LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Bailey McCourt in an undated photo. Kelowna RCMP say she and another woman were assaulted in an attack on July 4. She later died of her injuries, and her estranged husband James Plover has been charged with second-degree murder.

OTTAWA — The aunt of a Kelowna, B.C., woman killed in an intimate partner violence case is set to discuss a bill aimed at addressing such violence with Justice Minister Sean Fraser on Wednesday.

Debbie Henderson, whose late niece, Bailey McCourt, was bludgeoned with a hammer in a downtown Kelowna lot earlier this year, appeared in Ottawa on Tuesday, joined by Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre.

Henderson implored the federal government to pass Bill C-225 – also known as Bailey’s Law – a private member’s bill put forward by Conservative MP Frank Caputo.

Henderson, ahead of her meeting with Fraser, said she “hopes he listens to the cries of our family and that we have a productive conversation.”

The bill, if passed, would establish GPS monitoring and a registry for convicted domestic offenders. It would also automatically make the murder of an intimate partner a first-degree crime.

“It needs to be passed quickly. There’s no need to wait. The next person could be you or it could be one of your family members, and we don’t want to see any other family member go through the horror that our family has gone through,” said Henderson.

Henderson said “all parties should be on board” in fast-tracking the bill she believes “sets partisanship aside.”

“I feel this bill is a non-partisan bill. It’s a human issue, it’s directly related to saving lives and justice for victims,” Henderson told media outside the House of Commons.

Henderson said the Liberal government’s recently introduced bail reform legislation has so far failed to address the urgency and scale of intimate partner violence.

While Fraser said B.C.’s lobbying on the McCourt case influenced several aspects of the government’s legislation, Premier David Eby acknowledged yesterday the law stops short of meeting all the family’s and the province’s goals. He said B.C. will continue to advocate for the McCourt family.

Poilievre told media that his party is still evaluating the bail reform legislation, but his focus Tuesday was on Bailey’s Law.

“The time to move is now. The time to set partisanship aside is now,” said Poilievre.

Caputo, appearing alongside Henderson and Poilievre, echoed this view.

He said he expects to achieve unanimous support for the bill.

“We have the victim’s family, and we have Premier Eby saying pass this law,” said Caputo. “This bill should move, and it should move fast.”

“The time to address this was yesterday. It was before July 4, when Bailey was killed. We have to move. We have to listen to Canadians. If we, as legislators, are not prepared to listen to Canadians and move rapidly, then why are we here?”

Henderson said her family will hold onto the hope that Bill C-225 will pass until she sees otherwise.

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.


Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons Steven MacKinnon speaks to reporters ahead of a cabinet meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025.

OTTAWA — With one week to go before Mark Carney’s government tables its first budget with no clear partner in sight, the Liberals and opposition parties are pointing fingers at each other in an attempt to shift the blame in case of a snap election.

The minority Liberals have 169 seats — just three seats shy of a majority — which means that they need to find at least three MPs from the opposition benches to either support their budget or abstain to ensure that they survive the confidence vote on the budget.

If they don’t, Canadians could be headed to the polls during the Christmas season.

That is exactly the scenario that Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon has been threatening could happen in televised interviews over the weekend, claiming that his government does not currently have enough votes to pass the federal budget.

“Of course, they don’t have the numbers yet,” said Lori Turnbull, professor in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University, in an interview. “Surely, they can’t expect the opposition parties to say they’re going to support (the budget) when they haven’t seen it.”

The budget will be tabled by Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne on Nov. 4 and MPs are expected to debate a Conservative amendment and Bloc Québécois subamendment to the budget before they leave for Remembrance Day break week.

That means that the first confidence vote on the budget could happen as early as mid-November, when MPs return to Ottawa.

“Budget 2025 is about meeting this hinge moment, building a stronger economy where everyone has a chance to get ahead, and empowering Canadians with new opportunities, better careers, and a lower cost of living,” said John Fragos, Champagne’s spokesman.

“There is no appetite for political games at this hinge moment,” he insisted.

On Tuesday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre declined to say if his party would be willing to bring down the government over the budget and spark an early election.

“Our message to the Liberals is that we want an affordable budget for an affordable Canada. We want the government to bring down the cost of its spending so we can bring down the cost of living,” Poilievre said during a press conference in Ottawa.

“So, it will be up to them. If they’re going to increase the cost of living for Canadians again with more inflationary spending, then Canadians will judge them accordingly.”

Poilievre also declined to say, when pressed by another reporter, if he and every one of his 143 MPs would be sitting in the House of Commons during the vote on the budget.

The opposition leader has been asking for the government to keep the deficit under the $42 billion mark and to scrap “hidden taxes” on food, which the Liberals deny exist.

Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet previously said his party would not be supporting the budget before his party presented a series of six “non-negotiable” demands that include higher Old Age Security transfers to seniors aged 65-74.

“It is the exclusive responsibility of the Liberals to find someone with whom (they can) reach an agreement in order to have their budget eventually adopted,” he said Tuesday.

“I believe that communication channels are still open.”

