LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Human right lawyer Arsen Ostrovsky speaks to an Australian news station after he was injured during an attack on a Hannukah celebration on Bondi Beach on Sunday.

Human right lawyer — and frequent National Post contributor

Arsen Ostrovsky

— was injured in today’s Australia attack that targeted a Hanukkah celebration on Bondi Beach and left at least 12 people killed.

He spoke to 9News Australia at the scene, his face and shirt covered in blood, his head wrapped in a bandage. This is a slightly edited transcript of that interview:

This was a bloodbath, it was an absolute massacre.

I was with my family, it was a Hanukkah celebration, there were hundreds of people. There were children, there were elderly, families enjoying themselves, children, kids at a festival, playing, and then all of a sudden it’s absolute chaos.

There’s guns, fire everywhere. People ducking, it was absolute chaos. We didn’t know what was happening, where the gunfire was coming from.

I saw blood gushing from me, I saw people hit, saw people fall to the ground. My only concern was, where are my kids, where’s my wife, where’s my family?

I survived October 7, I lived in Israel the last 13 years, we came here only two weeks ago to work with the Jewish community, to fight antisemitism, to fight this bloodthirsty, ravaging hatred. That’s why I’m here. We’ve lived through worse, we’re going to get through this and we’re going to get the bastards that did this.

(Ostrovsky, the new head of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council office in Sydney, had warned about rising antisemitism after coming across anti-Israel graffiti at Bondi Beach two weeks ago, the

Jerusalem Post

reported.)

I saw at least one gunman firing, looked like a shotgun, firing randomly in all directions. I saw children falling to the floor, I saw elderly, I saw invalids, I saw people just, it was just an absolute bloodbath. Blood gushing everywhere.

October 7, that’s the last time I saw this. I never thought I would see this in Australia, not in my lifetime. On Bondi Beach, of all places. This iconic place.

My children and my wife are safe, thank God. They’re OK. They managed to get away. But I didn’t know where they were, and there’s no greater fear, no greater horror not knowing where your family is. They’re OK. I’ll be OK.

I got hit in the head, I’m bleeding. I’ve lost blood. There are people around me that are far worse. I’ll be OK, we’ll be OK as a community and we will defeat this ravaging hatred.

https://twitter.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/2000165395164955029


Vadim Danilov decided to start is own car service after hearing stories of passengers having to hide their Jewish identity while using ridesharing services.

Jew Ride, a car service for the Jewish community is offering an alternative to other ridesharing companies amid reports of antisemitism in Toronto.

Founder Vadim Danilov moved to Canada with his wife and children from Israel two months before the October 7 attacks. He became a driver for Uber, during which time he heard many stories from his Jewish passengers. Some told him that they felt the need to hide their Stars of David when they got into a vehicle or avoid speaking Hebrew for their own safety.

This week, National Post reported on two more antisemitic incidents involving Toronto residents and the ridesharing company. In August, a Canadian-Israeli who was travelling with his wife in Europe said

he was refused a ride

by an Uber driver because he said he was from Israel. In February, a woman said she was kicked out of an Uber after the driver heard her speaking Hebrew to her husband.

Last month, model Miriam Mattova told the Post that she was told to get out of the vehicle by an

Uber driver because she was Jewish

in November. She was left alone on the street in the middle of the night.

“This is what made me start this company in March of this year,” Danilov told National Post. 

Jew Ride

, offers services for all passengers, but he said that 95 per cent of his clients are Jewish. “It’s to help passengers from the community and provide them with the safe, private transportation service anywhere in GTA.”

Currently, Danilov operates 24 hours a day and provides transportation all kinds, including for events, airport pickups and dropoffs, for businesses and even for pets. Danilov said he works with two other drivers from the community. Customers can book a ride online through the website.

“My passengers today say they feel safe when I pick them up and they also say … antisemitism in Canada, it’s getting worse and worse,” he said. He added that he believes the Canadian government has to get involved in order to stop the antisemitic acts that have been reported by Jewish passengers using Uber.

Former Toronto resident Leigh Elzas posted about Jew Ride on Facebook, applauding it for offering safe alternatives for the Jewish community. She lived in Toronto for her whole life but moved to the United States in July.

“One of the reasons we left was because of the antisemitism in Canada, but Toronto is especially bad,” she said.

“I wanted to help spread the good word and let people know there’s an option other than Uber, because Jews are not safe taking Lyfts, Ubers, anything, other than accepting rides from other Jews it seems these days.”

Elzas said she hasn’t used Jew Ride herself, but she said she knows someone who had an “excellent experience” with it.

“Too many Jews in Toronto have faced discrimination simply trying to get a ride,” she wrote on Facebook in August. “Some Uber drivers cancel as soon as they see a Jewish name, a person who looks Jewish, or even a mezuzah on the doorpost. It’s another harsh reality of life today for a Jew living in Canada. That’s why this service exists. I, of course, fully support it, but I hate that it has to.”

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


Cuba's President Miguel Diaz-Canel, left, with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in December 2024. The White House views Cuba and Venezuela as part of the same ideological threat.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term in office has borne witness to a dramatic and unprecedented escalation in tensions between the U.S. and President Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela.

The White House has deployed a naval task force towards Venezuela and destroyed over 20 boats with the purported aim of preventing the flow of narcotics to American shores.

However, many view the buildup as a pretext for regime change; Trump has repeatedly suggested that Maduro’s days in power are numbered and has authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations on Venezuelan soil.

But as the Trump administration piles pressure on Venezuela, some analysts speculate that the ultimate goal of Washington’s military buildup is regime change not just in Venezuela, but in Cuba too.

“I don’t think anyone can imagine (the United States) going for regime change in Venezuela and sitting back on Cuba,” said Helen Yaffe, co-host of the podcast Cuba Analysis and professor of Latin American political economy at the University of Glasgow.

Speaking to National Post, Yaffe emphasized the likelihood of a simultaneous campaign of regime change in both Latin American nations.

According to the professor, Venezuela and Cuba are grouped together in the eyes of Washington’s foreign policy. Not only have the two been close allies since the 1998 election victory of left-wing Venezuelan revolutionary Hugo Chávez, but they are also both seen as ideological foes of the United States.

The two countries, along with Nicaragua, constitute what former U.S. national security adviser John Bolton termed the “troika of tyranny,” a triumvirate of Latin American nations with left-wing authoritarian governments. Bolton, who served in the first Trump administration, and foreign policymakers in the current U.S. administration, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, view the three countries as their principal regional adversaries.

Yaffe thinks that targeting one element of the “troika” is likely to lead to a campaign against the other members.

Not only does the White House view Venezuela and Cuba as part of the same ideological threat, but they are also seen as key chess pieces in a broader geopolitical strategy of deterring Chinese influence in the region.

The Trump administration has explicitly expressed its desire to counter China’s growing influence in Latin America, where the Asian titan is increasingly involved in massive infrastructure and mining projects.

Paul Hare, a former British ambassador to Cuba (2001-2004) and former deputy head of mission to Venezuela who lectures in international relations at Boston University, emphasized the importance of China’s enduring support for Venezuela and Cuba.

China “has a big role to play in this too,” Hare told the National Post, pointing out that the Chinese “immediately came out saying Maduro won” after the 2024 Venezuelan elections, which were widely decried as fraudulent.

