LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Rob Ashton in Toronto on Oct. 1, 2025.

NDP leadership candidate Rob Ashton apologized Tuesday for using AI to respond to constituents on social media platform Reddit, saying it was due to an “overwhelming number of questions.”

Ashton

announced on X

 that he would be answering questions with his campaign team about his “vision for the NDP, building the movement,” and why he’s running on Reddit, in what is referred as an “Ask Me Anything” or AMA, on Jan. 11.

In a post on the NDP’s Reddit page

, Ashton received questions about climate change, his French-language skills, fossil fuels and employment, among other topics. He appeared to respond via his Reddit account under the username Rob-Ashton-NDP.

However, the next day, a Reddit user pointed out that some of the responses “were clearly written by AI.”

“As someone whose job opportunities have been effected by AI directly, this is honestly really disappointing, especially from a candidate who has been vocally opposed to AI,” the user wrote.

Ashton

wrote an apology

in response to that post.

“The AMA got an overwhelming number of questions, which warmed my heart,” he said, adding that it was a “privilege to be able to hear from members on such important questions.”

He said he was “on the road” and didn’t want people to “wait too long for an answer.” He asked his team and volunteers to draft answers for him to review.

“And it looks like some answers were posted without me reviewing and approving. Some of those answers were written with the help of AI tools and I’m deeply sorry about that.”

He added: “A key part of leadership is accountability, and I want to reassure everyone that this won’t happen again. I will delete and answer those questions in the next few days.”

During the AMA, Ashton touched upon his AI policy when a Reddit user asked how he would “fight against” the “increasing prevalence of AI in our society.”

Ashton said that “AI is being used to replace workers, exploit artists and creators, spread misinformation, and undermine democracy — all in the interest of corporate profit. That’s not acceptable.”

He said there’s a need for “strong regulation” and accountability.

Ashton is a longshore worker and the president of International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada.

He is facing off against Heather McPherson, Tony McQuail, Avi Lewis and Tanille Johnston in the NDP leadership race.

In a separate AMA by McQuail on Monday,

a user asked him the same question

about AI that Ashton was asked about. The user mentioned in the post to McQuail that Ashton’s responses, to that question and others, were “generated by AI.”

The user asked McQuail how he felt about “AI being used by politicians for interviews and other interactions with the public.”

“As far as I know, our campaign does not make any use of AI, nor would using it be considered an acceptable thing to do on Team Tony,” said McQuail. “It is Tony McQuail, a human being, who is typing the answers to these questions, which are then edited by my campaign manager, Keith, who is also human.”

He said he goes directly to documents when he does Google searches, not to the AI summary. “We also have someone to take notes at our Team Tony meetings,” he said. “We are a frugal, people-powered, grassroots campaign of human volunteers.”

A spokesperson for Lewis’s campaign told CBC News in an email that staff “are ultimately responsible for producing all our written content.” The spokesperson added that next week his team will be releasing a policy plan on jobs and AI.

Meanwhile, Johnston posted about her stance on AI in

a news release in November

. She is pushing for strong health and environmental rules for AI data centres. She said tech giants, especially ones in the U.S., should be taxed on the “the profits they make off of Canada and Canadians,” and that the money should be reinvested into “our people, workers, and climate protection.”

She added that AI should assist workers, not replace them. “That means working with unions to minimize job loss while ensuring we keep up with the times,” she said.

In August, McPherson

posted on social media

to say that AI could “empower Indigenous communities.”

“Meaningful inclusion, data sovereignty, and culturally grounded innovation are key to ensuring success,” she said.

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.


***ONLY FOR USE WITH THE longread book excerpt by Lisa Banfield*** Lisa Banfield and Gabriel Wortman attend a family wedding in 2019. Photo supplied by Sutherland House Books

In her forthcoming memoir The First Survivor: Life with Canada’s Deadliest Mass Shooter — set for release with Sutherland House Books on Jan. 20, 2026 — Lisa Banfield recounts her life with denturist Gabriel Wortman. On the eve of what would have been their 19th anniversary, Banfield was the first person attacked during the rampage in Nova Scotia that would leave 22 innocent people dead. In this exclusive excerpt, she describes the hours of escalating violence on the evening of April 18, 2020, as she was beaten, restrained and forced to flee into the woods, surviving the night — unaware her partner was about to carry out a slaughter that still reverberates today.

* * *

Saturday evening, April 18, 2020

I don’t know how long I was in bed when I heard him return from the warehouse. I heard a weird whooshing sound. What was he doing?

I pretended to be asleep when Gabriel opened my door. If I ignored him, maybe he would just leave me alone. But he didn’t. He stood over my bed and began screaming at me: “Get up!” He ripped off the blanket, exposing my naked body. I was alarmed, but tried once again to redirect him as I pulled the covers back up and told him to go to bed.

This time he persisted and kept yelling at me to get up. He was in a mood and wanted to fight. This was not going to be good. Without warning, he took my laptop from my bed stand and smashed it on the floor.

“Gabriel, what are you doing?” I screamed.

Furious I hadn’t moved as he commanded, he grabbed my cellphone and did the same thing, but this time crushed it under the weight of his boot.