There are also seven NDP MPs and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to turn to.

May told reporters on Monday that she’s made it “very clear” to the government that she would not vote for a budget that includes “fossil fuel subsidies.”

“That’s my one condition. Otherwise, I haven’t read the budget yet, so I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote,” she said.

An NDP source said the party has not presented a “shopping list” of demands of its own, nor will it come to a decision about the budget before it is tabled next week.

However, observers have pointed out it is unlikely that the NDP would support an “austerity” budget with cuts to the public service.

Carney met with all four party leaders earlier this month, and MacKinnon and Champagne have been having ongoing talks with representatives of all parties.

However, the NDP source said there has not been a “flurry of activity” from the government to convince opposition parties to support its budget until now. They described the ongoing talks with various parties, not as negotiations, but as “pro forma” discussions.

Former Liberal minister Marc Miller candidly admitted that things were easier when Trudeau’s minority government had a deal with the NDP, but he said “each vote was a negotiation” with higher stakes each time and the process “probably gave too much power” to the NDP caucus.

May said that there are options for the government to ensure that it doesn’t fall, whether it would be negotiating a new confidence and supply agreement with an opposition party or simply delaying the vote on the budget to make sure there are enough votes to pass it.

“We’re in a minority Parliament. There is no one, all powerful player here. We have to work together. That’s a good thing for democracy.”

National Post

calevesque@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 newsletters here.


NDP leadership candidates, left-to-right: Tanille Johnston, Avi Lewis, Tony McQuail, Heather McPherson, Rob Ashton and President of the Canadian Labour Congress Bea Bruske pose for a family photo ahead of the NDP Leadership forum in Ottawa on Oct. 22.

OTTAWA — Federal NDP leadership candidates are backing Alberta’s spurned labour unions after the Alberta government used the notwithstanding clause to force striking teachers back to the classroom. 

Edmonton MP Heather McPherson took to social media shortly after the back-to-work bill was tabled on Monday night, calling it an “unprecedented attack on workers” and “direct assault on our democracy.”

The Alberta government bill

, passed early Tuesday morning, used the notwithstanding clause to lock in a government-proposed deal over the objections of teachers, paving the way for classes to resume this week. This marks the first time that the constitutional provision, which allows legislatures to temporarily suspend certain rights, has been invoked in an Alberta law.

The bill also bypassed Alberta’s Bill of Rights and Human Rights Act.

McPherson said

in a video message

that the legislation sets a “dangerous precedent” for workers across Canada and called on all concerned Canadians to make their objections known.

“If we don’t stand up now, that line (Alberta Premier) Danielle Smith has crossed, that line will keep moving,” said McPherson.

McPherson has had her own skin in the game with a son in grade 12, one of roughly 750,000 students across the province impacted by the three-week-long teachers’ strike.

She told reporters in Ottawa last week that she fully supported the striking teachers and put any loss to her son’s education “solely on the shoulders of Danielle Smith.”

Fellow NDP leadership hopeful Rob Ashton was quick to follow McPherson’s lead, calling the Alberta back-to-work legislation “shameful”

in a statement released

on Tuesday.

“This isn’t just a provincial issue, and this isn’t just about teachers. It’s about every worker in this country. It’s about our families and our future,” said Ashton.

Ashton, who is also president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, promised to help his “union family in Alberta” fight back against the legislation.

“Workers have fought back before, and we have won. And make no mistake, we will win again,” said Ashton.

A third candidate, filmmaker and activist Avi Lewis, expressed his support for the Alberta Teachers’ Association and Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) President Gil McGowan

in a social media post

.

McGowan called the Smith government’s use of the notwithstanding clause to end the teachers’ strike

a declaration of war

on Canadian workers, and says he’ll work with partners across the country to unleash an “unprecedented response.”

He invoked the memory of past general strikes when musing about possible responses on Monday.

“The stakes are at least as high now as they were when our forebears made the decision to participate in things like the (Winnipeg) General Strike of 1919,” McGowan told reporters outside Alberta’s legislature.

McGowan’s AFL is one of several labour unions digging in for a no-holds-barred fight with Alberta’s government.

The executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress will be holding an emergency meeting on the situation in Alberta on Tuesday evening, according to multiple sources.

Former NDP strategist Erin Morrison, currently a vice-president at Texture Communication, said that the prospect of an extended Alberta-wide labour disruption raises the stakes for both McPherson and Ashton.

“No doubt, both will stand with teachers as Danielle Smith attacks their right to strike

— but can Ashton use this as a leadership moment? Or will McPherson rise when all eyes are set on her home province?” said Morrison.

Morrison also said the focus on Alberta could further squeeze Lewis out of the picture.

“Although it’s too early to count anyone out, my read of the membership is that it’s shaking out to be a contest between Ashton and McPherson,” said Morrison.

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.


An analysis of polling data by CNN indicates that Canada enjoys more popularity among Americans than does U.S. President Donald Trump.

While the White House and loyal members of his administration will swear to Donald Trump’s popularity among the American people, a CNN analysis of polling data claims that U.S. citizens actually like Canada more.