Hare also noted that “China would like to keep Cuba as a nuisance to the U.S.”

Indeed, there have been reports of increased Chinese-Cuban cooperation in the field of military intelligence and surveillance. Regime change in Cuba and Venezuela would undoubtedly curb Chinese influence in Latin America.

But Yaffe contends that accusations of Cuba becoming a “Chinese listening post” are being used to justify potential regime change in the Caribbean nation: “to turn any country into the bogeyman, you associate it with China.”

“The key issue… is oil,” argues Yaffe, who believes the White House’s end goal is for its corporations to control Venezuela’s oil supply.

The South American nation has the largest oil reserves in the world – some five times larger than those held by the United States. Maduro alleges that America’s claims of wanting to democratize Venezuela or prevent drug trafficking are a pretext to control his country’s petrol supplies.

 Massive aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford arrives in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands on Dec. 1, 2025, amid tensions over potential military action against Venezuela.

Indeed, this week’s dramatic seizure of an oil tanker by U.S. forces off the Venezuelan coast shows that petroleum is undoubtedly a key piece of the equation.

But beyond the economic appeal for Washington to secure Venezuelan oil supplies, analysts say controlling petrol exports would also give the U.S. leverage over the Cuban regime.

Cuba has historically depended on Venezuelan oil, receiving up to 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) since 2000 to help stabilize its economy in times of crisis, although this number has dwindled in recent years.

While Havana has made an effort to diversify its trading partners to include Mexico and Russia, approximately 60 per cent of its total fuel and crude oil imports came from Venezuela in the first 10 months of 2025.

As a result, a successful regime change operation in Venezuela risks damaging the already fragile Cuban economy, as Cuba would likely be obliged to renegotiate an oil deal with Venezuela on less favourable terms. Venezuelan oil shipments to the island could also stop altogether because of American sanctions.

Notably, the oil tanker seized on Wednesday was bound for Cuba, with Politico reporting that the Cuban state firm Cubametales intended to sell the vessel carrying Venezuelan crude oil to Asian energy brokers.

Ex-ambassador Hare told National Post that a U.S. chokehold on Venezuelan oil could oblige Cuba to rely on “the Americans and to some extent the Europeans” for economic support.

He added that, in exchange for easing economic sanctions in a post-Maduro world, the U.S. would likely pressure the Cubans to enact significant reforms, such as the expansion of “elements of the private sector,” the ousting of current Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel and a potential “new business deal” with the Trump administration.

As tensions mount between Trump and Maduro, Cuba has offered support to its longstanding ally, denouncing U.S. actions as “aggressive” and reportedly sending bodyguards to protect Venezuela’s president.

However, Hare said that Cuban assistance has limits and that they simply “don’t have the resources” for a “mass commitment” of troops to Venezuela.

Yaffe agreed, noting that although any armed confrontation “would bog the U.S. down in a (drawn-out) Vietnam-style” conflict, neither Cuba nor Venezuela could ultimately defeat the U.S. militarily.

Amid reports that the Cuban regime has tried to communicate with the United States about its future in the eventuality of Maduro’s removal, the Caribbean island appears to be preparing for the worst.

Latin America Reports

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.


“Research suggests that, like cisgender children, transgender and non-binary children may recognize their own gender identity as early as 2 to 3 years old or during later childhood or early adolescents,” a Statistics Canada consultation guide says.

Statistics Canada is seeking feedback from various groups on options for releasing data collected during the last census, but not publicly shared, on transgender and nonbinary children from toddlers and pre-schoolers to young teens.

In a consultation guide, the federal agency said it “may be breaking new ground” as the first national statistics office in the world to disseminate gender information for children and youth under 15.

“There are enough cases in the 2021 Census data to support basic analysis by gender diversity status for young children and youth aged 0 to 14,” the agency said, data that could provide “valuable information on the experiences and outcomes among this population.”

The 2021 census was the first in Canada to collect information on sex at birth as well as gender, how the individual identifies. According to the data, 100,815 people, or 0.33 per cent of the population aged 15 and older, identified as transgender or non-binary. The proportion was highest (0.79 per cent) for Gen Z (those born roughly between 1997 and 2012).

But only data on those aged 15 and older have so far been released.

Numbers collected on younger children “required more investigation to ensure quality and protect confidentiality,” the agency said in a statement to National Post. The goal is to ensure data are reported in a way “that does not cause undue harm to gender diverse children and youth,” according to the consultation document.

Some who have called for an urgent reappraisal of Canada’s gender-affirming model of care praised StatCan for collecting the data,

although they questioned the agency’s reluctance to release it publicly.

“Transparency as to the number of impacted youth can only be a good thing, in my view,” said Calgary pediatrician Dr. Edward Les, who added it wasn’t at all clear “what harm could arise from sharing data so openly, so as to help foster discussion around the health of these kids.”

However, he and others also said the document appears to have an ideological bent and they questioned whether asking parents to make judgments on their children’s gender is an accurate way to collect data.

The question of persistence is also a minefield.

“There are many gender nonconforming children,” said Dr. Joanne Sinai, a clinical associate professor and psychiatrist at the University of British Columbia.

“The majority of them will grow up to be gay or lesbian and not have gender dysphoria.”

“Some parents would label their gender nonconforming children as transgender, and others would not,” Sinai said. “Gender ideology is interfering with the acceptance of gender nonconforming kids as being completely normal rather than it being an indication they are transgender.”

Gender is a feeling and fluid, Sinai added. “I have no idea what non-binary even means for young kids. It’s different for everyone and there is no way to define it.”

According to the

Canadian Paediatric Society’s 2023 position statement on gender-affirming care

, some children may recognize a “degree of mismatch” between their gender identity and birth sex as early as age two or three, and, by ages six to seven, “children begin to appreciate gender as an identity independent of external features.”

“Children and youth are often assumed to be cisgender (people whose reported gender corresponds to their birth sex) from birth until they ‘come out’ as a different gender on their own accord,” reads the StatCan consultation guide.

“Researchers suggest that children aged 18 to 24 months are developmentally capable of recognizing gender norms and expressing gendered behaviours in visible ways.”

“Research also suggests that, like cisgender children, transgender and non-binary children may recognize their own gender identity as early as 2 to 3 years old or during later childhood or early adolescents,” the document reads.

Les challenged that assumption. “The document’s contention that ‘researchers’ have found that children as young as two or three can exhibit evidence of ‘cross-gender’ identity is further evidence of ideological capture,” he wrote in an email to the Post.

“We’re expected to believe, I suppose, that a little boy that plays with dolls is therefore a girl, or that a female toddler enamoured with trucks is a boy, and that a parent observing this sort of behaviour can vouch ‘by proxy’ that their child is ‘transgender.’ What nonsense.”

Gender isn’t static and can change “from one point-in-time to another,” the document reads.

Kids can generally self-report around age 12. However, parents who report their child’s gender status by proxy may or may not do so accurately, the agency noted. “If a child has not disclosed their gender as gender diverse or if their gender is not affirmed by the proxy respondent, then the child’s gender may be reported as their assumed gender by default.”

It’s complicated, Sinai said. Typically, one person per household fills out census data. “You have one parent who has a gender non-conforming kid is who is like, ‘whatever.’ And you have another parent who doesn’t want to be seen as transphobic, and they would say ‘my kid is trans.’”

