LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

A Patek Philippe wristwatch on display at Christies New York.

A thief who was part of a gang that stole a Patek Philippe watch worth more than $120,000 from Tim Hortons president Axel Schwan has been sentenced to two years in jail.

Ahmed Djidi, 26, was part of a gang that ripped the watch from Schwan’s wrist as he was walking through Mayfair, an upscale London, U.K. neighbourhood, on June 30 last year, according to

the Daily Mail

.

Schwan is

president of Tim Hortons’ Canadian and U.S. business

.

Djidi appeared in a London court on Thursday, where he was sentenced, aided by an Arabic interpreter, to 22 months behind bars. He had already

admitted to one count of theft

at a court hearing back in June,

Court News U.K.

reported at the time.

However, he already served the time in custody and was

due to be released today.

During the sentencing hearing,

reports the Daily Mail

, Judge Christopher Hehir said to Djidi: ‘You had two accomplices. The three of you waited on a busy street looking to identify any passer-by with a valuable wristwatch that you could steal. You stole a Patek Philippe watch from Mr Schwan who was walking on a Sunday afternoon with his wife. Some degree of force was used to grab the watch from his wrist. The effect on him and his wife has been considerable. This is a serious offence, and only an immediate prison sentence is appropriate in your case.”

 

The

judge remarked

that Djidi was in the U.K. illegally and has “been in trouble” for theft before. For example in 2022, said Judge Hehir, Djidi received a community service order for a distraction theft of luggage at a London railway station.

In the Schwan case, the judge continued, the theft was planned. “You played your part as a lookout with two others. You are not the one who pulled the watch from Mr Schwan’s wrist, but you are equally guilty for what happened.”

In considering Djidi’s future,

Judge Hehir went on to suggest deportation

might be in the offing. He remarked that he couldn’t see how Djidi remaining in the U.K. would be “conducive to the public good.” However, the judge conceded that immigration matters were not within his court’s authority.

Meanwhile, Djidi will be subject to a “criminal behaviour order” for seven years, preventing him from entering the London borough of Westminster or interacting with his two accomplices.

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 R Studios RIO location in Halifax, NS is shown in this screen grab from Google Maps in October 2024.

A Halifax gym says it has removed race-based pricing after “feedback and criticism” about a discounted rate intended “to foster diversity and inclusion.”

R Studios, which has five locations in Nova Scotia, came under fire this week after posts on social media pointed out the discount.

Canadian veteran

Jeff Evely said on X

that charging “double for white people” compared to Black and Indigenous People of Colour (BIPOC) customers was in violation of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. Evely is also a People’s Party of Canada candidate for Sydney—Glace Bay.

A business cannot discriminate against customers based on race, according to

section five of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act

.

Evely posted screenshots of the gym’s website, showing one studio drop in pass for $30 and another for $15, which was labelled as the “BIPOC drop in rate.” The discount is no longer available on the gym’s website and it has since posted

a statement on social media

.

“In a fitness industry that has long been predominantly white and often inaccessible, we have taken pride in being leaders who actively promote diversity through our hiring practices, in-studio equity and inclusion training, and the creation of our IDEA (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility) Committee, with ongoing efforts to ensure all individuals feel seen and represented within our walls,” it said.

“Recently, our organization has received feedback and criticism surrounding one of those efforts, a discounted membership created by our BIPOC team and IDEA Committee to help foster diversity and inclusion.”

The studio said it has historically offered such pricing options, which comes from a “place of compassion.” However, the statement said, “we understand that it has been interpreted by some as exclusive.”

It said it would be launching a fund to provide access to memberships for those who face “financial or systemic barriers.”

According to its website, R Studios’ first location opened in 2014. “This space was created for the misfits, the non-conformists, the everyday person,” according to owner Connie McInnes.

A nonprofit group in Halifax that offers circus lessons, from juggling to acrobatics, called

Halifax Circus

, says BIPOC discounts are available upon request.

 The BIPOC community can request a discount for classes at Halifax Circus.

VIA Rail offers

a 33 per cent discount

for Indigenous travellers as seen on its website. Advertisements for the discount appeared on Facebook in 2019, C2C Journal reported.

 VIA Rail offers a 33 per cent discount for Indigenous travellers, it says on its website.

“I can understand why people may find it objectionable to vary prices by race, as we aren’t used to seeing discrimination in this form,” Bruce Pardy, a Queen’s University law professor, told the publication in 2019.

“But it is not inconsistent with the already very objectionable idea that you can have different rules for different groups of people across a broad range of other areas.”

In 2017, a filmmaker in B.C. faced backlash for charging

white men more for movie tickets

, calling it a “justice-pricing model,” in which the white men were charged $15 and other customers only $10, according to The Canadian Press. He said he stood by his decision and it was not a stunt.

In 2021, the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner granted special permission to

allow for the preferential hiring of candidates who self-identify as BIPOC

for a five-year term at the Burnaby Public Library and other organizations. A 2024 library report said that hiring managers only looked at resumes “from white candidates if there isn’t a sufficient pool of qualified racialized candidates.”