Something within him snapped.

He yanked the blankets off me and grabbed me by the hair, forcing me to the floor. He got on top of me and started choking me.

My instincts took over and I tried to stay calm, “Gabriel, it’s OK. I’m sorry.”

“Get up,” he ordered me, “I’m done.”

I kept trying to talk him down. “Gabriel, what’s wrong? What’s happening?”

He wasn’t having any of it.

“Oh, you stubborn bitch. You got a little Beulah and Gilly in you.”

He pulled me up by my hair. I tried cradling my head to ease the excruciating tension on my scalp.

As I stood up, he kicked me in the stomach, sending me backward onto the corner post of my bed. The solid log post of the Amish pine frame offered no flex as I felt and heard my lower back crack.

I dropped to the floor, wincing in pain. I lost my breath. Stunned, I froze. I wanted the beating to stop.

“Get up,” he barked at me.

I tried, but it was so painful. Before he could hit me again, I found my inner strength and used the bedpost to get up as he demanded.

Still naked, I braced myself before he’d hit me again.

“Get dressed,” he yelled. He opened my closet door.

I grabbed whatever I could get on quickly, a pair of tights and a thin black top.

“Let me get my purse? I need my purse.”

“You don’t need your purse,” he yelled, grabbing me by the right wrist. He tied something around it. I think it was from a bathrobe belt in my closet. I’m not sure, but it was a soft material. I couldn’t think clearly or process what was happening.

“Let’s not forget my gun. I need my gun,” he said in a calm, matter-of-fact way.

He dragged me around the house. We went through the kitchen to his bedroom. “Be careful. It’s slippery,” I heard him say.

Are you kidding me? I thought. You just beat the shit out of me and now you’re worried I might slip?

He walked past the open safe that contained $60,000, without taking any of it. He was in his own zone as he entered his bedroom.

He grabbed his black handgun tucked in a nook of the adjoining sunroom. We walked down to the landing by the front door, where he picked up a jerry can of gas and threw it into our sunken living room.

I put my bare feet into sneakers when, in a calm, eerie robot state, he said, “Turn around.”

And as I did, flames erupted. It was surreal.

I knew he had lost his mind. Gabriel would never damage the home he took so much pride in creating. I had to get free; I had to run.

Still tethered by the robe belt or whatever it was, we moved from our deck to the driveway. He doused our white decommissioned car with gasoline but didn’t light it.

Instead of screaming at him, I tried to stay calm and offered him a way out. “Gabriel, it’s OK,” I said soothingly, even though it was anything but OK. “Gabriel, I’ll tell them I accidentally started the fire. I will take the blame. It will be OK. Please, please Gabriel, don’t do this.”

“It is too late; you will never look at me the same way,” he said.

He pulled me to the road as the flames engulfed our home. I dug my heels into the gravel, trying to slow his pace.

“Gabriel, please don’t do this. We can get through this,” I pleaded.

“It’s too late, Lisa. You told me if I ever hit you again, you’d leave. I’m done.”

I dropped to the ground and tried to kick him away. He ripped my sneakers off, then threw them in opposite directions on the road. “You can’t run now, you little bitch.”

I didn’t know how to stop him; he’d gone too far. I needed help.

“At the end of the night, I’m gonna die,” he said coldly. “You won’t die, as long as you don’t run away from me.”

His eyes darkened. Stark and distant, I didn’t see Gabriel anymore.

It was like there was no light in them. Forcing me to my bare feet, he dragged me across the road to the entrance of the woods. I cried out in pain.

On the path back to our warehouse, adrenaline kicked in. I thought if I could just get out of my unzipped coat and run, I could escape.

He wanted me to go in front of him. I knew this path as well as him, but in the dark I struggled to get my bearings.

I reacted instinctively, shifting my shoulder, I got out of my coat and fled. I couldn’t see anything; I tripped over some kind of root. I tried to hide, but he had a flashlight so he found me instantly and grabbed me.

My stomach churned as he confirmed my worst nightmare. He’s going to kill my family. My back throbbed. He ignored my moans as he thrust me forward. I didn’t cry. I stayed silent so as not to anger him further.

As soon as we came to the driveway, he released me. “Don’t move.”

His eyes said it all.

I watched in horror. He poured gasoline on all our cars, the white Ford F-150, and his backhoe. He calmly unlocked all the dead bolts and opened the warehouse doors.

Once we were inside, he grabbed a set of handcuffs from behind the bar. “Give me your hands.”

“Gabriel, you don’t have to do this, please,” I begged.

He cuffed my left wrist. “Give me your other wrist.”

He was on a mission and couldn’t be stopped. “We’re going to burn down the Dartmouth clinic and then we’re going to Maureen’s.”

Dear God. If he’s going to kill my family, just kill me, now. I dropped to my knees and covered my face with my hands. A shot rang in my ears.

I never heard a gunshot up close. It ricocheted off the cement to the right of me.

“Give me your other hand,” he demanded.

“Gabriel, please, don’t,” I said hysterically.

“I’m not going to tell you again. Give me your other hand.”

Another blast hit the floor on the left side of me. Terrified that my head would be his next target, my entire body numbed. I lost hope.