Alongside host Sara Sidner on Monday, chief data analyst Harry Enten said the U.S. president has a net popularity rating of -10, whereas Canada’s is at +49, a difference of nearly 60 points.

“When you pick on Canada as the United States president, you are picking on a country that the American people adore,” Enten said.

“Pretty much every single time, among most Americans, Americans will choose Canada over Donald Trump.”

The last U.S. president to record a rating higher than Canada’s current, he added, was George W. Bush in the early 2000s.

To come up with his figures, Enten relied on his own aggregation of data from a pair of 2025 Pew Research Centre surveys that explored Americans’ net favourable opinion of Canada and Trump’s net approval rating.

The first

, released in June and based on polling of 3,605 Americans conducted in the spring, found that 74 percent held favourable views of Canada, while 25 percent viewed the country unfavourably. The rest had no opinion or refused to answer.

(Canadians were also polled and 64 per cent reported an unfavourable view of the U.S., up 23 points since the same time in 2024 and eclipsing the previous highwater mark of 62 per cent from 2020 when Trump was last in office. Both are the highest percentages since data was first recorded in 2002.)

The second

was an early Aug. 14 survey of 3,554 Americans that put Trump’s approval rating at 38 per cent and his disapproval at 60.

 Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump pose during a group photo at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., on Monday, June 16, 2025.

The roughly three-minute segment began with Sidner asking the data specialist about U.S. sentiment towards the Trump administration’s use of tariffs on goods from other countries.

Citing data from a pair of CBS News surveys carried out by YouGov, Enten said, “Americans have moved more against tariffs than any other major Trump policy that he’s been pushing during the second term.”

Enten, using

a survey of 2,232 Americans last November

, noted 52 per cent favoured the idea of tariffs on imported goods. That number has since fallen to 40 per cent, he reported.

He was referencing

a 2,441-person survey this October

in which 60 per cent said the Trump administration is too focused on tariffs.

“If I were advising President Donald John Trump when it comes to his policies, I’d say step off the tariffs, at least from a political point of view, because the bottom line is it doesn’t sell with the American people,” Enten said.

 A Florida billboard displays a message reading ‘tariffs are a tax on your grocery bill’. The Canadian government placed anti-tariff billboards in several American cities to inform Americans of the economic impact of tariffs.

Enten also remarked that only 36 per cent of Americans support new tariffs on Canada, but that figure comes from

an April poll

conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Reuters.

His analysis comes as Canada-U.S. trade relations are particularly fraught in the wake of an Ontario anti-tariff ad campaign that ultimately led to Trump calling off negotiations with Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ottawa. He also called for an additional 10 per cent tariff on Canadian imports, though no further details have been released regarding the timing or the affected goods.

Enten also addressed how Canadian attitudes towards the U.S. have shifted over the past two years, using data from Angus Reid surveys asking respondents whether they see the neighbouring country as a friend or foe.

In October 2023

, just seven per cent of 1,622 Canadian adults polled would have advised Ottawa to approach the U.S. as an enemy or potential threat. Most (48 per cent) viewed the nation under former president Joe Biden as a valued partner.

A similar survey of

1,700 this October

, however, found 46 per cent are now likely to view the U.S. as an enemy or potential threat, and a further 24 per cent urged the federal government to tread cautiously.

National Post has contacted CNN for more information regarding Enten’s aggregate.

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.


Leader of the Conservative Party Pierre Poilievre speaks in the Foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025.

OTTAWA

— Opposition Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said on Tuesday that Prime Minister Mark Carney “approved” Ontario’s anti-tariff ads, which U.S. President Donald Trump blamed as the reason for ending trade talks with Canada. 

It came the day after Ontario Premier Doug Ford told reporters that Carney and his chief of staff, Marc-Andre Blanchard, were shown the ads before they aired.

Poilievre, who has been intensifying his criticism of Carney over Canada not yet securing a deal with Trump, says the prime minister must now “come clean.”

“He claims he was on the verge, once again, claims that he was on the verge of getting a deal,” the Conservative leader told reporters.

“Then he approved the ad, and then he blamed the ad for the fact that there is no deal.”

Poilievre did not directly answer whether Ford ought to have pulled the ads sooner but instead said that premiers were “stepping up to fill the void” left by Carney, not yet securing a deal to see U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum lifted, or at least lessened.

Carney, who is currently in the middle of a nine-day trip to Asia, was scheduled to leave Canada as Trump posted on Truth Social late last week that he was ending trade talks with Canada, citing ire over the ads taken out by Ford’s government.

The Prime Minister’s Office has not yet responded to a request for comment. But CBC News, citing a senior federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the federal government was not involved in producing or distributing the ads, according to the broadcaster.

Ford’s government began running the ad campaign, which featured a 30-second and 60-second version, two weeks ago, to the tune of $75 million.

They had been playing during the

Major League Baseball championship series and

the 

Blue Jays’ American League championship, which is attracting strong viewership

The ads included audio from a radio address by former U.S. president Ronald Reagan in 1987, saying, “High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens. Markets shrink and collapse. Businesses and industries shut down and millions of people lose their jobs.”

