blip, I think, in Canadian-American relations. Although Trump didn’t help at all when he said Canada ought to be a 51st state. That was, I think, ill-advised,” Hickey said in an interview from Omaha, Nebraska.

Don Cranston heads the Friends of Fort York, an organization that promotes the protection of the Fort York National Historic Site, a 43-acre archeological park, where the bloody Battle of York took place more than two centuries ago. He was thrilled the American Bar Association asked for the pretend redcoats to form an honour guard at its meeting.

“Their membership is very appreciative of the past relationship with Canada, and I think they are, in a way, trying to say, ‘Hey, we’ve never had a closer friend. Why are we alienating our closest friend?’” said Cranston, a senior investment counsellor with Fiera Capital.

He points out that, in retaliation for burning and looting Fort York in 1813, British forces marched on Washington, D.C., the following year and burned down the White House and other public buildings.

Cranston hopes playing nice with the visiting American lawyers will help convince them our two countries are better off standing together than not. “But, in my mind, the guard also signifies that if we have to fight, we will.”

While he’s aware of the role soldiers from Fort York played in the War of 1812, Jonathan Cole, who heads the American Bar Association’s house of delegates, downplayed any suggestion that inviting redcoats to Monday’s session is meant as a commentary on Trump’s trade war or his musings about annexing Canada.

He noted the ABA’s Toronto session has been years in the planning, pre-dating the recent friction between two countries that share the world’s longest international land border.

“It’s a good chance to work together despite political issues,” Cole said in an interview from Nashville, Tennessee.

Fort York’s history is a reminder of how “the two countries have worked together since and have been such great allies,” Cole said.

He’s excited the honour guard from Fort York is participating. “They’ll present both the American flag and the Canadian flag, and we’ll have the national anthems sung for both countries as well before we begin our proceedings.”

American forces captured Fort York in the spring of 1813.

“They essentially conquered Fort York and they burned some of the buildings,” Hickey said.

“It was an unpleasant business for people in and around York at the time.”

Hickey argues the War of 1812 was “essentially Canada’s war of independence — and they won, so it is far better remembered in Canada than in the United States.”

There are several ways to see the conflict, he said.

“If you look at what happened on the battlefield and in the peace treaty (of Ghent) it looks like a draw because it was very hard to wage offensive warfare in the North American wilderness and when the United States was on the offensive early in the war they failed to make much headway in Canada,” Hickey said.

“And when the British were in the driver’s seat in the last year of the war, they didn’t make much headway either.”

But overall “it’s a clear British and Canadian victory because the United States went to war to force the British to give up the orders in council, which restricted American trade with the continent of Europe, and also to end impressment — the removal of seamen from American merchant vessels,” Hickey said. “And neither of those issues was mentioned in the peace treaty” signed in December of 1814.

The only way to argue the U.S. benefitted from the conflict is, “the British had a real problem after the war was over; nobody knew that was going to be the last Anglo-American war. And how were they going to defend Canada next time around from this growing expansionist colossus to the south?” Hickey said. “They decided that their best tack was to accommodate the United States. And they pursued that policy in the course of the 19th Century, and ultimately it worked. There was a genuine Anglo-American accord by the 1890s. Then it turned into co-belligerency in World War One, and full-fledged alliance in World War Two that continues to this day. So, in the end, the United States got a little more respect for its sovereignty from the British.”

• ‘He’s not waiting until 2026’: Trump likely to reopen CUSMA trade pact in the fall, Doug Ford warns
• Trump versus Canada: A timeline of U.S. President’s trade war

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Politicians in conservative states most affected by U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods — and Ottawa’s targeted retaliatory tariffs against key sectors in Republican strongholds — are increasingly concerned over the economic fallout from Donald Trump’s trade agenda, especially with the 2026 midterm elections looming.

Last Friday, Trump imposed a 35 per cent tariff on Canadian goods not compliant with the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement, adding to existing high duties on steel, aluminum, autos, and copper. Though most Canada-U.S. trade remains USMCA-compliant, businesses dealing in affected goods had largely been waiting to see if tariffs would be lifted. Now, those industries must pass increased costs along to U.S. buyers, pushing prices higher on items ranging from groceries and clothing to cars and farm equipment.