Some parents are opting “not to gender” their children based on birth sex “and rather consider the child as non-binary until they can explore and present their gender as they see fit,” the consultation paper states.

But

gender-open parenting

can be psychologically confusing for children, Sinai said.

“They’re in a world where things are boy and girl. Whether we like it or not, there is a dichotomy. They’re in a world which is male and female. They see adults. They see other kids. It can be incredibly confusing if nobody is referring to them as their sex. That could really confuse their sense of identity development.”

StatCan is exploring an age cutoff for the under-15 data, although the document noted that “there are enough cases in the 2021 Census data to support basic analysis” by gender status for typical five-year groups, such as 0 to four, five to nine and 10 to 14.

The questions select respondents are being asked include how the public might react if the data are released or not released.

Children identifying as trans and nonbinary and their families are often marginalized, “and at times targeted by groups that seek to dismiss their existence and limit their rights,” the document reads.

This week, Alberta’s United Conservatives invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to pass three controversial laws that require parental consent for students changing their names or pronouns in school, a ban on the prescribing of puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones to youth under 16 and a law prohibiting transgender girls from participating in amateur female sports.

Releasing the data on young children could help address gaps in the public’s understanding of these children, but it could also be met with negative reactions and misconceptions, the StatCan document states.

When the census data on sex and gender were first released,

Egale Canada

said the information could help minimize discrimination and improve the mental health and wellbeing of transgender and non-binary people.

Sinai is concerned the data will be used “to justify medicalization, meaning puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth.”

In a statement to the Post, StatCan said its consultation guide includes a summary and literature review “that present various perspectives and considerations.” However, Les noted that the document includes only three references and makes no mention of two

studies by McMaster University-led researchers

published earlier this year that concluded “considerable uncertainty” remains about the gender-affirming medical treatment for youth, echoing a major British review that led to a ban on puberty blockers for minors.

StatCan said it is consulting with “subject-matter” experts.

The consultation was launched Nov. 10, and ended Friday, StatCan said.

“Questions were sent to multiple groups and individuals, including LGBTQ+ groups, who were identified as likely data users.”

The same questions on birth sex and gender will also be asked in the 2026 census.

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.


Among the celebrities who could become citizens thanks to Bill C-3 are, clockwise from the left, Madonna, Hillary Clinton, Angelina Jolie, Viggo Mortensen, Lily Collins, and Jack White.

A piece of legislation making its way through Ottawa this fall and set to come into effect in January, if not earlier, will restore and grant Canadian citizenship to thousands of people around the world who were previously shut out by an earlier rule.

It also means a handful of celebrities — including Hillary Clinton, Madonna and Viggo Mortensen, among others — will also, by virtue of their Canadian ancestry, become Canadians.

“This has a huge impact on people all over the world who are descendants of Canadians,” Toronto immigration lawyer Valerie Kleinman from Green and Spiegel told National Post in an interview.

“I can imagine a situation where there are many people globally who will be Canadian and will actually have no idea that they are Canadian, which is really interesting.”

Here’s what you need to know about Bill C-3: An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act and the elimination of the first-generation limit on citizenship.

What famous people could become Canadian under Bill C-3?

According to

Perche-Quebec

, a website that explores the historical migration of people from France’s Perche region to New France, the territory colonized by France in North America, former First Lady and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has several French-Canadian ancestors in her maternal family tree.

Their descendants stayed in Quebec for generations and later emigrated to the U.S., though some, including her great-great-grandmother Mary Anne Frances McDougall, lived in Windsor at times.

“She really has a good French-Canadian line,” Gail Moreau-Desharnais of the French-Canadian Heritage Society of Michigan told

The Canadian Press

in 2016.

“And when you trace her matrilineal line, or female to female to female, her ultimate female ancestor is Jeanne Ducorps, one of the Filles du Roi (King’s Daughters).”

 Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has French-Canadian ancestry.

That was the name given to roughly 800 women sent to New France by King Louis XIV between 1663 and 1673 to correct the gender imbalance in the colony, where they were encouraged to marry and make babies.

As documented by Perche-Quebec and other genealogists, Clinton’s ancestry also makes her a distant relative of Justin Bieber, Madonna, Celine Dion, Jack Kerouac, Ryan Gosling, Alanis Morissette, not to mention two former prime ministers — Pierre Elliott and Justin Trudeau.

Award-winning actor Angelina Jolie’s great-grandmother, Marie-Louise Angélina LeDuc, who shares a similar Percheron pioneer ancestry as Clinton and the others, hails from Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, Que., a town on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, according to

Geneanet

.

As reported by the

BBC

last year, Jolie is also a distant relative of the late Queen Elizabeth II by way of her matrilineal line, which stretches back to French King Phillip II, who ruled in the late 12th and early 13th century.

As for Madonna, the singer has French-Canadian ancestry, starting with her great-great-grandparents and dating back six generations, according to a Canadian genealogist.

She was born Madonna Louise Ciccone to Silvio Ciccone and Madonna Louise Fortin, whose maternal great-grandfather was Narcisse ‘Nelson” Fortin of St-Simon, Que, as researched by Kim Kujawski, who runs a service called

The French Genealogist.

His son of the same name would later settle in Bay City, Michigan, where the singer was born four generations later in 1958.

 Pop star Madonna shares some French-Canadian ancestry with Hillary Clinton, Celine Dion and Justin Trudeau, among others.

Actress Lily Collins already has U.K. and U.S. citizenship by way of her parents — famed pop rocker Phil Collins of England and his second ex-wife Jill Tavelman.

She could add a Canadian passport by way of her maternal great-grandfather,

Jack Charles Tavelman, who was born in Winnipeg in 1900 to Russian Jewish parents, according to

Ancestry.com.

He later emigrated to California, where he ran a men’s clothing store in Beverly Hills.

Detroit-born rocker Jack White has one of the shorter climbs along his family tree to find a Canadian connection.

As reported by

CBC

in 2007, his paternal grandfather, Frank Gillis, was from Sydney Mines, a small town in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. His wife, Florence MacIsaac, while born in Boston, grew up in Antigonish, N.S., to parents from Inverness, also on Cape Breton Island.

He’s also distantly related to renowned Nova Scotia fiddlers Ashley MacIsaac, Buddy MacMaster and Natalie MacMaster.

Lord of the Rings trilogy actor Viggo Mortensen, who already has citizenship in the U.S., where he was born, and in Denmark, where his namesake father hails from, also has roots in Nova Scotia on his mother’s side.

As documented by

Geneanet

, his maternal grandfather, Walter Sydney Atkinson, was born in Parrsboro, a small town in the province’s northwest. Her Canadian ancestry in Atlantic Canada dates back several generations.

“I’ve always had an affinity (for Canada),” he told Sheridan College in 2021. “I’ve been there a lot. I like the landscapes, not just in the east but the west — I know the country fairly well.”

Why was Bill C-3 introduced?

In 2009, the Stephen Harper government eliminated the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent. That meant Canadian citizens born abroad to parents from Canada could no longer pass on their citizenship to children born outside of Canada.

For instance, if your grandfather was a Canadian, but his daughter — your mother — was born in the U.S., her offspring wouldn’t automatically be granted citizenship.

It created a new class of individuals known as

“Lost Canadians,”

a term that originally referred to people who lost or never acquired their citizenship “due to outdated provisions (sex, marital status, place of birth, naturalization status), which affected whether that person could derive, acquire, or lose Canadian citizenship.”