In Trump’s posts about the ads, he included a statement from the

Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation (and) Institute, which directed users to listen to the former president’s full remarks from the 1987 speech, as several sentences were excluded from the excerpt Ontario ultimately used for its ads.  

The U.S. president has since said he does not plan to meet with Carney for a “long time,” while the Canadian prime minister has said Canada stands ready to resume negotiations and was close to reaching a deal before Trump ended talks.

Ford announced last week that Ontario was pulling the ads at Carney’s request, but not before they ran during two World Series games last weekend.

The premier has summarized the backlash over the ads by saying “mission accomplished,” given the amount of discussion it has generated south of the border.

Ford has said it was never his intention to “

poke the president in the eye,” but wanted to send a message to Americans about the impacts of the ongoing Canada-U.S. trade war, which was launched when Trump began hitting Canadian goods with tariffs. 

The Ontario premier has also spoken out about how the trade deal Canada was discussing focused on the 50 per cent U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum and appeared not to mention the auto sector.

Carney’s government said it was focused on dealing with steel, aluminum and energy in the current trade talks.

British Columbia NDP Premier David Eby said his province intends to move ahead with its own set of ads targeting Americans over the impact of U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber, which Trump recently increased by 10 per cent.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said she was pleased to see Ontario remove its ads and said it was important to be “

mindful that the U.S. administration is unpredictable.”

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.


An arriving passenger uses a biometric scanner at George H.W. Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.

New Department of Homeland Security regulations in the United States will, beginning Dec. 26, require all non-citizens (including Canadians)

to be photographed

while entering or leaving the country.

The initiative is intended to build a comprehensive biometric data collection aimed at improving identity verification, combatting visa overstays and reducing passport fraud. The regulations note: “The best tool to combat passport fraud is to utilize the digital photos contained in e-passports to biometrically verify that a person who presents a travel document is the true bearer of that document.”

This is hardly the first or most intrusive measure when it comes to collection of biometric data at border crossings. Here’s what to know.

What is biometric data?

From the Greek words for “life” and “measure,”

biometrics

basically refers to any measurement that sets one person apart from another — fingerprints, DNA, retina, even something as simple as height and weight. The word was first used in the late 19th century but has become much more common since the 1990s.

Are the U.S. rules a new measure?

The specifics are new, but the U.S. (and a lot of other countries) have been engaged in this kind of information gathering for decades.

For instance, the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (or 

US-VISIT

) was implemented in 2003 and required visitors who required a visa to submit to the collection of biometric data. However, the program has been expanded in the years since to include almost all visitors.

Similarly, the

NEXUS program

between Canada and the U.S. uses retina scans, fingerprints and, more recently,

facial recognition

to identify frequent cross-border travellers between the two countries. That program

started in 2000

with just a few hundred participants, but it has grown widely since.

 A visitor to the United States goes through the US-VISIT biometric entry procedure at a land crossing in Washington in 2004.

What is Canada doing?

In addition to being part of NEXUS, Canada has its own

biometric information gathering

systems. For instance, newcomers to Canada must submit a photograph and fingerprints (and a fee of $85) if they are applying for temporary or permanent residence, to extend a stay on a visa, or to claim refugee or asylum status.

There are exceptions, including those under the age of 14 or over 79. Notably, U.S. tourists entering Canada do not need to provide biometric information. The government of Canada

has a website

where visitors can determine if they are exempt.

Who else is doing it?

It’s easier to ask who isn’t doing it. Almost every country on Earth collects some form of biometric data on visitors, and a large number gather data from those leaving as well as arriving.

In France, for instance, the

PARAFE

(or Passage Automatisé Rapide Aux Frontières Extérieures) lets citizens from Canada and many other countries use a “PARAFE airlock” to enter and exit the country. This is because Canadian passports contain biometric data in the form of an embedded chip, with the system reads and compares to the passport holder.

Canada has had such passports since 2013. The government notes that the only data stored on the chip is an

electronic version

of the photo that also appears on the passport.

Just this month, the European Union began using its new biometric entry/exit system (EES) for all arriving travellers from outside the

“Schengen area”

; a fancy term for the nations of the European Union, minus Ireland and Cyprus, but including Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Iceland. Canadians and others will need to provide fingerprints and photos

as the system takes effect

.

Also, Britain implemented an electronic travel authorization document for non-visa tourists (including Canadians) at the beginning of this year. Application requires a photograph, as well as a fee of 16 pounds, equivalent to about $30.

 For tourists fond of collecting physical passport stamps, the experience will be a thing of the past after nations across the European Union switch to biometric and electronic border systems.

Is the collection of biometric data mandatory?

Effectively, yes. You don’t need to provide it to nations that require it. But then they don’t need

to let you in

either. So if you want (or need) to travel to a country that demands it, there’s no way around it.

Are there issues with some countries?