Perhaps exasperated by my refusal to move, Gabriel grabbed my arm and pushed me into the backseat of the replica police cruiser, slamming the car door as he walked away.

He tossed guns onto the front-seat passenger side. I panicked. I’m trapped.

At least I had use of my hands, but I needed these cuffs off. I struggled to free my left wrist without success. There were no door handles in the back seat, so I kicked at the partition to the front seat. I kept kicking with my bare feet while he was out of sight. The Plexiglas didn’t break or crack. I thought, If I am to survive, I will need to use my hands and get this cuff off. I felt confined and restrained. Desperate, I kept clawing to get the handcuffs off my left wrist. My skin was breaking beneath the metal of the cuff. I have to escape.

I stopped moving when I saw him come in from outside. He didn’t even look at me as he went upstairs to the loft apartment. Almost trancelike, my body stilled. I retreated to the innermost safety of prayer: God, act as a shield against any harm to myself and my family; Thank You, Father, that You have me in the palm of Your hands; God thank You that no weapon formed against myself or my family will prosper. Give me strength to get out of this car; God, please help me.

I repeated this mantra over and over in my mind, then audibly to my own ears.

Miraculously, I finally ripped free of the cuffs. My left wrist bled from the fresh claw marks. I still have the scars as a lifelong reminder of my terror and survival.

Fight or flight. I did both.

I reached around the window divider on the passenger side, but the Plexiglas didn’t budge. I tried the other side, and suddenly it gave way.

By the grace of God, there was just enough of an opening for me to get through. I crawled in the front seat and opened the driver’s side door. I ran for my life.

Knowing he was still up in the loft, I bolted straight for the woods to the right. There were no windows on that side so Gabriel wouldn’t see me. I managed to get through our property line to where I saw a truck on a neighbour’s property. I didn’t want to involve anyone, so I went to the truck there. I checked the back door, and it was unlocked.

I jumped in and quickly looked around for something warm to wear. The dome light came on and I freaked out that he’d see me. But within seconds, the light dimmed. I was freezing. As I reached around I felt nothing but tools. I saw a neon vest, but I definitely didn’t want that.

My heartbeat was racing beyond my breath. I couldn’t stay here. If he lit fire to all our vehicles, what if he did the same thing to this one?

I jumped out and dashed for the woods. The spindly trees whipped about my face and head as I tried to move deeper into the forest. I was terrified that every branch cracking beneath my weight would give me away. I crawled on my hands and knees in order to get through them.

The tie on my wrist trailed behind me and kept catching on twigs and branches. I pulled it off.

With no light but the moon, I kept moving in my bare feet, wincing in pain. Explosions like firecrackers filled the night air. My ears were hypersensitive to every unfamiliar sound. I dragged my body for what seemed like forever. I finally came upon a fallen tree trunk with big roots. Thank you, God. I crouched like an animal in its hollowed opening.

I thought nothing of the dirt and leaves that must have been crawling with bugs. With great relief, I molded the cavity with my body as tightly as I could. The cold began biting at me. My body throbbed all over until numbness set in. Finally, feeling somewhat safe, I wept as I stared into the darkness.

I lost track of time. I stretched my black yoga pants over my frigid feet, tying a knot to cover them. I was afraid of frostbite. I could see my breath, so I tried to breathe beneath my thin top so its vapours couldn’t be seen. The sounds baffled me. The bangs echoed loudly as if in a war zone out there. I kept wondering, Where are the fire trucks? Where are the police? The ambulances? Doesn’t anyone see what is happening?

Through the woods, I saw another house on fire in the distance. Flames shot up high into the sky. Suddenly I heard two guys freaking out. Maybe they could help me? I didn’t want to yell out in case Gabriel could hear me. I thought if I could get to them, I’d be safe. I felt around and picked up a stick to help prop myself up. I stepped forward using my makeshift cane, but it snapped beneath my weight. I fell to the ground. Then I heard whistling. Oh my God. Is that Gabriel? Was he taunting me?

“Hey boys.” It sounded like Gabriel’s voice.

Two shots rang out, startling me, followed by dead silence. It was him; I knew it was. Alarmed at how close Gabriel was to me, I crawled as fast as I could back into the hollow of the fallen tree. The woods fell silent again. As I peered out, I saw what seemed to be a shadow of a man holding a rifle. I couldn’t tell if I was hallucinating or not. I froze with fear, praying to God again and again.

After some time, an opening through the trees revealed a black, tank-like truck with bright lights racing up and down the dirt road. I remained hidden. I heard another voice through a megaphone: I strained to hear if it was the Colchester Police, but they didn’t repeat it. I thought maybe it was the police or, could it be Gabriel? He owned one of those microphones. Mentally exhausted, I thought he could be taunting me. I couldn’t be sure. I decided to stay put until morning when I could see.

During the night I could see stars in the sky, and nocturnal sounds filled the woods. Had I survived being killed by my partner only to be eaten by a bear? I felt around for something to protect me. There was a rock — at least it was something and it seemed to calm my paranoia. All night I continued to pray for my family, who I would learn had experienced their own nightmare — along with our unsuspecting neighbours.