Combined with last Friday’s weak U.S. jobs report, the trade concerns have GOP lawmakers worried about the political and economic impact ahead of the midterms, but only a handful dare to voice their concerns.

“It definitely is indicative of a weakened economy, an economy that’s not acting in a robust fashion. I’ve all along felt like there’s a lag between tariffs and actual economic downturn,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican, told the press this week, adding that retailers have told him they think they will have to raise prices this fall. 

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran also warned this week of rising costs for consumers and businesses. While noting that tariffs can be good for solving trade barriers, he said “there’s no question tariffs are a tax on the cost of a product.” He also noted that trade uncertainty is bad for business because it “delays decisions to expand, to hire, to spend money.” 

Earlier this year, Mitch McConnell, a Republican senator from Kentucky, also railed against Trump’s tariffs.

“With so much at stake globally, the last thing we need is to pick fights with the very friends with whom we should be working with to protect against China’s predatory and unfair trade practices,” he said in a statement. He and Sen. Paul, along with Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, also voted in favour of a resolution to undo Trump’s 25 per cent tariffs back in the spring, warning of impacts on their state economies and border communities. The Senate narrowly approved the joint resolution, 51-48, but it then died in the House.

Inu Manak, a fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, says inflated prices from the tariffs will be felt before the end of the year — and for some items, like clothing, as early as next month with back-to-school shopping. And while Republicans know these impacts are looming, they’re not taking steps to mitigate the tariffs.

“What we are starting to see,” she says, “is that when they go back home to their constituencies on the weekends, they’re getting a lot of questions and pushback on the tariffs themselves.”

Earlier this year, questions from voters during town hall meetings related mostly to the DOGE firings, Manak explains, but now tariffs are top of mind. Apart from the five senators mentioned above, however, these local chats are not being amplified by the majority of Republican lawmakers back in Washington.

“Republicans are in a weird position right now because, on the one hand, they’re trying to sell the president’s signature economic policy, the ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ which is huge tax cuts,” Manak says. Tariff revenue is meant to help pay for those tax cuts, “so they’re having to sell this bill and also defend the tariffs, neither of which are popular right now.”

Polling has shown that the majority of Americans — and the vast majority of Democrats — oppose the tariffs.

So why are Republican lawmakers muted on an issue that’s so concerning to their constituents? Clark Packard, a research fellow in the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, points to the “shadow of Trumpism” and says few will risk drawing the ire of the president and his allies.

Manak agrees. She says it’s unlikely that more Republican voices will push back on tariffs before the midterms. “I just think that they’re not willing to oppose the president, and they’re very concerned about being primaried” and losing seats if Trump works against them, she says. 

Privately, however, they are saying plenty. Manak says she has spoken with Republicans who are concerned about the economic impact on their states and on certain industries being affected. “But they can’t really do anything at this point,” she adds.

Many lawmakers likely hope they won’t have to wait for the midterms for a reckoning. Last week, the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in challenges to Trump’s use of IEEPA, and a decision could come as early as this month over the legality of the tariffs. Packard suggests that many Republicans are “quietly hoping that a court will strike down the tariffs.”

A source close to the U.S.-Canada trade negotiations, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they’ve had conversations with those in Congress who are concerned by the tariffs. They are “literally sitting back and hoping that the courts do their job for them so they don’t have to deal with this,” the source said.

Barring a legal solution, it will be left to the voters to weigh in on Trump’s tariffs. At the moment, economists are predicting slower growth, but few are talking about a recession in the coming year, despite the lower-than-expected employment report. But “if that continues, if inflation ticks up, which it looks like it’s potentially starting to do, then I think voters will punish the incumbents,” says Manak. 

Today, Republicans hold the majority in the U.S. Senate, with 53 of the 100 seats, and a slim majority in the House with 219 of 435 seats. Twenty-two Senate seats are up for grabs next year, and while the Democrats only need to gain four seats to take control, most of the races are in states that went for Trump in 2024. As for the House, some experts say the Dems are likely to flip the chamber.