In December 2024, an event at a community centre in Montreal was cancelled after

ticket prices for members of the BIPOC community were discounted

by roughly 40 per cent.

R Studios and Halifax Circus did not immediately respond to National Post’s request for comment.

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.


Few cases of harm in hospitals involve true negligence, or, rarer still, a wilful, malicious intent to harm. However, many harms are avoidable or at least potentially preventable.

Two decades after a watershed report on errors and unintended injuries in Canada’s hospitals shook the health-care sector, tens of thousands of Canadians continue to be harmed during a hospital stay — many of them, multiple times, new data show.

One in 17 hospitalizations in 2024-2025 — representing more than 153,000 people — resulted in someone experiencing a potentially preventable harm such as a drug error, hospital-acquired infection, a “patient accident” like a fall or radiation burn or some other incident serious enough to require treatment or a prolonged stay, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

In a quarter of those cases, people experienced two or more harmful “events” during their stay.

The data are based on 2.6 million hospital stays. Even then, the numbers don’t capture the full magnitude of the problem. “Near misses,” meaning errors that didn’t reach the patient, aren’t captured. Nor are harms involving people with mental health or substance use diagnoses, harms that occur in emergency departments or harms that start in hospital but aren’t detected until the person is sent home. The report also excludes data from Quebec.

The overall rate of harm has remained at six per cent for the fifth year in a row, higher than pre-COVID years. After spiking in the early pandemic years, “we haven’t really rebounded,” said Melanie Josee Davidson, director of health system performance at CIHI.

“The whole health system is still reverberating from the COVID period and still finding its feet,” she said.

When things go wrong it’s usually down to multiple, complex factors, patient safety experts said. But 21 years after a report known simply as the Baker-Norton report estimated as many as 23,000 people die in Canada’s acute-care hospitals each year from adverse events, “we’ve taken our eyes off the ball,” said Dr. Ward Flemons, a professor of medicine at the University of Calgary.

When the Baker-Norton report — by the University of Toronto’s Ross Baker and Peter Norton of the University of Calgary — came out, “it shook everybody and woke everybody up” from hospital boards and CEOs to medical and nursing stations, Flemons said.

“There was a lot of focus on patient safety, but, like any initiative, it fades over time if there isn’t a constant pounding of the drum.”

Throw in COVID, “and it took focus away from, how do we make current care better, to, how do we keep people alive during a horrible pandemic?”

But Canada is also one of the few countries in the world without a national patient safety plan, efforts at improving hospital safety are “fragmented, and for the most part, voluntary,” and there’s no concerted spotlight on safety, Baker and co-author Leslee Thompson write in

Healthcare Quality

.

Rather, it’s “much like a game of snakes and ladders,” they said. “We make advances, but too often we slide back due to shifting priorities, insufficient funding and resource capacity,” they said.

Concerns have also long been raised about a culture of secrecy that keeps errors from being reported, and full and frank disclosures made to patients and families when they do happen.

“The extent of unsafe care is unknown to patients and the workforce,” Baker and Thompson wrote.

“To advance a safety culture, transparency must be valued, not weaponized.”

Few cases of harm involve true negligence, or, rarer still, a wilful, malicious intent to harm. Bad “outcomes” happen in the best hospitals. However, many harms are avoidable or at least potentially preventable.

In 2024/2025, six harms made up the majority of cases in Canadian hospitals outside Quebec: electrolyte and fluid imbalances, urinary tract infections, delirium, pneumonia, “aspiration pneumonitis” (when things meant to be in the stomach go down the wrong tube into the lungs, causing inflammation) and post-surgery or post-procedural infections.

People harmed while in hospital stay, on average, five times longer than those who aren’t — nearly a full month, 28 days, versus six days for someone who isn’t harmed.

In addition to tying up critically needed beds, that longer length of stay costs more: an average hospitalization is just under $10,000. The cost of caring for someone who experiences harm is roughly $45,000, about four-and-a-half times more.

The data show there were 55,929 hospital-acquired infections in 2024-25, 6,769 “patient accidents,” 33,470 procedure-associated harms, like a puncture wound during surgery, and 86,817 medication-associated conditions.

Men were slightly more likely than women to experience harm, while the crude rate overall was slightly higher in urban versus rural or remote hospitals.

More than 21,600 people developed delirium, a sudden and serious state of confusion and disorganized thinking. It’s often age-related and the result of “one thing compounding another,” Flemons said, like being in unfamiliar surroundings and interrupted sleep.

While it’s a known risk factor for dementia and death, delirium often goes unrecognized. People with fractured hips and cardiac disease are at increased risk.

“But it doesn’t mean there isn’t anything we can do about it,” Flemons said. “You watch the drugs you give to people. You watch their fluid balance. You try to get them out of hospital as soon as possible. You try to get them up and mobile. Nice to say, hard to do, but you get them into rooms where they can sleep at night.”

Aspiration pneumonitis can be reduced by making sure people can swallow safely and properly, rather than just putting a tray in front of them and say, “Enjoy your dinner,” Flemons said.

Falls account for most patient accidents. “We also see fractures, or dislocations,” CIHI’s Davidson said. A frail patient might suffer a fracture or dislocated bone when moved. “It’s not necessarily that you got up and fell out of bed. But during the process of care there might be trauma to the body.”