6:28 a.m. Orchard Beach Drive, Portapique

At sunrise, I thanked God that I made it through the night. I started moving on my hands and knees from my burrow, but stopped suddenly.

What if he’s still out there? I turned back and laid there in silence for what seemed like a half hour or more trying to decide what to do. I can’t stay here all day; I need to get help. I convinced myself to try.

My cold, bare feet didn’t even feel the pain from the uneven gravel. My body mindlessly moved toward safety. I prayed, God, guide me out of here.

When I reached the ditch that bordered the woods, I saw Leon Joudrey’s grey house. I didn’t know him well, but he had done a few jobs for Gabriel. His dog barked as I approached, and he let me in.

I desperately scanned the room and bolted for the bathroom, thinking Gabriel is going to find me. I asked him to call 911. I was trembling when he handed me his cellphone, but I dropped it. Leon picked it up as my hands were shaking. “Hello,” I could barely speak.

“Hi Lisa, we’re going to help you OK, stay on the phone with me.

“You’re not injured, are you?”

“I’m in pain now. My back.”

“We’re going to get you some help and then we’re going to get you some medical attention.”

Through the windows we could see uniformed SWAT teams coming up the driveway. Just hours earlier, RCMP investigators had assumed I was dead, burnt in the fire that destroyed our home.

Leon’s dog barked again when an armoured truck let out a small army of police, who created a perimeter of protection in the yard.

I still feared Gabriel would suddenly appear and shoot me. They took me to the end of Portapique Beach Road, then immediately transferred me into an awaiting black SUV. The RCMP had set up a coordination checkpoint near the Great Village Fire Hall. A member of the Emergency Medical Response Team did a quick examination and found me “moderately hypothermic,” as my body wasn’t circulating heat and my lips had a hue of blue.

Constable Ben MacLeod would write in his notes that I was “fearful for my life” and in “a state of terror,” with a distraught, disheveled appearance. He noted that he had only seen one other person in his career who was petrified to the same extent: a woman who had been kidnapped and held captive for three days.

I had trouble walking because my lower back throbbed in ceaseless pain. They transferred me to an ambulance for initial treatment. The female attendee was immediately comforting and showed me such compassion. I had a momentary feeling of safety.

RCMP officers drove me to a checkpoint they’d set up in Great Village. They were asking questions but my thoughts were spinning, acutely aware that Gabriel was still out there. Upon arriving, I was immediately placed into an awaiting ambulance where the paramedics covered me with blankets and pumped painkillers into me. Constable Terry Brown and Constable Dave Melanson asked me questions.

I warned them about the white decommissioned police car Gabriel owned. I could tell they thought it was just a normal ghost car, so I emphatically repeated, “No, it looks exactly like your police car … with stickers. It looks identical … the lights on the top.”

I told them about the guns he took with him in the front seat and how he handcuffed me. Then I told them about hiding in the woods.

They wanted a description. The last time I saw Gabriel he was clean-shaven, wearing black jeans.

I asked if my family was safe because Gabriel said he was going to Dartmouth to burn the clinic and then go to (my sister) Maureen’s.

Shortly before 8 a.m., I arrived at the Colchester East Hants Hospital in Truro and was examined again. My medical record noted I had tenderness in my lower right flank; superficial scratches and abrasions on my hands, feet, and legs; and bruising on my upper back and left wrist and hand. X-rays revealed fractures in my ribs and lumbar spine.

Neither hospital staff nor RCMP took pictures of my injuries. An officer was posted outside my room for protection.

No one told me innocent people had been murdered overnight.

According to records, within hours of being admitted another constable asked me questions about the previous night.

I still feared for my family’s safety. Gabriel was still out there. I would soon learn that my sisters and brothers had already been drawn into the RCMP investigation.

The police gathered them in the station with supervising officers in a glassed-in conference room. The police still hadn’t apprehended Gabriel and had no idea where he could be hiding out. They separated my family members for individual interviews in rooms wired for sound and video. Without exception, my family told them as many details as they could about Gabriel.

Maureen gave the RCMP pictures that Sunday in the early hours — images that were later used in news conferences, including the BOLO (Be On the Look Out) picture of Gabriel Wortman (with my image edited out), his replica car with the fleet number, and pictures of other vehicles he owned.

Maureen also told the police about the large amount of money Gabriel had recently withdrawn and worried that may be part of what was unfolding — could it be a robbery gone bad? Hells Angels?

She helped them realize how many police cars Gabriel had collected, and that he owned an RCMP uniform. Janice (another sister) recounted how I’d sent her the anniversary photo at 6 p.m. the night before, as she described Gabriel as a narcissist. She shared that her biggest fear was that Gabriel would kill me and then himself.

My family told the RCMP anything and everything they could remember to help them find Gabriel. They shared their own impressions and stories of Gabriel’s psychotic behaviour, especially with me, his obsessive buying habits, and his fascination with guns. All of it was recorded as each freely provided their statements without regard for their own legal jeopardy.

Both my brother and brother-in-law independently told officers details about their relationship with Gabriel. They knew about his gun collection and how he’d use the mud flats of the basin for target practice. They shared that I had asked them to purchase some bullets from Canadian Tire for Gabriel because they were hunters. I wish I never asked my family to get them.