“Polling suggests that people aren’t so optimistic,” says Manak. “If that continues, I do think there’s a very solid chance that there will be some seat changes — barring some gerrymandering,” particularly in Texas.

Drawing a parallel to Trump’s first term, Manak points out that the president’s first midterms saw the House flip, “because of a lot of targeted retaliations, from China in particular.”

The president could still turn things around, says Packard. “If [Trump] can get some deals done, that’s a positive for him, giving certainty to the economy.” He suggests that this would need to include a baseline tariff lower than 15 per cent. 

But Packard mostly sees trouble ahead for the Republicans.

“The president himself is deeply unpopular with the American public,” he says. If his agenda and the tariffs stay in place as they are now, “the president will become less popular, the policy will become less popular, and Republicans therefore will become less popular and there will be substantial pushback.”

“I can absolutely see the House flipping,” he adds.

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.

On Wednesday, Instagram users woke up to a new button on their profiles. The app’s latest update lets people repost others’ posts or Reels directly to their own feeds, but some users are unimpressed.

Here’s what we know about the new feature.

What is it?

Similar to retweets on X (formerly Twitter) or reposts on TikTok, the new Instagram feature is designed to make sharing content easier. It’s been in testing since 2022, and is now rolling out to users globally.

According to a Meta news release that was shared on Wednesday, the feature is meant to make it easier “to share your interests with your friends.”

Users can now repost public posts and Reels, which will appear in a new “Reposts” tab on their profile and may also show up in their followers’ feeds.

How does it work?

The posts are credited to the original creator. For content creators, that means their post could be shown to someone else’s followers if they share it, even if those people don’t follow them. It’s a new way to expand their reach beyond their own audience and potentially boost engagement with minimal extra effort.

This update is part of a broader set of changes from Meta. Instagram also launched a “Friends Map”, that allows you to see where your friends are and what they are doing there (location sharing is optional), and a new “Friends” tab in Reels, where you can see public content your friends have interacted with.

What do users think about the feature?

Although targeted at making sharing easier, many users are not thrilled with the feature.

“They’re tryna make it like Tiktok but that’s the exact reason why so many users use instagram because they prefer it more,” one reddit user wrote. “They messed up big time.”

Others are frustrated by the design changes. The repost button now sits where the comment button used to be, leading to some accidentally sharing posts they meant to reply to.

“They put it EXACTLY where the comment button was. This is such an evil decision,” another Redditor wrote.

With another saying, “It’s so annoying, I do not want to end up filing my profile with 10 reposted reels at the end of the day because I accidentally clicked the button. At least ask for confirmation, or have it as a sub-option within the share button.”

Some have gone as far as asking if they can get rid of it all together. Time will tell if the repost button earns its place, or just more complaints.

• Minors on Instagram are routinely recommended sexual content: report
• Canadian adolescents among first to experience Instagram’s new teen accounts with private settings

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.

The U.S. State Department has announced that a new visa bond program will take effect starting Aug. 20. Certain visitors, including some Canadian permanent residents, may have to post a bond of up to US$15,000 in order to visit the U.S. The new policy is part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants in the country, and it comes after the government introduced a US$250 visa integrity fee in June. Here’s what to know about the visa bond policy and who will be impacted by it.

What is a visa bond?

A visa bond means visitors are required to pay a certain amount of money when they apply for a visa, and that money is refunded once they return to their home country, are naturalized as a citizen in the U.S. or die.

This visa bond only applies to people who need a business visa (B-1) or tourism visa (B-2) .

Anyone required to pay a visa bond will need to enter the U.S. through one of these three airports: Boston Logan International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport or Washington Dulles International Airport.

This new program will run for a year in the U.S., starting Aug. 20. Even after this pilot year is over, the rules will still apply to those that already paid the bond, until they return to their home country, are naturalized as a citizen in the U.S. or die.

A bond payment also does not guarantee that a visa will be issued, and if the applicant pays for it without being directed by the consular office, that money will not be returned, according to the U.S. Bureau of Consular Affairs, a division of the Department of State.

How much is the U.S. visa bond?

Visa bonds will start at US$5,000 and could go up to US$15,000, at the discretion of the consular officers.