A

2021 survey

by U.K.-based cyber security company Comparitech of countries’ use of biometric data at borders and elsewhere ranked China as the worst. It noted that the country has

widespread and invasive use of facial recognition technology in CCTV cameras, in part to track and monitor the country’s Muslim and Uighur minorities.

It also noted “

a concerning lack of regard for the privacy of people’s biometric data,” and raised concerns about “severe and invasive” collection of data.

However, it’s worth noting that China has recently

exempted Canadian visitors

from providing fingerprints when applying for a visa or entering the country — at least until the end of this year.

Also high on that list of countries, tied for fourth-worst alongside

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Uganda, was the United States.

“Most concerning is its lack of a specific law to protect citizens’ biometrics,” the study noted. “While there is a handful of state laws that protect state residents’ biometrics …
this does leave many U.S. citizens’ biometrics exposed as there is no federal law in place. And this is despite the widespread and growing use of facial recognition in public places, biometrics within the workplace, and fingerprints for visas.”

At the other end of the scale was

Turkmenistan, although the study noted that this was likely due to lack of development within the country: “For example, no known biometric database exists and the use of CCTV with facial recognition isn’t known.”

 More than just borders: Facial recognition for fans entry into the Allianz Parque stadium in Sao Paulo, Brazil on October 11, 2025.

Should travellers be worried?

Maybe. Some groups, such as the Ottawa-based International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group,

have raised fears

that data could be stolen, or that “mission creep” could result in biometrics originally taken for border-crossing purposes to be used more broadly, such as warrantless mass surveillance of citizens.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol spokesperson Jessica Turner recently

told Radio-Canada

: “CBP is committed to its privacy obligations and has taken steps to safeguard the privacy of all travellers.” And in any case, it again comes down to whether one wants to follow another country’s rules to visit, or stay home.

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.


JP Saxe sings the Canadian National Anthem before game three of the 2025 World Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium on October 27, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.

Canadian singer JP Saxe changed the lyrics of the national anthem at Monday night’s World Series game.

Before the Toronto Blue Jays faced off against the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Grammy-nominated musician appeared on the field for his rendition O Canada. But instead of saying

“our home on native land,”

as the original wording goes, he said: “our home on native land.”

Many people on social media were upset with the switch.

“I don’t know why artists feel the need to change the national anthem,”

wrote

sports commentator Ben Steiner in a post on X.

Steiner referenced a performance by Montreal-born musician Nikki Yanofsky, who sang the national anthem at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Her rendition had some Canadians “

fuming

” for “mangling the anthem at such a historic moment,”

Now reported

. It was described as a

“jazzy take”

on the original by CTV News.

“Just sing it as is,” wrote Steiner.

Toronto radio host Greg Brady also felt strongly about Saxe’s version. “STOP bastardizing ‘O Canada,’ OUR national anthem. It belongs to all of us – whomever our parents & grandparents are, & wherever you are born. If you’re a Canadian citizen, or striving to be one – this is OUR song. It’s awesome being in another country, especially at a sporting event, hearing our anthem,” he

said

in a post on X. “We’re not at your concert.”

He said the Canadian singer “blew it” and that the O Canada lyrics are meant to unite Canadians.

“I want that moment of unity, above all else. Stop cheating us of that in big moments. You broke the shared experience. You had a civic responsibility. This isn’t negotiable,” Brady said.

One user named Stacey called Saxe’s version a

“pathetic, attention seeking stunt.”

Toronto-based lawyer Ryan O’Connor called it an “upside-down flag moment.” But another user named Kim pointed out: “Well, Canada IS on Native land.”

Saxe was

nominated for a Grammy Award

in 2020 for his song, If The World Was Ending.

In August, he penned an

op-ed for Variety

, explaining that he had to cancel his fall tour due to low ticket sales. He was

applauded

by artists in the music and entertainment industry — including singers Natasha Bedingfield and J Balvin, and actress Sophia Bush — who took to Instagram to commend him for his honesty.

“If the ship is sinking, you announce you’ve decided to be a submarine. Instead, I told everyone the ship was sinking. And somehow… they jumped on board,” Saxe wrote in the Variety article. He said he was grateful for those who did support him.

The Jonas Brothers decided to bring

Saxe on stage to perform at their Toronto show

in late August, after hearing the singer’s story.

The band also received some

backlash

over their own MLB performance at Game 2 of the World Series in Toronto. The Jonas Brothers played a Stand Up to Cancer tribute mid-game, followed by one of their new songs. Some fans considered it to be an “ill-timed interruption,” Billboard reported.

Canadian singer Jully Black also made the same lyric change as Saxe when she sang O Canada in 2023 at the NBA All-Star Game in Utah. The Assembly of First Nations

honoured her

at a ceremony “for her strength, her voice, and her allyship,” the group said. Black kept those lyrics while singing O Canada at a law school graduation in Toronto later that year,

CBC News reported

. She said she did it “to acknowledge the country’s theft of Indigenous land.”

Toronto singer

Deborah Cox is set to sing O Canada

at Game 4 of the World Series on Tuesday in Los Angeles.