CIHI doesn’t track deaths related to hospital harm. The study is based on a discharge abstract database. “When a patient is discharged home, we’re able to look back on their process of care,” Davidson said.

For patients, communication is essential, she said. “If a patient or a loved one is receiving care, asking questions about the care you’re about to receive, what it will feel like, what to expect, and to speak up if it doesn’t feel right, or if it’s not what they were told.”

Too much secrecy still shrouds hospital harm, others said.

Flemons is a co-author of a 2022 book on the lessons learned during a devastating drug mix-up that killed two Calgary patients, an elderly woman and middle-aged man who were in intensive care with kidney failure when they were given the wrong solution during dialysis. Both were given potassium chloride, which can stop the hearts in minutes, instead of sodium chloride.

At the time, the dialysis solution wasn’t commercially available. “So we were mixing it up in our own central pharmacy. And one fateful day, the pharmacy people mixed up the wrong solution,” Flemons said. An investigation found the fatal error was the result of “just a whole series of events that ultimately culminated in that tragedy,” he said.

“But we actually (publicly) spoke about it, and you don’t hear about that very much anymore.”

When errors aren’t talked about openly “that sends the wrong culture message, which is, we kind of know bad things are happening … (but) we don’t really appreciate, until a report like (CIHI’s) comes out, how cumulatively it affects so many people,” Flemons said.

Canada needs to go back 20 years, “to the concerted effort that happened after the Baker-Norton report,” he said. It’s one thing to have Canada-wide data, he said. “We need to get it down to province-wide, down to institutions and then get that into boardrooms, so that people are actually looking at it and asking some difficult but necessary questions, which is, ‘What is our strategy to change this locally?’”

National Post

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


Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks to the U.S.-Canada Summit in Toronto via video call on Oct. 8, 2025.

Canada and the United States “are much more coordinated” than it may appear, says Prime Minister Mark Carney.

“There is still a very deep, enduring and reinforcing relationship between Canada and the United States. As Canadians, we benefit from that,” said Carney via video call to the U.S.-Canada Summit in Toronto on Wednesday.

The comments were made in conversation with Gerald Butts, the vice chairman of Eurasia Group, a political risk analysis and consulting company. Butts was former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s principal secretary from 2015 to 2019.

Carney pointed out that the two neighbours were in line when it came to border security and defence. “Canada is quadrupling its defence expenditures between the end of last year and the end of this decade,” he said, adding that Canada had been “lagging.”

Canada and the U.S. were also on the same page when it came to major global conflicts, he said, such as the ongoing war in Russia and Ukraine, and in the Middle East.

Carney’s remarks come a day after a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House. The conversation between the leaders was friendly in tone, but little was accomplished in terms of

a new tariff deal

for Canadians. Trump said there was a “natural conflict” between the U.S. and Canada. He attributed this mainly to the proximity of the two countries and competing industries, like the auto sector.

Although there were areas where Trump and Carney did not see eye to eye — Carney recognized a Palestinian state, while Trump did not — Carney still said he endorsed the president’s Gaza plan that could bring the Israel-Hamas war to an end.

“I shouldn’t overplay it, but the momentum is there,” he said.

As for tariffs, Carney insisted that Canada had “the best deal of anyone” — but “it can be better.”

“We are in a position because of the integration, because of the level of commercial relationships, other ties between our countries, where we do have the best trade deal with the United States right now,” said Carney. “It does matter that 85 per cent of our trade is tariff-free. It does matter. Our average tariff is five and a half per cent.”

He said he was aware there were “real issues” within certain areas and he was “deliberately” working on the steel, aluminum and energy sectors to make progress. With respect to aluminum, for example, Carney said there was a discussion about whether it was the best use of energy to manufacture it for the United States, seeing as Canada produces 60 per cent of the supply to the U.S., but there’s a 50 per cent tariff.

But Carney made clear that it was Canada on his mind everyday, not the U.S.

“I don’t get up first thing in the morning, think about the U.S. relationship,” he said, “As much as I love the U.S., I think about Canada. I think about building Canada.”

With the Liberal budget

set to be released this fall

, Carney said in front of a crowd of Canadians and Americans in the business sector, that the takeaway should be that “we’re building this country.”

“We’re taking our responsibility seriously as government in terms of helping to build the enabling infrastructure,” he said.

Nearing the end of the discussion, Butts turned to one of the most Canadian topics available: hockey. He asked the prime minister about NHL star

Connor McDavid’s contract extension

with the Edmonton Oilers.

“I’m very pleased that he signed, and it’s going to be a hell of a season,” said Carney. He also added, given that the conference Wednesday was being held in Toronto, that a journalist pointed out during his meeting with Trump that Canadians were travelling the U.S. much less.

The journalist asked what would bring more Canadians to the U.S. and Carney said he replied: “Well, we’re going to be coming down for the World Series.” The Toronto Blue Jays are a contender for the Major League Baseball’s final showdown. The Jays face off against the New York Yankees Wednesday night.

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.


Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree speaks in the Foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025.