The amount will vary depending on how much the officers believe is sufficient to make sure the visitor will maintain their status and will not remain in the U.S. for longer than they are allowed.

Who is getting impacted by it?

The U.S. published the first visa bond country list on Aug. 5, and so far it only includes two countries: Malawi and Zambia, both in Africa. Countries can be added to or removed from the list with 15 days notice.

The bond will not be applied towards countries in the Visa Waiver Program, that includes 42 countries across Europe, Asia, Oceania, and in the Middle East.

Are Canadians impacted?

Canadians will not be impacted by this new visa bond policy, since visas are not required for Canadians to enter the U.S.

However, permanent residents in Canada, who are not originally from countries in the Visa Waiver Program, need visas to visit the U.S. So, if a Canadian permanent resident has a passport from one of the countries on the visa bond list, they would have to pay the bond in order to visit the U.S.

The policy says that anyone who holds a passport from one of the countries from the list will need to post a bond of the amount specified during their visa interview.

• Canadians feel unwelcome in the U.S. as mistrust remains high: poll
• Majority of Canadians say travelling to U.S. could be unsafe, unwelcoming: poll

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.

It’s become routine for women tennis players to face online abuse after they lose a professional matchup. Canada’s premiere tennis tournament, the National Bank Open, has been no exception.

While Canada’s new star, 18-year-old Victoria Mboko, has been receiving plaudits for her meteoric rise at the tournament – as she readies herself to play in tonight’s women’s final – other players have not been so lucky.

Ukrainian

Elina Svitolina

was the target of online vitriol after losing in the quarterfinals. The messages have included death threats and celebrations of Russia killing her compatriots. Racial slurs have also been directed at her husband, French tennis player Gael Monfils, who is Black.

Svitolina has

hit back

with her own messages: “To all the bettors: I’m a mum before I’m an athlete. The way you talk to women — to mothers — is SHAMEFUL. If your mothers saw your messages, they’d be disgusted.”

Elina Svitolina showed the abusive & horrific messages she received from bettors after her loss to Naomi Osaka in Montreal.

Her response to them:

“To all the bettors: I’m a mom before I’m an athlete. The way you talk to women – to mothers – is SHAMEFUL. If your moms saw your… pic.twitter.com/nG7jA87Bw3

— The Tennis Letter (@TheTennisLetter) August 6, 2025

American tennis player

Coco Gauff

, who lost to Mboko in the quarter finals, told the Associated Press that threats are not uncommon. “After I lost, I got like murder threats, I got told they were going to find my mom and stuff,” she said in Montreal. “I used to take it really to heart when I was younger. But now, not as much.”

Gauff insists social media platforms could do “a lot better” to filter out the hate. “TikTok does a great job of blocking, deleting people and deleting pages as soon as something hurtful is commented, (but) I don’t think Instagram and X do the same with their requirements,” she said.

American

Taylor Townsend

, who finished runner-up in women’s doubles with Chinese partner Zhang Shuai, says online abuse is not new.

“It sucks, but it’s also part of the world that we live in,” she said. “And … there are a lot of people who don’t and who are just hiding behind screens … it’s a part of just being a public figure and being front-facing and playing a sport.”

Earlier this year, British tennis player Katie Boulter revealed that she had been receiving death threats during the French Open. They targeted her and her family.

Boulter told the

BBC

 she thought many of the messages were sent by people who are placing bets on tennis matches.

“Hope you get cancer,” said one message.

Another – laced with expletives – referenced damaging her “grandmother’s grave if she’s not dead by tomorrow” and “candles and a coffin for your entire family”.

A third said: “Go to hell, I lost money my mother sent me.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tennis (@underarmserve)

Boulter’s public comments coincided with the Women’s Tennis Association and International Tennis Federation publishing a 

re
port into online abuse

, showing that 458 tennis players were targeted by more than 8,000 abusive comments and posts on social media in 2024.

The report’s findings, drawn from data provided by the Signify Group’s threat matrix service, showed that “angry gamblers” sent 40 per cent of the abuse. Of that, a subset of 10 accounts was responsible for 12 per cent of abuse.