The second-generation cutoff was challenged in court and ultimately led to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

ruling it unconstitutional in 2023

and requiring Ottawa to amend the Citizenship Act to correct it within six months.

Legislation tabled to eliminate the first-generation limit died with the prorogation of Parliament in March at the request of then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to allow the Liberal Party to hold a leadership contest to name his successor. The legislation was reintroduced as Bill C-3: An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act in May and received Royal Assent in the House of Commons

on Nov. 20.

The new provisions have yet to be passed into law, however, as Ottawa had already filed for and was granted its fifth extension since the original ruling. The new deadline is Jan. 20, 2026.

In her

latest ruling

, Justice Jasmine Akbarali said the federal government “has been making significant progress” and the legislation could come into force before the deadline.

“There is a reasonable expectation that the replacement legislation may come into force by the end of 2025,” she wrote.

Asked if government will meet the deadline, Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada would not say.

“The bill will come into force on a date set by order in council, which will be communicated publicly,” they wrote in an email to National Post.

Who can become Canadian citizens under Bill C-3?

For people born before the legislation comes into effect — the “Lost Canadians” — their right to Canadian citizenship is retroactively restored, provided they can provide an unbroken line of descent from an ancestor, a grandparent or a great-grandparent born or naturalized in Canada.

There is no limit on how far back into the family tree, meaning that even great-great-grandparents and beyond with Canadian lineage can afford citizenship.

Certificates of citizenship are not automatically granted, however, and must be applied for individually with documentation.

Kleinman said finding the evidence could prove difficult for people going far back into their lineage to find the Canadian connection among great-great-grandparents and earlier ancestors.

“We’ll have to see what type of evidence will be accepted, but there has to be very clear proof that there is that direct lineage from generation to generation to generation,” she said.

 Valerie Kleinman, an immigration lawyer with Toronto firm Green and Spiegel.

For people born after C-3 becomes law, a Canadian born abroad hoping to pass on their citizenship to their child born abroad will need to prove “a substantial connection” to the country, which is defined as living in Canada 1,095 days — the equivalent of three calendar years — before their child was born.

“This approach supports fairness for families while reinforcing the principle that real, demonstrated ties to Canada guide citizenship by descent,” IRCC stated in

a press release.

Kleinman expects more clarity on this provision and what evidence will be required once the law is enacted, but she foresees scenarios that could make it hard to prove those three years of physical residency.

“Maybe we have a 40-year-old who lived in Canada between the ages of one and four years old and now is having a baby abroad after the legislation comes into force — how will they prove that they spent 1,095 days in Canada when they were effectively a toddler?”

Or in the case of a person or persons with Canadian ancestry who already have a toddler while living abroad, but then have a second child after the law is enshrined. The first child would retroactively be afforded citizenship, while the other would have to prove his parents spent 1,095 days in Canada before his birth.

I think we’re going to see a variety of interesting scenarios that will affect many people,” she said.

IRCC implemented

interim measures

in 2023, allowing people from both groups to apply before the prior to the legislation’s enactment.

It’s not clear how many people globally could potentially seek to apply for proof of citizenship, but Ottawa is not expecting a flood of applications.

“Based upon available evidence, we expect applications in the tens of thousands over time, not hundreds of thousands,” Diab said during her opening statement at

a
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology last month. “

Between January 2024 and July 2025, we received just over 4,200 applications under the interim measure for those affected by the first-generation limit.”

IRCC’s spokesperson told National Post the department is not expecting a “surge in applications,” nor does it “anticipate any significant increase in processing time for proof of citizenship applications” once C-3 i enacted. The current processing time is about nine months, but

IRCC warns

that applications outside Canada and the U.S. may take longer.

Kleinman, who expects a lot of interest and a high volume of applications, said she’s personally spoken to many people about the impending changes, some of whom shed “

tears of joy when they understood what this would mean for them.” 

A lot of those people, she admitted, are Americans.

By virtue of our shared border and shared immigration history, “

There are many people in the United States who have Canadian ancestry and there is a lot of interest right now in particular.”

Another interesting scenario raised by Kleinman involves people who may have to formally renounce their Canadian citizenship if they are already citizens of a country that doesn’t allow dual citizenship, such as China, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia and several dozen more.

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.


Jolene Van Alstine has been on an exhausting journey through Saskatchewan's health-care system, in search of treatment for a rare and debilitating parathyroid disease. After enduring years of extreme pain and nausea, and unable to get treatment, Van Alstine decided to apply for a medically assisted death.

For nearly a decade, Jolene Van Alstine has been on an exhausting journey through Saskatchewan’s health-care system, in search of treatment for a rare and debilitating parathyroid disease.

What began as a search for a diagnosis, turned into a years-long wait to see an endocrinologist and an ongoing struggle to get the surgery she needs to treat her condition. After enduring years of extreme pain and nausea, and unable to get treatment, Van Alstine decided to apply for a medically assisted death.

Her story spread across social media after she appeared in the legislature to implore the government to help her get access to the surgery she needs, or else she would choose a medically assisted death.

It was Van Alstine’s understanding at the time that she had been approved for a Jan. 7 MAID appointment after a doctor assessed her. However, she learned late this week that a second doctor must sign off on any requests. The earliest she anticipates getting a MAID appointment at this point would be March, her husband, Miles Sundeen told National Post.

The couple is now hopeful Van Alstine won’t have to go through with her plan to die, as U.S. conservative commentator Glenn Beck has offered to pay for her to get surgery in the U.S. Sundeen and his wife have been in touch with Beck, who is looking for a surgeon willing to do the complex operation Van Alstine needs.

Saskatchewan’s health minister is also now helping Van Alstine find treatment in Canada.

National Post spoke with Miles Sundeen about Van Alstine’s condition and the fight to get her treatment. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

How would you describe Jolene’s medical journey over the past 10 years?

It’s very difficult just getting in to get a diagnosis, and then the wait times for specialists, especially in Saskatchewan, to see an endocrinologist, was extensive. After seeing an endocrinologist, to get a referral to a surgeon to remove parathyroid glands, was a long wait. It’s a long wait for surgery. She’s had three surgeries now over the last four or five years, but it’s taken a great deal of time to work through the process every time.

How optimistic are you right now?

Well, we did go before the legislature here in Saskatchewan with the NDP a couple weeks ago, and we did have a meeting with Jeremy Cockrell, the health minister. He committed to helping us find help outside of the province of Saskatchewan. There are no endocrinologists in Saskatchewan taking new patients, and there’s not surgeons able to do the surgery, especially with Jolene’s complex case, but he’s committed to try and help us now. The plan that was devised with him was to get a referral from our family doctor to three clinics across Canada. One is in Hamilton, Ont. at McMaster, one at the University of Toronto, and one in Edmonton. So, the referrals have been sent to endocrinologists and the clinics that they work at. We haven’t had any response as of yet, so we’re hoping that that would be a good thing. But in the meantime, this gentleman in the U.S., Glenn Beck, has put it on his site, and apparently he got like a million hits about Jolene’s story, and he’s offered to pay for treatment and surgery, or whatever it is, in the USA.

How would you describe Health Minister Jeremy Corkrill’s attitude and sympathy towards the situation?