OTTAWA — The Carney government tabled a new version Wednesday of its flagship national and border security bill without a host of contentious search powers for law enforcement, but is not giving up on the first, controversial version of the legislation.
 

Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree tabled Bill C-12, which is a near-copy of
the “Strong Borders Act” (C-2) his government
tabled in the spring as U.S. President Donald Trump accused Canada of poorly defending the shared border from drug smugglers.
 

The new bill proposes vast changes to Canadian border security, data collection and sharing by federal authorities, anti-money laundering rules, the asylum claim system and the Canadian Coast Guard.
 

But missing from the new bill are sections of C-2 allowing law enforcement sweeping new powers such as opening mail or demanding any service provider fork over limited subscriber information without a warrant. Also missing is the restriction on cash payments or donations over $10,000.
 

But that doesn’t mean the government is backtracking on those powers, the minister said, as the original bill C-2 will remain in Parliament and be debated separately.
 

Anandasangaree told reporters that by removing the most contentious elements of C-2 from C-12, he expects the latter bill would garner “broader support” in Parliament. But in the same breath, he said that changes were not done to placate opposition parties.
 

“I do anticipate the Bill C-12 will have a great traction and likely go through the committee phase early,” he said, adding that he hopes debate on the new legislation will begin in the next several weeks.
 

When asked why he tabled a new bill instead of simply amending the existing one, Anandasangaree said the amendment process was “quite cumbersome”.
 

He explained that the original bill was introduced “within days” of the Carney government’s election and that subsequent feedback over the summer pushed the government to draft a new bill.
 

With regards to border security, C-2 proposes to tighten rules around asylum claims, allow the RCMP to share information about registered sex offenders with domestic international partners and gives the Coast Guard a new protective security role.
 

Much of the “Strong Borders Act” tabled in June had little to do with securing the border and instead granted police and intelligence agencies new, and in some cases warrantless, legal tools to obtain or intercept information.
 

The bill has garnered intense criticism from privacy and civil liberty groups as well as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
On Wednesday, Conservative House Leader Andrew Scheer said it was “embarrassing” that Anandasangaree was already changing the Carney government’s first bill.

The ability to obtain Canadians’ information and intercept communications, known as “lawful access,” is one of the most intrusive powers afforded to police and intelligence agencies.
 

Lawful access rules are perennially in the middle of a tug-of-war between the needs of law enforcement to investigate threats and Canadians’ rights and expectations of privacy.
 

Intelligence and police agencies have long complained that they face “significant challenges” in securing lawful access because existing rules are antiquated and poorly adapted to the digital world.
 

On Wednesday, Anandasangaree said he was “quite committed” to modernizing the lawful access regime, noting Canada lags significantly behind its Five Eyes intelligence sharing partners.
 

But privacy, civil liberty and even some national security advocates say the Liberals’ Bill C-2 is a profound overreach that gives police and intelligence services far too much warrantless power.
 

They point to sections of the spring bill that allow authorities to issue a demand letter to any public service provider requiring them to disclose some under information.
 

Anandasangaree incorrectly stated on Wednesday that the new power only allowed authorities to ask a service provider if an individual used their service. “That is the only question that can be asked. Beyond it… the police need to provide a warrant,” he said.
 

But the government’s own website states
that officers could demand that service providers also provide information about the “nature of the services” provided, if they have any information relating to that account, where those services were provided and for how long.
 

“We’re not just talking about Rogers, Telus and Bell here,” national security law expert Leah West explained on the
Secure Line podcast last month
. “Your doctor, your gynecologist, your Substack, your dog groomer, anyone who is providing a service.”
 

“What could be revealed is a lot more potentially privacy-intrusive because of how broad the application is.”
 

Authorities only needed a reasonable ground to suspect that an offence had been or may be committed to request the information. They did not require a judge’s approval via a warrant.
 

Another controversial section of the bill created what many called a “digital back door” via a new law that requires electronic service provides to make it easier for police and intelligence agencies to access their data.
 

The new law could compel an organization that uses any form of electronic services geared towards people in Canada or that operates in the country to implement tools to ensure data can be extracted and provided to authorities when mandated.
 

“It has the potential to introduce significant vulnerabilities into the systems we use every day for our most private communications and could also completely upend the practice of information-sharing that is the foundation for keeping the internet safe and secure,”
privacy lawyer David Fraser
wrote in July.
 

In a recent report, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians — an intelligence oversight committee of MPs and senators — largely agreed with law enforcement agencies’ concerns about lawful access and called on the government to carefully and incrementally address the issue.
 

Canadians would be “surprised to learn how difficult it actually is” for national security agencies to intercept communications and obtain information lawfully, the report noted.
 

“It is time for the government to act and provide the security and intelligence community with the tools, policies, and lawful authorities they require to do the work asked of them in the manner expected by Canadians which is responsive to and protective of their privacy.”
 

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

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


Supreme Court of Canada Justices Malcolm Row, left to right, Michelle O'Bonsawin, Andromache Karakatsanis, Nicholas Kasirer, Richard Wagner, Mahmud Jamal, Suzanne Cote, Mary T. Moreau, and Sheilah L. Martin wear their new robes as they take part in the Official Bench Photo in the Judges' Conference Room at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on Monday, Oct. 6, 2025.