Alberta Premier Danielle Smith speaks to party members at the United Conservative Party annual general meeting in Calgary, Nov. 4, 2023.

Members of Alberta’s United Conservative Party want a detailed plan explaining the “potential benefits and negative consequences” of the province becoming an independent nation, according to a draft, obtained by National Post, of prospective policy proposals to be debated at the party’s annual general meeting.

Each year, before the convention, the party collates a list of potential policy resolutions. The party’s members then go through the list, selecting the ones that are most important to them, and the final list sees debate on the convention floor. The meeting kicks off on Nov. 28 this year.

The draft resolutions, obtained by National Post, contain a much wider set of policy proposals than the final list of resolutions, and gives insight into the priorities of a swathe of the party’s membership.

“We do know that (Danielle) Smith is very closely attuned to the concerns of the party base, and that’s where this is,” said Duane Bratt, a University of Calgary political scientist, in an interview.

There are three separatist-adjacent proposals, coming at a time when Alberta alienation seems to once again be on an upswing. Over the weekend, thousands of supporters of Alberta independence rallied at the Alberta legislature, and there are duelling initiatives to get a secession referendum on the ballot. One of the proposals aims to ensure that a secession referendum appears alone, alongside no other referendums, if the question of leaving Canada is ever put to Albertans. Another aims to push for “Canada 2.0,” with an established Alberta Constitution “establishing Alberta’s sovereignty” and then negotiating “the terms of a new federation.” The third is the explanation of the benefits and consequences of secession.

“Many are in support of independence already but many aren’t either because of lack of real facts and education,” the resolution’s rationale explains.

The resolutions are wide-ranging. One says that cursive writing should be taught to schoolchildren, to ensure they have a connection to their past. Another suggests that the Calgary International Airport be renamed Calgary-Ralph Klein International Airport. (There was a failed push in 2015 to get the airport named after former prime minister Stephen Harper.)

There are some proposed resolutions that will be of interest only to locals, and only some locals at that, such as a proposal to allow for five-year vehicle registrations or allowing for single-egress stairs in apartment buildings to “unlock apartment construction affordability.”

Others are no surprise to anyone who follows conservative politics, such as allowing for publicly funded, privately delivered and privately funded and delivered medical services, restoring a 10-per-cent income-tax rate as the highest bracket in the province or pushing for innovation and economic diversification within the province.

Others, though, expose some of the tensions that exist — and have long existed — within Alberta’s right wing, between the concerns of the grassroots members and the more mainstream concerns that might appeal to a broader cohort of Alberta’s voting public. For years, Alberta’s occasionally unhappy conservative parties have struggled to hold together a large-tent party comprising many of the factions of Alberta’s right, from old-school progressive conservatives to those demanding the right to bear arms.

For example, member Dione Martin proposes an “immediate moratorium on the administration of mRNA technology to Albertans.” The COVID-19 vaccines are mRNA vaccines. There’s a call to create a “strategic Bitcoin reserve.”

Three constituency associations are calling on the province to push for greater transparency from the federal government on “weather modification or geoengineering programs.” Five constituency associations have banded together, calling for an end to water fluoridation, which they suggest “constitutes medical treatment without informed consent.” The constituency association of Grande Prairie calls on the province to study the “health impacts from devices that emit electromagnetic frequencies,” such as telecommunications towers near where people live.

“Public concern is growing and they need facts and data that come from non-bias trusted sources,” the resolution states.

Some of the proposals are likely to appeal to a broader cohort of United Conservative Party members, such as ensuring university instructors don’t “promulgate their personal worldviews in their classrooms” or that only official government flags can be flown over government buildings. The Calgary-Buffalo constituency association wants a ban on contractors of the public service and Crown corporations from including their personal pronouns in official communications, such as emails, in order to avoid perceptions of bias and prevent those who don’t have pronouns in their email signatures from feeling pressured to include them.

“The unilateral use of personal pronouns in official communications may be perceived as signalling a stance on gender identity, a contentious social issue,” the proposed resolution states.

There are also several policy proposals that have existed in Alberta for a long time — adopting an Alberta pension plan and a provincial police force, for example, and a resolution from Calgary-Buffalo calls on the government to ensure that temporary residents, visitors and “unsuccessful asylum-seekers” must pay for their health care while in Alberta. (The Alberta Next panel, which met over the summer to weigh options for increasing Alberta’s autonomy from Ottawa, considered whether Alberta should withhold social programs from newcomers if the “number or kind of newcomers moving to our province” isn’t in line with what the provincial government wants.”

“Alberta’s culture embodies personal responsibility,” the resolution states.

 Leader Danielle Smith speaks to party members at the United Conservative Party annual meeting in Red Deer, Alta., Nov. 2, 2024.

In perhaps a nod to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency in the United States, two constituency associations are calling on the government to establish an “Independent Reform Commission” to “reduce wasteful spending, eliminate excessive regulation and streamline government operations,” as, the resolution argues, reform “through normal political channels” has been unsuccessful.