In the meeting, he was kind of neutral. We didn’t really touch base on that. We didn’t confront him in that situation. Seems a little bit apathetic, but he did commit to trying to help us. So that’s all I was really looking for. Unfortunately, it was verbal. There was nothing in writing. But for his commitment, I am hoping that I can take his word for it.

How did you find out that Beck wanted to help you and what steps have been taken?

I’ve been talking to one of his producers. Jolene says that she reached out to Beck because somebody told her that she was trending on Twitter, so she reached out to him and confirmed that he was for real. Because, quite honestly, neither of us had heard of him, but his assistants and I have been in communication over the last two days both on phone and by texting. Apparently, there were two surgeons in the U.S. that were interested in helping. One of the surgeons did call from Atlanta, and I talked to him today (Dec. 10). I gave him a synopsis of Jolene’s case, and it’s complex, and he felt it perhaps was a little bit beyond his pay grade, but that’s a nice thing to say. We had previously, three or four years ago, been in touch with the Norman Parathyroid clinic in Tampa Bay, Florida, and he is working on sending a referral to them for us. Apparently, they are the ultimate parathyroid institution in the United States, especially for complex cases. So that is good news. We are optimistic about that, that this might pan out to be something that will give Jolene some help, treatment and surgery.

How would you describe the support you’ve received from friends and family?

There are some friends and family that have tried to be supportive, but when you’re ill and not leaving the house, like not leaving the house for about eight years with no social interaction, only leaving the house for hospital visits, doctor appointments and lab work. People give up on you and write you off and just don’t think about you anymore. Social interactions are important to keeping relationships alive. So it’s been very tough. She has been very lonely, depressed, anxious about being just basically a social outcast, a hermit in her own home.

What are the symptoms of this condition?

One of the worst symptoms is nausea and vomiting. She is usually up at 4:30 in the morning. She goes to bed at 6 p.m. the night before, and she is so nauseated that she vomits for possibly two to four hours before it settles. She can’t take any of her nausea medications because they’re oral until she can control the vomiting enough in order to even take them to try and assist in controlling the vomiting. The other thing is, her body overheats. Her extremities get red, her hands, her feet and her face and her whole body just feels like it’s burning, and she’s spent two and a half years of her laying on the bathroom floor at night with the cold water running in the shower, day and night sometimes, and our temperature in our house, we spent two and a half years with it at 13 to 13.5 degrees Celsius, and that might be a nice spring day, but it’s not comfortable in the house when it’s minus 20 to 30 degrees. She has osteoporosis, very badly, because this disease leaches calcium out of her bones. She had four or five bone breaks, in four year, breaks where a normal person would have fallen or hit the joint or the bone and would have just ended up with a bruise. She apparently has had bone density tests, and she has the bones of an 80-year-old woman because of this disease. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. So delaying treatment and surgery is very important, very important. So those are some of the symptoms. There are a couple others that are bad, but those are really horrendous, the bone pain as well, because, as the calcium leaks, it causes almost like a nerve bone pain. She’s on very strong medications of hydromorphone daily to try and control it.

How would you describe the support that people have given you since your story became public?

Honestly, to me, it’s very surprising, and I don’t even know how this particular thing came about. I know that the NDP, a couple weeks ago, said they were going to post the article on social media there, and I’m assuming that Glenn Beck and his staff saw this and decided to take up the cause.

To conclude, anything else that you think should be mentioned?

I’ll tell you one very important thing, and that’s this, is that because of the time lag to get treatment, Jolene has spent very close to eight years laying on a couch because she’s too ill. I mean, she can excuse me, she can get up and use the facilities herself, but she has home care and kind of looks after bathing and stuff.  I try to help, but she has no other capabilities, as far as leaving the house, cleaning, cooking, looking after herself, basically, in any way, shape or form. What this has done in the meantime, because of being so sedentary and being so nauseated every day, she gets sick all the time. She gets pneumonia. She’s developed a condition called diverticulitis, which is caused by a very sedentary lifestyle, at least one of the major causes, and that is a condition in the bowels, where, in the meantime, she’s had to have her sigmoid colon resected because of infection. She keeps getting infections in the bowels. This is something she does even when the parathyroid is looked after. This is a condition we have to fight and will have to live with the rest of her life as well. It’s a direct result of the parathyroid not being looked after in an expeditious manner and that’s very important, and that’s a very sad situation as well.

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.


Neighbours gather for picnic in London, Ontario. From the perspective of age, trust in neighbours is stronger for people 35 or more, according to a new Leger poll for the Association for Canadian Studies. (MAX MARTIN, The London Free Press)

Younger Canadians are generally less trusting than older people, according to a recent survey conducted by Leger for the Association for Canadian Studies.

Atlantic Canadians are the most trusting in general (71 per cent), while British Columbians are least trusting (51 per cent), says Jack Jedwab, president of the association.

“For several years we’ve been monitoring evolving rates of trust in peoples, nations and institutions,” Jedwab explains. With heightened degrees of polarization, especially along ideological lines, he says it’s vital to understand the extent this is accompanied by a breakdown in trust between people and within communities. 

“The persistence of younger people being less trusting is an outcome of growing polarization,” he says. “It’s compounded by greater vulnerability, where age intersects with less education and lower income all contributing to higher instability and more challenges for resolving conflicts where trust is often critical.”

This study suggests that the amount of education a person has can play a role in trust. People with university degrees are more inclined to trust (65 per cent), while folks with a high school diploma are less inclined (52 per cent).

And indeed, income is a factor. Folks making more than $100K are more likely to trust in general (62 per cent), while people making $40K are less likely (52 per cent).

Perhaps unsurprising, people living in rural areas are more inclined to trust their neighbours than city folk. Looking at this issue from the perspective of age, trust in neighbours is stronger for people 35 or more.

Overall, Jedwab says, ethnic minorities are the most trusting of people who share their ethnic background. Specifically, members of ethnic minorities who speak a language other than French or English are far more trusting of people that share their ethnic background than those who don’t.

Race also seems to play a role. According to Jedwab, Black Canadians are least trusting of people in general, while Chinese and Middle Eastern are generally more trusting of people that share the same background.

A related Leger survey for the Association for Canadian Studies looked at the level of trust in the workplace.

Trust is vital in establishing a strong workplace culture and is linked to successful economic outcomes, productivity and job satisfaction, says Jedwab.

“The survey found that younger people are also less trusting of co-workers,” he notes. But most other Canadians do, beginning with the 45-54 years’ old cohort.

Meanwhile, most Canadians say they trust their bosses and that level starts to increase between ages 35-44.

“The results on trust send an important message to labor leaders who are the object of much distrust compared to employers who earn relatively strong trust. The gap may affect a union’s influence in effectively representing workers.”

Indeed, based the survey results suggest the Canadian view of labour unions is not positive. Most Canadians don’t trust labor union leaders, especially between ages 45 and 54.

Finally, Canadian trust their co-workers more than their employers or union leaders.

“Income is an important driver of trust across that spectrum,” says Jedwab. “People with higher incomes are far more trusting of bosses and co-workers.”

Both surveys were conducted in late October, the first with 1,527 respondents, the latter with 1,537.

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.


Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has launched another attack on federal equalization payments, posting an illustrative map showing western provinces getting nothing in 2026.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is not giving up the fight to change the federal system of

equalization payments

to the provinces.