The Supreme Court of Canada is marking its 150th anniversary this year and decided for the first time in 39 years to have a formal opening ceremony that involved an unveiling of sorts that has provoked debate within the legal profession.

The judges of the court donned new robes. New black fabric was highlighted with red piping on the fringes. Absent were the red robes with white mink fur trim, fondly known as

“Santa robes.”

The simpler,

made-in Quebec gowns

are meant to represent a balance between weighty tradition and openness to future legal developments. They are also meant to reflect Canada’s identity and values more authentically, Chief Justice Richard Wagner told the Canadian Bar Association’s magazine,

The National

.

“They have a modern and simple design that echoes our commitment to openness and accessibility in a way that is distinctly Canadian,” he said to the legal publication.

It should be noted, however, that these were not the day-to-day working robes of the country’s highest court.

When the court is in session, the judges wear traditional black robes

, as barristers do in courts throughout the country. But Canadians not in the habit of watching

SCC hearings on CPAC

or via the

court’s own website

 might think the Santa robes were de rigeur.

That said, the red robes trimmed with white were symbolic of Canada’s colours. Moreover, they were thought to be

perfect for important occasions,

such as the opening of Parliament or a visit from the King.

However, the heavy red gowns were known to be unpopular among some of the judges.

“Am I allowed to say, they’re awful,” Justice Andromaches Karakatsanis

told CPAC eight years ago

. “They’re so hot. They’re heavy … I’m glad that we wear (them) only for ceremonial events. I’m not sure I could do it every day.”

However, Justice Suzanne Côté

shared a different view

with CPAC. The court has traditions it needs to keep, she said, for instance, when “we wear our red robes for official events.” Decorum is important, she said, “given the type of institution that the court is.”

This judicial difference in opinion over the high court’s ceremonial fashion has been reflected in online debate among Canadian lawyers.

University of Calgary

professor of law, Ian Holloway

, has been highly critical of the change.

“Presumably, the chief justice is not criticizing the scarlet colour of the (ceremonial robes). After all, one can’t imagine that he would openly be throwing shade at the RCMP; the Mounties are about as iconically Canadian as you can get, and they’ve been wearing scarlet longer than the Supremes have. And for that matter, Canadian soldiers have been wearing ceremonial scarlet for even longer.”

Instead, Holloway suggests, “the principal objection to the current ceremonial robes is that they superficially resemble the robes worn by judges in England. Never mind that judges in places as diverse as Nigeria, Jamaica, New Zealand, and Australia also wear similar robes, the fact that ours have English roots makes them imperative candidates for the chopping block.”

A discussion on LinkedIn Tuesday reflected clashing sartorial opinions among the legal profession about the top court’s attire.

“No more Supreme Court of Canada judges as Santa Claus! Old robes are out. New Robes are in,” Jeremy Opolsky, litigation partner at Torys LLP

wrote on LinkedIn

Tuesday.

“I like these ones much better,” writes Myriam Seers, Toronto-based International disputes lawyer and arbitrator, responded. “They’re clean, modern and don’t (or shouldn’t) give rise to any point-and-laugh reactions by members of the public. That’s important when public confidence in institutions is constantly undermined on multiple fronts all at once.”

However, this was not a unilaterally shared view. Tax lawyer, Carl Irvine, didn’t pull his punches: “Boo! I liked the Santa Claus robes. Someone said these look like the leather package on somebody’s new Honda Civic.”

Comments from animal rights lawyer and Executive Director at Animal Justice, Camille Labchuk, may have gotten to the nub of one reason why the change was made.

“I love that they finally ditched the fur trim. A number of years ago I spoke with the owner of the robing company that created the Santa attire, and he told me each robe took the skin of 60 individual ermines who came from a fur farm,” wrote Labchuk. “Sends a great message that the Supreme Court is choosing modern, fur-free attire!”

Animal activists have been lobbying

for the court to ditch the fur-lined robes for years.

Senior legal consultant, Thom Harley, brought these legal threads together in

his LinkedIn post

: “Some court watchers see balance and modernization. I see a loss of identity. After 150 years, that robe was more than costume. It was a visual signature, part of the institutional DNA of Canada’s highest court.

“If the old robes looked like ‘Santa suits,’ as some wags put it, the new ones now resemble something else: a sleek business suit with a stripe. Efficient, unremarkable, and easily forgotten in a crowd. The distinction between ceremony and everyday has blurred. … I don’t believe robes make the justice. But symbols matter. In law, institutions derive part of their authority from ritual, continuity, visual cues. When we strip those away, we risk making the Court look like just ‘another administrative body.’”

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.


U.S. President Donald Trump (R) shakes hands with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House on October 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

OTTAWA

— As Prime Minister Mark Carney hopes for a hastened resolution on U.S. steel and aluminium tariffs, he left the White House having put energy on the table as an area of cooperation in exchange for progress on a trade deal. 

A source with knowledge of the discussions between the president and the prime minister said that Carney raised the idea of possibly revisiting the Keystone XL pipeline, which Trump has supported for years.