I survived

Unfortunately, because of COVID restrictions, I could have only one family member stay with me that Sunday evening. Maureen arrived at my hospital bed 12 hours after my rescue. She never left my side. I told her everything. We cried as relief washed over us.

Given my traumatized and medicated state, Maureen asked the hospital staff once again if Janice could come help. Under these extraordinary circumstances, they agreed. They brought in a cot so they could take turns looking after me. My “trauma brain” struggled to remember sequential details of what happened. I hardly slept, as my thoughts were consumed by so many unanswered questions.

What had Gabriel done? Why? Did he plan this? Where was he?

Main image: Lisa Banfield with Gabriel Wortman, attending a family wedding in 2019. Photo courtesy Sutherland House Books


Canada's Foreign Minister Anita Anand speaks during a G7 Session on Ukraine and Defense Cooperation during the G7 Foreign Ministers Meeting at the White Oaks Resort in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Canada on November 12, 2025.

BEIJING — Within hours of landing in Beijing with Prime Minister Mark Carney, Foreign Minister Anita Anand appeared to be stepping back from the Liberal government’s 2024 assessment that China is an “increasingly disruptive” global force.

Anand was repeatedly pressed by reporters Wednesday evening in Beijing to know if the Liberal government stood behind its stern assessment of China in

its 2024 Indo-Pacific strategy

.

Every time, she refused to say if she agreed that China is a disruptive global force, though she eventually countered that Carney’s election brought in a new government with a “new foreign policy.”

“In this moment of economic stress for our country, it is necessary for us to diversify our trading partners and to grow non-U.S. trade by at least 50 per cent in the next 10 years,” she noted, adding that the issue is “complex.”

Her comments appear to suggest the Carney government is backing away from the stern assessment of China in the Indo-Pacific strategy published under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

They come as Carney and a small group on ministers arrive in Beijing for a first official visit with President Xi Jinping since 2017.

Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy describes China as “an increasingly disruptive global power” that “increasingly disregards” international rules and norms.

“China is looking to shape the international order into a more permissive environment for interests and values that increasingly depart from ours,” reads the document.

The strategy also said that China offers significant opportunity for Canadian exporters and that cooperation with the world’s second biggest economy is necessary on a number of “existential” issues like climate change, global health and nuclear proliferation.

The minister’s tiptoeing around the stern language in her own government’s Indo-Pacific strategy shows just how starkly the federal government’s relations with China have changed since Carney’s election and the trade war with the U.S.

It wouldn’t be surprising to see the Carney government redefine its public views on China in the coming months as Canada considers the Asian superpower as a key non-U.S. export market.

Carney received a warm welcome from the Chinese upon his arrival Wednesday evening. He was greeted by both countries’ respective ambassadors as well as Chinese Minister Sun Meijun.

After saluting the envoys, Carney was given a bouquet of flowers by 11 year old Lu You Ci before departing in a motorcade that drove him to central Beijing.

Canadian and Chinese flags adorned flagpoles along the highway exiting Beijing Capital International Airport.

Anand told reporters Wednesday the government has been working for months to remove trade irritants with China, namely crippling tariffs on Canadian canola exports.

On the flip side, China is certainly going to ask Canada for concessions on 100 per cent tariffs on electric vehicle imports to protect Canadian automobile manufacturing.

“The conversation has been productive, the negotiations are still continuing,” she said.

“We are here to represent all sector of the Canadian economy,” she added.

On Thursday, Carney is expected to meet Zhao Leji,

Chairman of the Standing Committee of the
National People’s Congress, followed by a meeting and a dinner with Chinese Premier Li Qiang.

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

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


Let’s Do Something founder Baruch Apisdorf at Columbia University campus in New York on Oct. 6, 2025. The group will launch its first Canadian campus initiative at McGill University in Montreal in January.

Dawn had not yet broken in Jerusalem on October 7, 2023, when Baruch Apisdorf received a text message from his best friend. David Newman, 25, had borrowed Apisdorf’s car to go to a music festival in southern Israel.

Newman’s text was urgent: he was hiding in a dumpster, from Hamas terrorists.

“Pray for me and pray for your car,” Newman wrote, making a wry joke in the worst of circumstances: He was caught up in Hamas’s attack on the Nova festival, where terrorists killed 378 people, all but a few dozen civilians, and kidnapped 44 more.

Apisdorf and his friends would identify Newman’s body in a photo of a Nova field strewn with corpses a day after the massacre.

“A friend reached out for help and I wasn’t able to help him,” says Apisdorf. That helplessness became the emotional engine of a grassroots initiative he launched with four twenty-something friends, hours after learning Newman had been murdered.

Let’s Do Something grew to become a non-profit rooted in three pillars: defence, healing and advocacy. This month, it launches its first Canadian campus initiative at McGill University in Montreal.

Within days, that late-night group chat evolved into a logistics operation that would send 10 planes of aid from New York to Israel. The first plane came together almost by accident. Friends serving in the IDF reserves needed basics like sleeping bags, so the group emptied their own closets.