In a Dec. 11 post to X, he included a map that shows his province, Alberta and B.C. receiving nothing from 2026 equalization.

Several eastern provinces are set to get substantial sums: Quebec $13.9B, Nova Scotia $3.5B, New Brunswick $3.3B. Ontario is getting less, $406M, Newfoundland and Labrador is in line for $182 million while the smallest province in the country will be getting $723M.

The only western exception is Manitoba ($5B).

This is not the first time Moe has been critical of the system. He has described the equalization formula as

unfair to provinces like Saskatchewan

that rely heavily on natural resources, arguing that including the resource revenues in the equalization calculation penalizes provinces such as his.

He has regularly framed equalization as a

pattern of the West being taken advantage of by Central and Eastern Canada

.

“The equalization formula doesn’t reflect the economic realities of the western provinces,” says Saskatchewan’s executive director of media relations, Jill McAlister-Lane.

In a Friday email to National Post, she wrote: “Equalization is meant to ensure comparable public services across the country, but the current formula is inequitable. The formula masks the fiscal challenges faced by some provinces while supporting those in other provinces.”

While discussion about equalization has the potential to pit province against province, McAllister-Lane is careful not to go there.

“It isn’t about one province versus another. Saskatchewan respects each province has its own economic structure and needs. The issue is the formula, which doesn’t account for Saskatchewan’s economic contributions in areas like energy, mining and agriculture. Saskatchewan contributes significantly to the national economy. We would like a formula that acknowledges that contribution and treats all provinces fairly.”

One of the notable points in Saskatchewan’s battle against the current system came

in 2018, when Moe put forward a plan to reform

it by cutting the total by about 50 per cent and then redistributing the savings to all provinces on a per‑capita basis. Since then, he has continued to push for per‑capita transfers.

Under

Moe’s proposa

l, non‑recipient “have” provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia would gain, while “have not” provinces would lose, relative to their present status quo.

Quebec

, which now receives more than half of all equalization dollars, would lose funding because part of its share would be removed and redistributed throughout the country.

Meanwhile, Moe’s government has been pushing back in the courts. It got involved in

Newfoundland and Labrador’s legal battle

, launched in 2024, when that province challenged the federal equalization program in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is claiming the formula unfairly penalizes it by not accounting for service delivery costs within its dispersed population, while also imposing a fiscal capacity cap and applying a GDP growth ceiling, potentially depriving it of billions.

Moe has similarly reiterated that Saskatchewan has not received equalization for many years while arguing the formula ignores structural costs involved in serving sparsely populated provinces.

The case is ongoing with no trial date set. The

Canadian Taxpayers Federation

and the Saskatchewan government have been granted intervenor status to oppose demands for larger payments, citing risks of higher costs for net-payer provinces.

He continues to keep the issue alive, echoing criticism by Alberta’s Danielle Smith that Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. are

“helping support the rest of Canada”

while not receiving equalization payments themselves.

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.


An Ontario senior found not criminally responsible for attacking three housemates with a hammer has been discharged. The Ontario Review Board heard James Harding consumed cannabis around the time of the attacks and likes to use it regularly.

An Ontario senior found not criminally responsible for attacking three housemates with a hammer before he tried to punch a police officer and kicked a nurse in the face has been discharged.

James Harding, 73, appeared recently in front of the Ontario Review Board at the Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences in Whitby, Ont., where he was a patient until he was released into the community in May 2023.

“The panel found that Mr. Harding remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk is a discharge with … conditions,” said the decision discharging Harding on the condition that he consents to treatment for his schizoaffective and substance use disorders, and keeps living at a facility that’s staffed 24 hours a day.

The panel heard that in August 2020, Harding was living in a Scarborough group home.

“In the early morning hours of Aug. 21, 2020, he was agitated and paranoid, believing that the other residents were out to kill him,” said the decision.

“He armed himself with a hammer. He went to Victim #1’s room and struck him in the head. The victim sustained lacerations and bruising to his head and arms. Mr. Harding then proceeded to the room of Victim #2 and struck him in the arm with the hammer, resulting in Victim #2 having a swollen arm. Mr. Harding encountered Victim #3 on the front porch of the residence. He struck him with the hammer on the head, face and shoulder. Victim #3 sustained a skull fracture, facial fractures and bruising.”

Once outside, Harding smashed the windows of a parked car.

“When police arrested him, he tried to punch the officer,” said the decision.

“He was taken to the Scarborough General Hospital as he had sustained cuts from the broken windows. While being treated, he kicked a nurse in the face. She fell back against the wall and fainted, temporarily losing consciousness.”

Harding was charged with two counts each of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault. But he was found not criminal responsible in May 2021 on account of a mental disorder.

Harding “has a long history of substance use, particularly cannabis, alcohol and cocaine,” said the panel, which notes he attended a residential treatment program for alcohol.

Now that he’s been discharged, Harding, who consumes cannabis regularly, will no longer be under orders to avoid drugs.

Harding — a drummer who has played in bands throughout his life — is believed to have consumed cannabis around the time of his hammer attacks.

The panel accepted his psychiatrist’s “evidence that while Mr. Harding has continued to consume cannabis, the amounts have not resulted in a change in his mental status,” said the panel’s decision, dated Dec. 3.

“Should such a change be observed, the team will have the ability to request a urine sample to determine possible causes, such as increasing amounts of cannabis or the use of other substances.”

This past January, Harding experienced “significant sleep difficulties,” while living at a facility in Scarborough, said the decision.

“The treatment team tried to manage the issue with medications. On Jan. 16, 2025, Mr. Harding experienced more intense paranoid beliefs and secured one of the residence’s fire extinguishers to use for his protection. The decision was made to readmit him to hospital and Mr. Harding was agreeable.”

Harding was discharged from hospital this past April to a group home.

“He has remained adherent to his medications which are administered by staff at the group home,” said the panel’s decision.

“He continues to report auditory hallucinations but they do not appear to impact on his day-to-day functioning.”

Harding, who has maintained periods of abstinence, has also tested positive for cannabinoids on several occasions, said the decision.

“Mr. Harding often told his forensic case manager that he had a desire to use cannabis on a regular basis. The forensic team noted that he lacked insight into their concerns of how this may impact his mental status.”

Harding was raised with his two younger sisters in Scarborough, said the panel.

He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in the late 1980s, said the panel. “He has had numerous admissions to various hospitals in the Scarborough area, often after displaying symptoms of paranoia and arming himself with a weapon for protection,” said the decision.

“He reported experiencing command auditory hallucinations.”

In April 2024, Harding went to Scarborough’s Birchmount Hospital because he was “concerned about his own safety and (reporting) paranoid ideation in relation to his co-residents and police. He appeared to see the hospital as a place of refuge.”

He was transferred to a forensic unit at Ontario Shores where his meds were adjusted. Harding was sent home to his residence on June 5, 2024.

Harding “continues to experience residual psychosis on a regular basis,” said the panel. “He identifies his auditory hallucinations as ‘good voices’ giving him positive messages.”

Harding’s “mental state can fluctuate widely,” said the panel.

“When his sleep is disrupted, his mental status deteriorates significantly. His paranoia becomes more intense and historically this has resulted in his arming himself with weapon. Should that reoccur, as in the past, he likely will act out against those in close proximity. As such, he remains a significant threat to the safety of those living and working in his residence, as well as those attempting to assist him, such as police officers or nurses.”