Still others are fun, though perhaps a pipe dream. A proposed resolution from Lac Ste. Anne-Parkland suggests that Alberta should explore a merger with the Yukon and Northwest Territories, in order to get access to tidewater, in this case in the form of the Arctic Ocean, to move goods out of the province to international markets, in addition to changing the equalization formula for Alberta, and “Alberta would once again be a land of opportunity for business development and create jobs.”

“Constitutionally, this is achievable,” the resolution states. “Many in the north would want to be part of a province and shedding the Federal Vassal Status that currently exists.”

A prohibition on abortion is also unlikely. A call to allow for “clean coal” to fuel Alberta’s electricity grid is, even in fossil-fuel enthusiastic Alberta, unlikely, as the province just phased out coal power entirely in 2024. There’s a call for Alberta to establish a provincial senate of part-time, elected members to provide sober second thought; its unlikely many conservative Albertans see adding more politicians in Edmonton as a solution to any political problems.

In the end, only a few-dozen of the proposals will make it on the final list, but they normally nod at several of the different constituencies of the conservative party. In 2024, the party adopted a resolution that called on the government to “recognize the importance of carbon dioxide to life,” while also endorsing a resolution that wanted the government to make membership in the Alberta Teachers’ Association optional.

“We are a raucous family that has a lot of robust discussions,” said Smith last November.

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


Canadian energy prices have risen moderately, largely due to inflation and infrastructure upgrades.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As temperatures drop and golden leaves cover lawns throughout Canada and the northern United States, residents are starting to turn on the heat. Earlier this year, amid President Donald Trump’s trade war, it appeared that energy tariffs might be used as a weapon, potentially driving up electricity prices for U.S. and Canadian consumers alike.

Canadian energy prices have risen moderately, largely due to inflation and infrastructure upgrades. But with autumn in full swing and winter looming, Americans are being warned that electricity prices are set to soar, and not for the usual reasons like oil or natural gas spikes. Instead, a combination of factors — everything from weather and rising demand to climate change policies and tariffs — is contributing to the increases, and experts see no relief in sight.

Electricity rates in the U.S. are up 9.7 per cent since January and, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA) in Washington, D.C., home heating prices over the coming months are set to rise by 7.6 per cent compared to last year.

“That’s a lot,” said Mark Wolfe, executive director of NEADA. “We’re not used to rates going up like that,” he added, emphasizing that electricity prices tend to go up and rarely go down.

Some regions have been hit harder than others. In 10 states — Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota — plus the District of Columbia, for example, electric bills rose more than 15 per cent between July 2024 and July 2025, according to NEADA.

While the entire country is expected to feel the pinch this winter, the highest price increases, according to Gary Hufbauer, a non-resident senior fellow at the D.C.-based Peterson Institute for International Economics, will hit the Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

In New England, things are already tough. “We have the highest residential electricity rates in the nation, except for Alaska and Hawaii,” John Howat, senior energy analyst at the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center, explained. “Our electricity rates are 41 per cent higher than the national average.”

Electricity is the biggest driver of rising bills, while natural gas prices remain flat and propane and heating oil costs are expected to fall, Howat said. However, natural gas prices are known to fluctuate.

The average American family spends three or four per cent of their income on home energy, but that goes up to eight or nine per cent for low-income families. As a result, past-due balances are on the rise, and this comes at a time when assistance programmes are at risk as long as the U.S. government remains shut down.

“I can tell you, as a consumer advocate, that home energy expenditures – it’s sort of like the new price of eggs. People are really struggling,” Howat said.

So what’s causing the price surge? Many things, experts say, but one of the main drivers is electricity demand. “We’re seeing rising electric prices and rising demand,” said Wolfe.

The International Energy Agency has said U.S. electricity demand hit a new record in 2024 at about 2 per cent, and that rate of growth is expected to continue through 2027.

Beyond demand, which also demands upgrades, grid rebuilding and modernization efforts are putting upward pressure on costs.

“As far as I can tell, the electricity price increases are all ultimately climate-related,” said Howat, pointing to capital investment costs in states committed to climate change policies and costs for upgrading to ensure resiliency in states less committed to mitigating climate change.

“Utilities had neglected the reliability of the grid for a long time,” said Wolfe. “Now it’s catching up.”

In Massachusetts, for example, a lot of the price rise “is primarily to fund climate change activities,” said Michael Ferrante, president of the Massachusetts Energy Marketers Association. “We have a very expensive equipment upgrade programme called Mass Save … and consumers pay for that.”

Unsurprisingly, experts point fingers at AI data centres for causing much of the unexpected demand on the grid, and they note that debates continue over how much of the price burden these facilities should bear.

“Data centres are not paying their fair share of the costs, but states want to attract them — they’re economic development engines,” said Wolfe. “That’s the tension we’re hearing.”

Weather, of course, is also a top factor — the colder the winter, the higher the bills.

But trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada are also having an impact, albeit a less direct one.