The pipeline, which was first proposed back in 2005, would carry oil from northern Alberta to Nebraska and has had a troubled history. It was first rejected by former U.S. President Barack Obama, but then later revived by Trump during his first term in office. His predecessor, however, former Democratic president Joe Biden, revoked its permit on his first day in office back in 2021.

National Post is not naming the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The conversation was first reported by CBC News.

The source emphasized that Carney brought up the cancelled pipeline in the hopes of seeing progress made on a deal regarding the 50 per cent steel and aluminum tariffs, which Trump levied under S

ection 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act. 

The source said it was only an initial discussion, but that leaders agreed that the idea of cooperating on energy would be part of the negotiations going forward.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who was set to remain in Washington for the coming days, told reporters after their White House meetings on Tuesday that both sides discussed “strengthening the energy partnership with the United States.”

Speaking more broadly, the source said that Keystone XL was just one example of the ways Canada could work more closely with the U.S. on energy. Other areas include uranium and electricity.

That means as Carney presses for a trade deal, restarting the Keystone XL pipeline could transform into a potential bargaining chip.

The source added that the next step would be for Trump to issue a new presidential permit for the project.

Speaking at a conference on the Canada-U.S. relationship in Toronto, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith suggested energy and raw materials could be used as leverage when it comes to negotiating with the U.S. president, but only if it is done in such a way that it is presented as being a benefit to America.

“His love language is, ‘Let me tell you how I can make America even greater. Let me tell you how Canada being able to provide you raw materials or critical minerals or energy and natural gas allows you to have energy dominance in the world,” Smith told the crowd. 

As Carney returned to Ottawa on Wednesday, his office signalled he was looking for results on the Canada-U.S. trade talks within weeks.

“The leaders identified opportunities for material progress in trade in steel, aluminium, and energy, and directed their teams to conclude this work in the coming weeks,” reads a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office. 

Carney spent his time in the House of Commons on Wednesday defending the state of the trade talks, as Opposition Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre hammered him on his lack of a deal.

“We’ll go soft on him today because I know he’s still recovering from surgery to have his elbows removed,” Poilievre said, referring to the “elbows up” approach Carney touted during the spring federal election campaign, when it came to dealing with Trump.

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves Francois-Blanchet also pressed Carney for proof of results, questioning whether he felt Trump’s nice words towards him were enough.

During their roughly 30-minute Oval Office meeting, Trump praised Carney as a “world-class leader” and a “nice man,” and drew laughter when he said the prime minister could also be “very nasty.”

Carney told MPs that Canadian and U.S. officials were negotiating the terms of the discussed deals regarding steel, aluminum, and energy.

Diamond Isinger, who served as a special advisor to former prime minister Justin Trudeau on Canada-U.S. relations, said it was worthwhile for Carney to meet Trump as he needed to forge a stronger relationship with the president.

“Relationships matter a lot to President Trump, and he is also someone that receives feedback and is suggestible on the basis of who was last in his ear,” said Isinger.

“The opportunity for Canadians to have face time with him to really advance some Canadian interests and concerns face to face means that those are top of mind for him, at least in these coming days and weeks, as opposed to the many inbound texts, calls, other interactions that he’s surely having on a daily basis.”

She added that Carney remains a relatively new prime minister who has yet to spend much time with Trump one-on-one, outside of on the sidelines of international summits and other major world events.

Carney sat down for his first Oval Office meeting with Trump back in May, shortly after his April election win.

Isinger said a face-to-face meeting between leaders would be to announce a joint deal or to try and force progress, the latter of which appeared to be the case for Carney, she said, given Trump’s many tariff announcements.

The latest includes a new 25 per cent tariff on heavy trucks and a new levy on softwood lumber.

“This forced the U.S. to actually focus their attention, face-to-face in real time, on Canada,” she said.

She added that it also matters that both leaders left their meetings by directing their respective teams to continue trade talks, especially on the U.S. side, given, as she said, Trump’s cabinet secretaries act at the president’s “expressed direction.”

“If he asked them to continue talks with the Canadians, it indicates that he’s making this a priority.

Before the prime minister left Washington, he met with

Joshua Bolten, the president and CEO of Business Roundtable, an association representing U.S. business leaders. 

He also dined Tuesday evening with Vice President JD Vance and his wife at their residence. Carney was joined on the trip by several of his senior ministers, including Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand, who on Wednesday morning met with her U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

-With files from Courtney Greenberg in Toronto

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 politics newsletter, First Reading, here.


Justice Minister Sean Fraser

OTTAWA — Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser says he supports the continuation of birthright citizenship, calling it a bedrock of equal rights, in response to a Conservative MP’s push to end the practice.

“I believe that we should maintain birthright citizenship in Canada, and I don’t know if I can be any more direct than that,” Fraser told reporters on his way to a Liberal caucus meeting on Wednesday.

“I think when you start to pick and choose who amongst Canadians gets the full benefits of citizenship, you obviously enter into a very troublesome conversation. One of the things that’s very important to us is that governments don’t get to pick and choose which Canadians get to have their rights fully realized, and to the extent that we can have certainty in the law guided by the rights that accrue to all citizens,” said Fraser.