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.


“He’s not a traditional ambassador,” a Canadian auto industry insider says of U.S. envoy Pete Hoekstra. “He is very likely making his boss happy, while he makes the rest of us uneasy.”

Reviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page.

The U.S. election had just ended and Pete Hoekstra was on a bit of a high. He’d taken charge of a divided Republican Party in Michigan and, with his team, helped steer the key battleground state to Donald Trump.

Now he was asking Trump’s people about possible jobs in the new administration.

They had a simple response: talk to the president-elect himself. Hoekstra dutifully called Trump on his cell phone and won an invitation to the Mar-a-Lago estate – the next day.

Hoekstra and his wife Diane drove three hours from their own home in Florida to the Palm Beach compound and soon enough the former congressman was sitting down with Trump.

“He said, ‘What do you want to do?’ I said, ‘I think I see myself as your ambassador to Canada,’ ” Hoekstra recalled in a recent interview. “He had kind of a quizzical look … and he says ‘I like that, I like that idea.’ ”

Within three hours of their encounter last November, the next president of the United States had announced on Truth Social the name of his new ambassador to Canada.

But if getting the job was strikingly smooth-sailing, actually doing it has turned out to be a little different.

Hoekstra has raised the profile of the American ambassador to Canada to seemingly unprecedented heights – and regularly courted controversy and criticism in the process.

He’s publicly voiced bafflement at why Canadians are angry at Trump for imposing devastating tariffs and urging this country to become the 51st state, suggested Canada’s response to Trump’s actions has been “nasty and mean” and reportedly aimed an expletive-laden rant at Ontario’s trade representative in front of a crowd of stunned onlookers.

One academic expert calls him the most contentious ambassador the U.S. has ever dispatched here, while others see Hoekstra as a sort of diplomatic embodiment of the pugnacious president he represents.

“For the first time, it appears that the American ambassador’s audience in everything he says publicly is the president,” said Flavio Volpe, president of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association. “He is very likely making his boss happy, while he makes the rest of us uneasy … He’s not a traditional ambassador. He’s not from central casting.”

There have been sharper assessments, too.

“Dear Canada: beware,” proclaimed the left-wing

Common Dreams

 website in March. “Hoekstra deserves to be treated as a hostile guest.”

But the ambassador – who is personable and unassuming in one-on-one conversation – makes no apologies for the abruptness of his approach. Some might call it undiplomatic; he sees it as injecting a bit of straight-talking fresh air into a sometimes-obtuse diplomatic culture.

“I’m not only Dutch, I’m Frisian, which they call the most stubborn and blunt group – and the Dutch pride themselves on being blunt,” he said. “(That) is pretty valuable as a diplomat … I don’t think (Canadian officials) leave the meeting saying ‘What was he trying to tell us? Do you think Trump is really serious about tariffs?’ ”

Nor is his approach to the job entirely surprising.

Hoekstra was a prominent figure in U.S. national politics, chairing the important House of Representatives intelligence committee from 2004-2007 and meeting with world leaders from Muammar Gaddafi to Vladimir Putin.

But as a conservative Republican lawmaker, think-tank pundit, author and diplomat, he has often been in sync with Trump’s worldview, a loyal backer of the businessman’s presidential career – and unafraid to plunge into hot water.

While warning about the threat of “radical Islam,” he asserted repeatedly that Europe was spotted with Muslim “no-go zones,” a claim that would backfire in his first ambassadorial job in the Netherlands. He has said American “government schools” were being used “to

indoctrinate our children

 with Marxist ideology.” And in a losing bid for a U.S. Senate seat, he ran a TV ad that critics blasted as racist.

Hoekstra is also listed as a contributor to Project 2025, the provocative right-wing blueprint for government that Trump distanced himself from during last year’s election but has mirrored extensively in his policies since taking power.

Steve Emerson, who made Hoekstra a fellow of his Investigative Project on Terrorism, describes his friend as independent-minded.

“He was just a brilliant guy and a can-do guy who just wanted to get things done,” said Emerson. “He is an original thinker. He’s not conventional at all in so far as policies or in terms of ideology. He thought outside the box, which I really admired.”

 U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra delivers a monologue before taking part in a discussion on Canada-U.S. relations during the Global Business Forum in Banff, Sept. 25, 2025.

Hoekstra is certainly a staunch advocate for his country, too, but the 72-year-old was actually born in the northern Netherlands city of Groningen, before his family emigrated and settled in Michigan when he was three.

After undergraduate and MBA degrees and rising to be vice president of marketing at office-furniture maker Herman Miller he turned his attention to politics, first winning election to the House of Representatives in 1992.

He was a founding member of the Tea Party caucus, home to some of the most conservative Republicans in Congress. Hoekstra himself had a

voting record

 that in Canada would place him on the rightward edge of mainstream politics, opposing abortion rights, same-sex marriage, gay adoption, gun control and paid parental leave for federal employees.

But he made his name on the intelligence committee and

has said

 that in the decade after the 9/11 attacks he spent “almost all of my time” on intelligence matters. Hoekstra’s focus became what he once termed America’s “greatest threat”: the rise of “radical Jihad, radical Islamists.”

It led to some unexpected bedfellows.

At the invitation of the George W. Bush administration, he met with the late Libyan dictator Gaddafi in 2003, then twice afterward. As he recounts in his book,

Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya

, Gaddafi had been a brutal dictator and one of the world’s most prolific backers of terrorist acts, including the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie, Scotland.

But the encounters were a resounding success, Hoekstra says, part of U.S. efforts that convinced the brutal strongman to become a de-facto ally of the States. That meant giving up his nuclear-weapons program, compensating victims of the Pan Am attack and, especially, helping combat violent Islamic extremists.

“Yes, Muammar Gaddafi was a monster,” Hoekstra conceded in his book. “But he was our monster.”

Today, he remembers surprisingly productive sessions with the Libyan despot.

“Gadaffi was very rational … You don’t sit there and think ‘I’m talking to a crazy guy,’ ” says Hoekstra. “He’s making rational, realistic arguments and you could have a good discussion with him.”

In fact, he argues in his book that President Barack Obama made a colossal mistake when he decided to aid Libyan opposition forces, spearheading a NATO air campaign that included Canadian CF-18s and bringing about Gadaffi’s downfall and death. The ensuing leadership vacuum led to chaos, civil war and fertile ground for terrorists, Hoekstra says, with an ambassador and three other Americans at the U.S. mission in Benghazi falling victim to a 2012 militant attack.

Hoekstra also voted in favour of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which itself led to a bloody insurgency that killed 4,400 Americans and an estimated hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, while helping sow the seeds of the Islamic State terror group.

Hoekstra stayed on the radical-Islam beat after his career in Congress ended in 2011, working with Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism, then writing the Libya book.

He often warned against the United States following the example of western Europe, which he said had naively allowed Islamists a foothold there.

“Chaos in the Netherlands. There are cars being burned. There are politicians that are being burned,” he said at a

2015 panel discussion

 called Muslim Migration into Europe: Eurabia Come True? “With the influx of the Islamic community … there are no-go zones in the Netherlands. All right? There are no-go zones in France … There are no go zones in Britain as well, but they are tearing the Dutch apart politically.”