Word spread. A friend’s mother in New York agreed to let her home become a makeshift drop-off centre. Within hours, Apisdorf said, 300 cars lined her block. An El Al executive gave them space on a cargo flight, and soon after 20,000 pounds of gear lifted off for Israel.

Let’s Do Something evolved quickly. It now reports mobilizing thousands of young Jews across Israel and the diaspora, most notably via a social-media-driven advocacy operation targeting Gen Z and younger millennials.

In Israel, the group has helped source gear and technology for soldiers and civilians, and is building what it calls a “defence-tech lab” in Tel Aviv to accelerate startups working on new security tools, part of what Apisdorf described as a broader Western struggle against an Iran-Russia-China axis.

“The drones that Iran sent at Israel are the same drones they’re selling to Russia,” he told the National Post.

Let’s Do Something has also opened a fully subsidized PTSD and trauma centre in Thailand aimed at Nova survivors, and others grappling with the psychological fallout of October 7 and the Gaza war. “There are a lot of people that need help and support in many different ways,” Apisdorf said. “You can’t ask people to be advocates for anything if they’re still trying to survive their own brains.”

But it is the advocacy arm – “first ever proudly pro-Semitic movement by the youth, for the youth,” as the organization’s website puts it – that has propelled Let’s Do Something far beyond Israel and the Jewish world. Across Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, the group boasts it has engaged more than 100 million people with its campaigns, many of them built around emotionally driven, documentary-style vignettes about young Israelis, campus conversations and what it means to be openly Jewish after October 7.

Apisdorf’s frustration is directed less at anti-Israel activists, than at the institutions that were supposed to answer them. He recalled going online on Oct. 9, just two days after the massacre, and seeing, “for the first time in history, people condemning the victims of a terror attack instead of the perpetrators.” Yet many mainstream pro-Israel responses, he said, seemed to be talking to “a 40-plus generation” and completely missing his peers.

Let’s Do Something’s answer has been to go where those audiences are, and to meet them in a visual language they recognize.

 David Newman, left, and Baruch Apisdorf in 2022. Let’s Do Something, a non-profit born after the October 7, 2023 attacks in Israel was founded by Apisdorf in memory of his slain friend.

That includes collaborations with major creators like American singer and influencer Montana Tucker, whose platforms reach more than 10 million followers. In one recent undercover campus video shot at UCLA, Tucker and Let’s Do Something on Campus contrasted student reactions to civilians killed by Hamas, with their responses when the perpetrators’ identities were switched, a piece of social experimentation meant, Apisdorf said, to expose “moral inconsistencies and misinformation” about the conflict. Other content features Israeli influencer “Sahar,” and Nova survivors, and Israeli Arab Yosef Hadad, using first-person stories rather than talking points, to explain why October 7 was not an abstract geopolitical event, but a generational trauma.

The group’s most distinctive work happens in the spaces that feed online culture: North American university campuses. Almost a year ago, Apisdorf and his team set out on a U.S. university tour, partly to tell their story, but mostly to listen. They found campuses where pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian activists, and left- and right-wing students more broadly, were “locked into their camps and just never even talking to one another,” even while admitting that dialogue was important.

Borrowing the energy – if not the combative staging – of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s campus events, Let’s Do Something began designing what amounts to a pop-up dialogue studio. Students with opposing views sit side-by-side, shake hands, are offered coffee and asked their names and a few basic questions before getting to politics. The goal is to humanize before polarizing. “Just by establishing these human things that we all have and share on the front end, you reduce the risk of any sort of conversation degrading into assault and attacks,” Apisdorf told the Post.

Those conversations are filmed, edited and distributed widely on social media. The videos, he argues, show that cross conversations are still possible, and model how to have them. “People know it’s missing,” he said of meaningful dialogue. “People know it’s important, but they’re scared and don’t know how to actually engage in that.”

Apisdorf has Canadian family, and in mid-January, Let’s Do Something will be at McGill University in Montreal. The visit will have two main components: a full-day campus production built around the group’s side-by-side dialogue format, and the introduction of a McGill student the organization has identified as its first Canadian “voice” to be developed into an influencer.

Let’s Do Something seeks to identify articulate young people with a story and a point of view, then help them build a platform that can eventually reach national audiences.

 Let’s Do Something events, such as this one in New York, are about meaningful dialogue rather than confrontation.

Apisdorf is careful not to frame this as training “pro-Israel influencers” in the narrow sense. “I think those points fall in line with a larger general narrative,” one that embraces liberal democracy, Western values, free speech and open societies.

In practice, that means looking for students – Jewish and otherwise – who can defend those values in a nuanced way, not just generate viral outrage. “Right now, a lot of the people that are built up to have national audiences are people with extreme viewpoints, because frankly, that’s what’s going to go viral,” he said. “I don’t believe that’s the only way to do it.”

The group will sometimes partner with Jewish or debate clubs, but Apisdorf is a bit wary of the usual channels. Those pipelines, he argued, tend to reach the 20 per cent of students who already identify as strongly pro-Israel, or the 30 to 40 per cent firmly in the anti-Israel camp. The real target, in his view, is everyone else: “normal, regular students” focused on their studies, whose opinions are still malleable, and whose feeds are nonetheless filled with content about Israel, Gaza and antisemitism.