“Hydroelectric tariffs are not helping matters,” said Howat, referring to the 10 per cent tariff on Canadian hydro. In New England, over five per cent of the resource need is met through Canadian hydro, and that can jump to over 10 per cent during peak winter periods. “With the tariffs, that can only put upward pressure on prices,” he added.

Tariffs on crude oil and natural gas are notably mitigated by compliance with CUSMA, but there are other tariffs having an impact on the U.S. electricity grid.

Imported energy equipment, including power plant components, steel, copper, and aluminum, faces high tariffs ranging from 25 to 50 per cent, and they are critical components for all the infrastructural upgrades and expansions.

“I don’t think (the tariffs have) had much effect yet,” said Hufbauer, “but they certainly will in time because it really boosted the price of these key ingredients of your electricity infrastructure.”

Overall, the picture for affordable U.S. energy is bleak.

“Electricity is becoming less and less affordable in the United States,” Wolfe warned. “We should view last year’s data as a wake-up call.”

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.


Miles of unused pipe, prepared for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, sit in a lot on October 14, 2014 outside Gascoyne, North Dakota.

OTTAWA — Federal Energy Minister Tim Hodgson says Canada is not focused on any one route when it comes to sending more energy into the United States, but stands ready to do “whatever we can” to help with a possible revival of the Keystone XL pipeline.

While trade talks with the U.S. have stalled over Trump’s apparent ire about anti-tariff ads run by Ontario, Prime Minister Mark Carney, during his most recent visit to Washington, raised the defunct pipeline during a meeting with the president as part of a strategy to secure relief from U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum.

Hodgson said the cross-border pipeline, which proposed carrying oil from Hardisty, Alta., to Nebraska, remains fully permitted on the Canadian side, should it run along the same route.

“The pipe is in the ground for a significant portion of that route. The Americans have to decide what they want to do on their side of the border,” the minister told National Post in a wide-ranging interview.

“We have said if it’s part of a bigger solution, we’re open to facilitating.”

Citing the negotiations, Hodgson declined to provide specifics on what steps Canada could take, including when it comes to putting taxpayer money towards it, only saying “there are always things that we can do to make it easier.”

“If we have a bigger solution, we will do whatever we can to help them with what they need.”

“We have indicated to the Americans, as part of a broader solution for the challenges, that we are open to sharing more of our energy with the Americans. We aren’t hung up on any one particular route,” adding that if the U.S. wants to talk about Keystone XL, Canada was open to the idea.

Other options Canada could explore when it comes to sending more energy south of the border include boosting electricity exports and uranium exports, the latter of which is used to power American nuclear reactors, with Canada serving as its biggest foreign supplier, according to Natural Resources Canada.

Critical minerals are also high on Trump’s list, with his administration recently taking equity stakes in two Canadian companies.

South Bow Corp., which owns the existing Keystone network, told The Canadian Press in a statement earlier this month that it would look for ways to “leverage our existing corridor” and was supportive of efforts to transport more Canadian crude oil.

Back in February, the operator initially said it had “moved on” from the Keystone XL pipeline, after Trump called in a Truth Social post for the project to be built “NOW.”

The long and troubled project, formally submitted back in 2008, has undergone two cancellations, first by former president Barack Obama, whose administration rejected it in 2015, and then again by former president Joe Biden, who revoked its permit on his first day in office in 2021, after Trump tried to revive it during his first term in office.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said on Monday she was encouraged that during Carney’s most recent trip to Washington, it appeared that trade talks included “an energy pipeline that would be a replacement for Keystone,” as part of an effort of Canada “leveraging” the U.S’s demand for energy to gain reprieve on 50 per cent steel and aluminum tariffs.

Asked if energy was indeed leverage, Hodgson struck a softer tone.

“The United States uses 20 million barrels of oil a day. They produce 12 (million),” he said. “I make an observation.”

Hodgson is set to meet later this week with U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright as part of a meeting of G7 energy and environment ministers, which Canada is set to host in Toronto.

The minister said the pair would continue to look for “shared interests” when it comes to the issue of energy security and suggested his upcoming discussions were separate from the issue of the terminated trade talks between Canada and the U.S.

Carney is currently in Asia and has said Canada remains ready to resume negotiations, adding both countries were close to reaching one when Trump pulled the plug.

“I believe energy security is part of a bigger conversation,” Hodgson said.

“I think we have all learned working with the current administration is never a straight line. It’s sort of their negotiating style, and I’m confident we’ll get there.”

The minister defended Canada’s offer of sending more energy to the U.S. after a year of widespread concern from political and business leaders about an over-reliance on the U.S. by saying it was combined with efforts to diversify Canada’s markets.

“We can grow our relationship with the U.S. No one’s suggesting we don’t want to have a relationship with the U.S. We want it on a fair basis,” Hodgson said.

Critical minerals were set to be a main topic of discussion at the G7 energy ministers meeting, building on the Critical Minerals Production Alliance that Carney introduced as the G7 leaders’ summit earlier this year, to strengthen countries’ critical minerals supply chains.

Hodgson said he expects to make “a number of announcements” that show Canada intends to be a leader of the effort.

With files from The Canadian Press

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.