Hoekstra also made two attempts at statewide office, first losing the Republican primary for the Michigan governor’s post, then battling Democrat Debbie Stabenow for a seat in the U.S. Senate. He fell short in that one, too, and

sparked controversy

 with a commercial that depicted a stereotypical Chinese peasant speaking in broken English.

 Pete Hoekstra, then Michigan Republican Party chairman, speaks at a Donald Trump campaign rally in Freeland, Mich., May 1, 2024.

A few years later Trump was vying to be president, with Hoekstra’s “close friend” Mike Pence as his running mate. Trump’s staff asked Hoekstra to co-chair the campaign in Michigan. He reminded them that the role usually fell to a sitting member of Congress. That’s true, the aides told him, but all the state’s Republican lawmakers had turned down the job.

“People forget, but back then, Republican congressmen who were on the ballot, they had no idea whether being aligned with Trump or not, what the impact would be on their campaign.”

Trump won a slim, unexpected victory in the state and later named Hoekstra ambassador to the Netherlands. But his first stab at diplomacy started in rocky fashion.

A reporter for Holland’s public broadcaster asked him about his comments on alleged Muslim no-go zones and the burning of cars and politicians, assertions that the Dutch widely rejected. Hoekstra denied he’d ever said such a thing, calling it “fake news.” The

journalist then showed him

 – and later broadcast to TV viewers – a clip of the ambassador saying exactly that.

The State Department repudiated the comments and the ambassador apologized.

The posting ended when Joe Biden captured the White House in 2020, but four years on Hoekstra was back in the political fray, chairing the Michigan party and helping pave the way for Trump’s return to office.

Hoekstra says he had his eye on the Ottawa job in part because of his ties to this country – he had an aunt and uncle who lived in B.C. and Alberta, his wife has a sister who called Smithers, B.C., home and an uncle who was a pastor in St. Catharines, Ont.  Hoekstra almost took a job in Guelph, Ont., after obtaining his MBA in the late 1970s. He also cites the fact Canadian troops liberated his parents’ city in the Netherlands during the Second World War and that Canada is a huge trading partner of America’s.

As his Mar-a-Lago one-on-one with Trump ended, the president invited Hoekstra and his wife into a meeting with his core transition team, including Vice President JD Vance by Zoom, and the deal was sealed.

The appointment began on a positive note. Hoekstra told his Senate

confirmation hearing

 in March that “I recognize Canada’s longstanding friendship, our deep economic ties and our strong military alliance.” He touted his good, bipartisan relations with Democratic ambassadors who came after him in the Netherlands and before him in Canada, and said Trump’s priorities were “freer, fairer trade.”

 Pete Hoekstra, with his wife Diane, arrive at their residence in The Hague to start his stint as U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, Jan. 10, 2018. As it is in Canada, his time in the Netherlands was also not without some controversy.

A Democratic senator asked if he agreed that Canada “should not be even jokingly referred to” as part of the U.S. “Canada is a sovereign state,” Hoekstra replied.

Even so, Volpe said the ambassador was “still repeating the president’s annexation language” during their first private meeting to discuss trade issues. Hoekstra later suggested publicly that Trump’s 51st state musings were “a term of endearment,” something few Canadians

seemed to swallow

.

He says now that promoting annexation was never part of his remit as ambassador and feels both Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney have long since moved past the issue.

Even so, Trump went beyond just suggesting Canada join the U.S. and calling then-prime minister Justin Trudeau “governor.”

When asked if he would use military force against his northern neighbour, the president said

“economic force”

would be his preference, and encouraged getting rid of the “artificially drawn line” between the countries. Meanwhile, Trump imposed 35-per-cent tariffs on goods not covered by the countries’ free-trade agreement, as well as crushing new tariffs on aluminum, steel, copper and lumber that also apply to other nations. Despite Hoekstra’s suggestion that the president wanted “freer, fairer” trade, Trump has touted tariffs as a way to shift jobs to the States, and said the U.S. simply does not need most of what Canada exports.

Some diplomats might have tried to soothe the anger, if only to bolster their government’s position. Hoekstra appeared uninterested in coddling.

He said he didn’t understand the bitterness and lamented that “it is very, very difficult to find Canadians who are passionate about the American-Canadian relationship.” The ambassador scoffed at what he called “anti-American” campaigning in the last federal election, and said it was understandable the White House considers it “nasty and mean” of some provinces to ban American alcohol and for Canadians to curb travel to the States.

His strongest pushback, though, came after the Ontario government paid for an ad on American television made up almost entirely of clips of former president Ronald Reagan decrying the idea of tariffs. The TV campaign prompted Trump to halt trade talks with Canada and threaten to slap on another 10-per-cent tariff.

 “I recognize Canada’s longstanding friendship, our deep economic ties and our strong military alliance,” U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra had said at his Senate confirmation hearing.

In public, Hoekstra said “you do not come into America and start running political ads – government-funded political ads – and expect that there will be no consequences or reaction.”

At the Canadian American Business Council gala – traditionally a forum for cross-border bonhomie – he angrily laid into Ontario’s Washington trade representative about the commercial, according to reports quoting unnamed sources in the Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail and CBC.

The trade official, David Paterson, declined to comment on the episode, telling the National Post “we need our ambassadors to be successful problem solvers – and I wish him well.”

Despite all the controversy, Canadians are wrong to think of Hoekstra as prickly or antagonistic, says Emerson about his friend.

“He’s not an abrasive person at all. He’s a very friendly guy,” said the think-tank head. But Hoekstra “didn’t suffer fools very lightly. He was always someone who was very direct. He didn’t hold back in terms of saying something that needed to be said.”

Volpe concedes the ambassador is, in fact, a more reasonable and likeable fellow in private.

Hoekstra stressed in the interview that Canada is being treated no worse than any of the other countries facing Trump tariffs. And yet he said his impression from speaking to fellow U.S. ambassadors around the world is that Canada has reacted with “unique” vehemence.

Hoekstra said trade talks will resume sooner or later and he’s made suggestions to the Carney government on how to proceed. Canada can try against tough odds to avoid any U.S. trade barriers at all or, he said, “If you want to negotiate for the lowest tariffs of any country in the world … you may have a great case.”

Meanwhile, the ambassador says that he can literally pick up the phone and call or text Trump when needed.

Hoekstra’s performance may end up being judged brilliant, bullheaded or something worse. Whatever the verdict, says David Haglund, a Queen’s University international relations professor, it looks like one for the history books.

Arguably the last time an American diplomat created so much fuss here was more than six decades ago, he said, when John F. Kennedy’s ambassador – Walton Butterworth –

issued a news release

 with “corrections” on a speech by then prime minister John Diefenbaker. Diefenbaker was livid at the Americans, said Haglund.

But the expert on Canada-U.S. relations believes Hoekstra’s lot as an ambassador has few if any precedents. He’s had to be the front man here for both a major eruption of American protectionism and talk of annexing Canada, something not heard from a U.S. president since the 19th century.

“He’s got to walk a tightrope,” said Haglund. “If he tries to inject too much rationality into the discussion, he gets zapped by Trump.

“I’m not going out of my way to defend him, but I feel a bit of sympathy for the predicament he’s in,” the Queen’s professor added. “I’m sure when he showed up in Ottawa he didn’t think he’d become the most controversial U.S. ambassador in history.”

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.