REPORT: Five WTA players alone receive more than a quarter of all online threats, with 40% of abuse coming from online gamblers 😳

Read more of the shocking details below. https://t.co/wmLHjedeHl

— TENNIS (@Tennis) June 18, 2025

Signify

operates

across all the major social media platforms in over 40 languages. It says all players competing in WTA and ITF  world tour events are covered by the service.

“This unique dataset, covering all players across international tennis tours and Grand Slams, illustrates that a relatively small number of accounts are responsible for a significant proportion of prolific abuse and trolling,” Jonathan Hirshler, Signify CEO, told British sports-betting news site,

sbcnews.co.uk

.

In the wake of the report’s release, the WTA and ITF called on the betting industry to act.

Meanwhile, Signify took action against the most serious and prolific accounts. Concern about 15 accounts were escalated to law enforcement agencies. Three of them were submitted to the FBI and 12 to other national law enforcement bodies. Account details were also shared with security teams connected with major tennis events to prevent individuals from gaining access to venues.

In 2024, Sportradar, a firm which works closely with many betting operators, got involved in tennis’ athlete protection initiatives, working with the Association of Tennis Professionals tour.

The firm launched Safe Sport, a service now used to address online abuse targeting professional athletes. It utilizes artificial intelligence moderation, education and investigation. It has been made available to the top 250 ATP singles players and the top 50-ranked doubles players on a free, opt-in basis.

• Canadian tennis sensation Victoria Mboko headed to final match at Canadian Open
• Scott Stinson: The sudden ascent of Bianca Andreescu, Canada’s latest teen tennis phenom

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

A man who was denied asylum status in the United Kingdom has drowned in an attempt to jump onto a ship to Canada.

A 36-year-old man named Walid Gamal Yasen Gomaa died on April 28 at the Empress Dock at the Queen Elizabeth 2 Terminal in Southampton, according to the coroner’s office in Hampshire, in south east England.

An investigation into the death, also known as an inquest, was heard on Tuesday. In England, deaths that are considered unnatural require an inquest to determine when, where and how a person died.

Gomaa was an Egyptian national who had been living in the U.K. illegally since 2021, according to a recording of the inquest obtained by National Post. He was denied asylum status upon his arrival. He disappeared until his death.

After living in England for four years, he told a friend he planned to travel to Canada.

Gomaa travelled to Empress Dock and was spotted by crew members who were preparing to sail on the vehicle-carrying ship, the MV Tannhauser, in the early evening. The ship’s second officer was raising the ramp at the rear of the vessel. He said Gomaa ran towards the ramp and got hold of the finger flaps (the end of the ramp). He stopped raising the ramp, as there was a “real risk of Mr. Gomaa falling while having his hands crushed,” the inquest heard.

Gomaa landed on the jetty. The officer attempted to raise the ramp again, but Gomaa decided to make another run for it. Crew members shouted at him to stop.

“On this occasion, he was not able to grab hold of anything. He fell towards the water located between the jetty and the vessel itself,” acting senior coroner Jason Pegg told the inquest, adding that the officer “looked down and saw Mr. Gomaa floating face down in the water.”

Gomaa’s body was recovered by a rescue boat.

A post-mortem examination found the cause of death was drowning due to “a head injury and a fall into water,” said Pegg. He “struck his head” likely against the vessel, “lost consciousness and fell into the waters and drowned.”

At the time of his death, he was carrying a backpack with a Quran, 600 pounds in cash, and a train ticket from London to Southampton.

A friend of Gomaa told authorities that he last had contact with him six days prior to his death. After Gomaa informed the friend of his plans to travel to Canada, the friend asked how he would get there. “Don’t worry about it,” Gomaa replied.

The inquest also heard that crew members thought it was “quite evident” that Gomaa planned to make his way to Canada on the vessel.

Pegg said that Gomaa’s family in Egypt were aware of his death and they have “not sought to attend the hearing.” He said he sends his condolences to Gomaa’s family and friends.

• What we know about unusual spike in asylum claims at this Quebec border crossing
• Three alleged human smugglers arrested in Quebec, 44 asylum seekers detained

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.