For Apisdorf, who grew up in Baltimore and lives in Tel Aviv, the work is as much about safeguarding free societies as it is about Israel. In his telling, what started with a murdered friend at a desert rave, has turned into a generational test: of whether liberal democracies can still defend their own values to their own children.

“Don’t go through your life with blinders on, you know,” he concluded.

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.


Maximum security Millhaven Institution in Kingston, Ont.

A transgender woman convicted of first-degree murder in the killing of a 13-year-old Edmonton girl who was lured to a golf course, sexually assaulted, strangled, stabbed, then bludgeoned to death with a hammer, has lost her bid to stay in a women’s prison.

Michelle Autumn, who identified as Michael Williams at the time of the killing, challenged her involuntary transfer from Grand Valley Institution for Women (GVIW) to Millhaven Institution, a male institution, in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice.

“Regardless of whether the decision to involuntarily transfer (Autumn) from GVIW to Milhaven constituted a deprivation of the applicant’s residual liberty, I find it to have been reasonable and therefore lawful,” Justice Kristin Muszynski wrote in a recent decision.

“The application is dismissed.”

Autumn was opposed by the Attorney General of Canada Sean Fraser and the wardens of both prisons, the judge wrote in her decision, dated Jan. 6.

Autumn, now 37, started serving her life sentence in 2007 for her role in the rape and killing of Nina Courtepatte in April 2005. Autumn was 17 at the time of the murder.

Judge Janet Franklin said

at sentencing that the crime was so “horrendous and evil” that she had no choice but to sentence Autumn as an adult. She is one of five people convicted in the teen’s death.

 Michael Williams, who now identifies as a woman named Michelle Autumn, was 17 when he raped and murdered Nina Courtepatte (pictured) at an Edmonton-area golf course with several others.

Autumn “has served the vast majority of her sentence to date in male institutions with a maximum-security classification,” Muszynski said.

“Over the years, (she) has been transferred between institutions on a number of occasions, usually due to (Autumn’s) extremely problematic behaviour which Correctional Service Canada (CSC) reports has been difficult to manage in any population.”

Autumn “was diagnosed with gender dysphoria” in 2014, said the judge. “She served approximately six months in a women’s institution in late 2017 before formally requesting to be transferred back to a male institution.”

In the fall of 2024, Autumn “was incarcerated at Millhaven in the Voluntary Limited Access Range,” which “houses inmates who do not want to integrate into mainstream populations but are still considered to be subject to similar conditions of confinement to inmates in the general population,” Muszynski said.

No matter where she is held, “gender-based accommodations are in place for (Autumn), including that non-emergency medical escorts, frisks, strip searches, and security camera monitoring be carried out by women staff members,” said the judge, noting Autumn “has a private toilet in her cell and access to a private shower every day.”

Her voluntary transfer from Millihaven to the women’s prison, GVIW, was approved on Nov. 25, 2024.

At a case conference before the move, “GVIW staff emphasized to (Autumn) that since GVIW is a small site, (she) would have to work to get along with everyone in her assigned pod or it may not be possible to accommodate her at GVIW.”

She was transferred to the women’s prison on March 6, 2025, where she lived in one of three pods that can house nine inmates each, said the decision, which notes Autumn “was subject to the most restrictive level of supervision in a women’s institution.”

She “consented to a routine strip search” upon arrival at the women’s prison. “Staff reported that (Autumn’s) behaviour was highly inappropriate, including playing with her penis and buttocks in a sexually suggestive manner.”

When another inmate in Autumn’s pod “expressed that she was uncomfortable” with the trans prisoner’s presence, prison staffers “were able to manage the concerns of this other inmate, but (Autumn’s) response was to threaten to assault or kill the other inmate if confronted again.”

Autumn “was placed alone in the double occupancy cell” in a different pod, said the decision.

When prison staffers planned to move her again on March 10, 2025, Autumn “was reported as being verbally resistant to the move,” said the judge.

“She barricaded herself into a shared common room with a broken television remote control that (Autumn) appeared to be attempting to use as a weapon. This incident lasted approximately eight hours.”

Guards at the women’s prison “could not de-escalate” Autumn, Muszynski said.

Autumn “covered all security cameras in the common room. She threatened self-harm and violence against other inmates and CSC staff. Every attempt to speak with (her), even to offer her food, was met with verbal assaults,” said the judge.

“The incident finally resolved when the Institutional Emergency Response Team deployed a chemical irritant grenade into the common room and then restrained and extracted” Autumn.

 The Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont.

She “justifies her reaction by alleging that she was fearful of being exposed to transphobia if she was moved to another pod,” Muszynski said.

Several GVIW staffers said that, during this incident, Autumn “stated that she was a man and wanted to return to Millhaven. One staff member reports having provided her with transfer forms.”

Autumn “denies that she expressed identifying as a man and denies having requested to return to Millhaven,” said the judge.

Autumn “was transferred back to Millhaven on an emergency, involuntary basis. During the three-hour drive to Millhaven, (she) was reported as being highly agitated, refusing to sit down, screaming verbal abuse at staff and urinating in the vehicle.”

An assessment of the decision to transfer Autumn noted she “demonstrated a pattern of threatening staff to manipulate the outcome of a situation,” said the judge.