Fraser’s comments came after a proposed Conservative amendment to the

Liberal government’s new citizenship bill

, withholding birthright citizenship from children born in Canada to temporary residents, was voted down in committee.

The amendment would have required at least one parent to be a citizen, permanent resident or protected refugee for citizenship to be automatically granted at birth.

This would put Canada in line with peer countries like the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia.

Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner, who sponsored the failed amendment, told the National Post that Canada must curtail birthright citizenship, with temporary arrivals

surging in recent years

.

“There are three million temporary residents in the country right now

— seven per cent of the population — who are having children, and those children are using services at a rate that the government is not accounting or planning for,” said Rempel Garner.

She stressed that this doesn’t even account for children of the

up to 500,000 undocumented immigrants

currently in Canada.

Rempel Garner noted that some Canadian hospitals have

reported levying childbirth fees

for non-resident, non-insured patients, suggesting a strain on hospital resources.

“You have hospitals that are issuing edicts that they’re having to charge temporary residents who are giving birth. This is unprecedented,” said Rempel Garner.

The federal government doesn’t track the migration status of all new parents, but live births

to non-resident mothers

in Canada have increased sevenfold since the Liberals took office in 2015. These still accounted for less than half a percent of all live births in 2024 (1,610 out of 367,347).

Rempel Garner said she’s been made aware of

videos circulating social media

advertising giving birth in Canada as a “loophole” for permanent residency.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he’ll cap the number of non-permanent residents to five per cent of the population.

The failed Conservative amendment would have been added to a Liberal government immigration bill seeking to create a pathway to citizenship for

so-called “Lost Canadians,”

 who were born abroad to to Canadian parents who were also born outside of Canada.

The bill will go to the House of Commons for approval, after

passing the committee stage

on Tuesday.

National Post

rmohamed@postmedia.com

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


Family relationships, caring for a friend and volunteering are among the activities that give meaning to our lives.

A sense of purpose in life sounds like it might be its own reward, but scientists have discovered that older adults who reported such feelings also had a reduced chance of developing dementia as they aged.

The study by researchers at the

University of California Davis

, and reported in the

latest edition

of the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, is based on data collected from 13,765 participants aged 45 and older. They were surveyed between 2006 and 2020 as part of a long-term U.S.-based study, the

Health and Retirement Study

. All had normal cognitive functioning at the start of the study.

The team found that people who reported a higher sense of purpose in life were about 28 per cent less likely to develop cognitive impairment, including mild cognitive impairment and dementia, over the length of the study. Even among those who did experience cognitive decline, the onset was delayed by about 1.4 months, a difference the researchers described as “meaningful when compared to current treatments.”

The team found that the so-called “protective effect” of having a sense of purpose was seen in both sexes and across multiple racial and ethnic groups. It also remained significant even after accounting for education, depression and the APOE4 gene, the last of which is a known risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Our findings show that having a sense of purpose helps the brain stay resilient with age,” said Aliza Wingo, the study’s lead author and a professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. “Even for people with a genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease, sense of purpose was linked to a later onset and lower likelihood of developing dementia.”

The participants were not asked what specific activities or beliefs gave their lives a sense of purpose, but the researchers noted a variety of possibilities. These included:

— Relationships, such as caring for family, spending time with grandchildren or supporting a friend.

— Work or volunteering, including mentoring or contributing to community causes.

— Spirituality or faith, including beliefs and involvement in faith-based communities.

— Personal goals, such as pursuing hobbies, learning new skills or achieving personal milestones.

— Helping others, whether acts of kindness, caregiving, philanthropy or advocacy.

These types of activities are sometimes summed up with the word “ikigai,” a

Japanese term

meaning “

that which brings value and joy to life.”

The study echoed findings of

earlier, similar studies

, but the researchers noted that the number of participants and the length of this study made these results more meaningful. However, they noted that while the study found an association, it did not definitively prove higher levels of purpose caused the lowered rates of dementia.

Even so, the findings support the idea that psychological well-being plays a key role in healthy ageing.

“What’s exciting about this study is that people may be able to ‘think’ themselves into better health,” said Thomas Wingo, a co-author of the study and a professor and neurologist at UC Davis Health. “Purpose in life is something we can nurture. It’s never too early — or too late — to start thinking about what gives your life meaning.”


President Donald Trump waits to greet Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, as Carney arrives at the White House, Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2025, in Washington.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — With the U.S. arguing that Canada’s digital policy is discriminatory and protectionist, and claiming they harm the business interests of other nations, Canadians may see it as a little bit ironic.

It’s a theme we’ve heard plenty about in reference to U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war, but in this case, it’s the White House’s view of Canada’s Online News Act and Online Streaming Act.

The president claims these Canadian policies are unfairly protectionist and discriminate against U.S. tech firms and streaming giants. Meanwhile, the White House’s aggressive use of tariffs on everything from whipped cream canisters to automotive parts has disrupted trade worldwide with a level of protectionism not seen from the U.S. in nearly a century.

Trump wants both of these Canadian policies to follow the path of the now-defunct Digital Services Tax (DST), which he said had to go if the U.S.-Canada trade talks were to continue this summer. Prime Minister Mark Carney, in turn, directed Revenue Canada not to collect the tax, but that move did not seem to win him any favours.

“Don’t, don’t, don’t show your cards ahead of time,” said Mark Dalton, senior policy director of Technology and Innovation at R Street, a public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C., about Carney scrapping the DST. “If you cave to demands ahead of time, when you get to the negotiations, there will be more demands.”

The DST and the lifting of retaliatory tariffs were the latest concessions Carney’s team made, at least publicly, to the U.S., and while it’s unclear whether these led to Tuesday’s sitdown at the White House, one thing is certain: A Canada-U.S. trade deal has yet to be reached.

Both sides had a more detailed discussion than in the past, according to Dominic LeBlanc, the minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade, who described Tuesday’s talks as “successful, positive, substantive.” He said he and his colleagues, along with their American counterparts, were directed “to continue the conversation and to quickly land deals that will bring, we think, greater certainty in (some) areas,” including steel, aluminum and energy. LeBlanc said the Section 232 tariffs in these sectors have been the most challenging for Canada.

Noticeably absent from Tuesday’s remarks were the 35 per cent tariffs on (non-CUSMA) Canadian exports, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico renegotiation preparations, and how the controversial digital policies might play into the broader trade talks.

Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, regulates streaming services like Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Prime, pushing them to prioritize and contribute financially to Canadian programming. Bill C-18, the Online News Act, meanwhile, requires platforms like Google and Meta to compensate Canadian media for using links to their content. Google played ball and pays $100 million a year, but Meta didn’t and opted instead to block Canadian news content on Facebook and Instagram.

Trump, the tariff man, sees both

as protectionist, but why?

The Republican view

The U.S. administration opposes C-11 and C-18 because of their economic impact on U.S. tech firms, seeing them as discriminatory and protectionist trade barriers, said Daniel Cochrane, senior research associate for the Center for Technology and the Human Person at The Heritage Foundation

While the Online News Act has the good intention of trying to compensate content creators for what they do online, said Cochrane, “the implementation has been pretty problematic.” He referred to how it concentrates payments in large Canadian media organizations, which raises concerns about negotiation transparency and fairness for small outlets.

There is economic concern in terms of how the policies affect U.S. companies, he said, but there’s also a broader free speech concern.

Dalton, the senior policy director at R Street, described the policies as though Canada is “looking to sort of shore up legacy industries that aren’t competitive in the market by extracting fees and taxes.”

“The country that is paying those or having to pay into those through their private industry is obviously not gonna be in favour of that,” Dalton added, noting that the Trump administration “would go after anything that looked like protectionism, regardless of the potential irony in that approach.”

Digital policies as bargaining chips

Trade experts think both C-11 and C-18 will be targeted in the upcoming CUSMA trade talks, with the renegotiation set to begin next summer.

Dalton, for one, believes the digital policies will be part of the conversation but that they may play a minor role. “I don’t think they’re going to be major sticking points,” he said, noting how non-digital assets are more important for trade.

But there are too many digital legal matters in CUSMA to have them not play a strong role in talks, said Mitch Stoltz, IP litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Issues like copyright law and laws circumventing access controls on media are in CUSMA and other various trade agreements, Stoltz explained.

“At the behest of U.S. media and entertainment companies that wanted them in there,” he said, “I could see a renewed conflict over that.”

Cochrane believes these policies will very much remain in Trump’s crosshairs.

“The president is asking for a pretty unilateral walkback of the laws,” he said.

From a conservative point of view, Dalton, Cochrane and Stoltz argue for greater decentralization and competition in the tech sector. So rather than taking Canada’s more centralized and regulatory approach, they prefer a more hands-off one — as does Trump.

The prime minister seemed open to revisiting both policies, but Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s office said recently that Carney’s government had “no intention” of repealing either act. Was it a bluff? Does Carney hope to use both policies as leverage in upcoming talks?

If so, it may prove problematic.

Ottawa’s hands are tied

Carney may not have much wiggle room to accommodate the White House when it comes to C-11 and C-18.

While Carney was able to change gears on the DST, the Canadian government is unlikely to alter or repeal the Online News Act and Online Streaming Act because they have deep domestic cultural importance, said Graeme Thompson, senior analyst at Eurasia Group’s global macro practice.

Both policies have a cultural focus, which is politically sensitive. “Canada has for a long time had protections for cultural industries — so-called Canadian content — and that is an especially acute issue in Quebec, where the cultural industry is really vibrant,” said Thompson.

As a result, both the Online News Act and Online Streaming Act will be a lot harder to get rid of because of the political consequences that would follow, especially in Quebec, he explained.

“I think it will be harder for the government to alter those pieces of legislation significantly enough to placate the White House,” Thompson said.

And this could be a problem in trade talks moving forward because Trump is unlikely to care about Carney’s domestic political restraints.

“Ottawa has given much of what they’re able to easily give to the Trump administration, and what’s left are things that are much more challenging politically,” Thompson said. “But the Trump administration wants some of that, and I think that’s partly where the impasse lies.”

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.