“It is further noted that (Autumn) attributes most of her ‘behavioural problems and conflict as the result of gender identity or policies not being adhered to’ which made managing (her) difficult to manage in any population.”

Autumn’s recent psychological risk assessment states “that risk factors for future violence are high and the ongoing behavioural issues in the institution support this assessment.”

Autumn has an Indigenous background, said the judge. “It is recommended that she re-engage with Indigenous Services to begin a healing journey to assist in reducing risk factors.”

She needs “a highly structured environment in which individual or group interaction is subject to constant and direct supervision,” said the assessment. “Returning to Millhaven Institution, a maximum-security men’s institution, will allow for close observation of Autumn’s behaviour and provide the CSC the opportunity to monitor their conduct and motivation.”

Her “demonstrated negative behaviours towards themselves and staff, proved to be of great concern when attempting to have them integrate to the more open environment of a women’s institution,” said the assessment. “An Emergency Intra-regional transfer is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the institution. Autumn has been returned to an environment to which they are familiar with the resources and interventions, including access to culturally based services for support.”

Autumn argued that she “was not given enough time to integrate into GVIW before the emergency transfer back to Millhaven.”

She also said “GVIW was transphobic and did not support her placement within the institution.”

Her transfer back to Millhaven got final approval on April 14, 2025.

The approval noted the difficulty of reconciling Autumn’s “denial of reporting she was a male and wanting to be transferred back to a male institution when numerous CSC staff reported hearing her make these comments.”

It was noted “there were several significant moves which occurred within the institution … prior to Mrs. Autumn’s transfer to GVIW specifically in order to reserve a cell for her.”

There were case conferences with Autumn “as well as numerous meetings amongst CSC staff on how she could be accommodated,” said the approval.

“Further, additional funding was obtained in order to increase staffing at the institution to accommodate” her.

According to the transfer approval, “GVIW is not transphobic and worked diligently to support (Autumn), but given her risk factors, it is difficult to integrate her within any population.”

Autumn’s “reaction when she was informed that she had to be moved to another pod to a single occupancy cell resulted in an eight-hour stand off where (she) made threats, fashioned a weapon, and damaged CSC property,” said the judge.

She “admits to having grabbed her penis and spread her buttocks when she was strip searched and justified her behaviour by claiming that she was frustrated because of how long it was taking.”

CSC “provided evidence as to the efforts that were made to accommodate (Autumn) within GVIW,” Muszynski said.

“The efforts were significant.”

Wardens at both prisons have “a unique appreciation for the security environment within their institutions,” said the judge.

“The wardens of both GVIW and Millhaven concluded that (Autumn) was not manageable within GVIW given the totality of (her) behaviour between March 6, 2025 – March 10, 2025. Deference is owed to this conclusion.”

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


A B.C. restauranteur had to have her online rating restored after facing a barrage of negative reviews for catering an event for Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

A chef and restaurant owner in Maple Ridge, B.C. catered an event for federal Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre and about 40 local Conservatives last Friday evening. Veronica Reale later publicized the occasion on social media.

That’s when the harassment began.

“This was scary for me, it was very bad,” Reale of Ronny’s Bistro told

Maple Ridge News

.

The furore unfolded after Poilievre did an unannounced stop in Maple Ridge. Local MP, Marc Dalton, hosted the event for him at the bistro. The harassment ran the spectrum from one-star reviews and critical Google comments to online talk about boycotting her business, she said.

At a time when

thousands of restaurants across Canada

have gone under, Reale was afraid of the negative impact on the positive reputation she has been building for almost three years.

Reale began her career learning the

art of pizza-making in her native Italy

. The single mother immigrated to Canada 12 years ago, working in the food industry, later opening her own restaurant.

She says she was appreciative of the business last Friday and insists that she is not politically active. But less than an hour after she made the social media post, she felt compelled to delete it. Immediately, there were

a lot of negative responses

, she says.

“After 40 minutes, I had to delete it,” she told Maple Ridge News. “I’m not political, and I didn’t know it could be so bad, just hosting a meeting.”

Dalton took to social media to defend Reale, posting his support, as well as anger at the negative commenters

on his Facebook page

.

“Cancel culture has real and devastating impacts. When businesses are harassed or threatened over political disagreement, livelihoods are put at risk and communities are harmed,” Dalton wrote. “Small businesses should never become collateral damage for someone else’s outrage. Hosting a meeting does not justify intimidation or online abuse.”

Fighting back to maintain her reputation, Reale

spent three days communicating with Google.

The bistro’s reviews and rating are now back to where they were before the online vitriol: 4.6 out of five, with reviews that include comments such as “true hidden gem,” and “a charming spot with a friendly atmosphere.”

 

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


Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree rises during Question Period on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Thursday, Oct. 9, 2025.

OTTAWA

— A provincial policing association raised concerns about the “readiness” of a federally developed case management system to track the handing over of government-banned firearms, according to a letter sent to federal Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree. 

The document, penned by the British Columbia Association of Police Chiefs and sent back in early September, outlined their concerns surrounding the program while also underscoring their support for it, stating that members were committed to collecting firearms safely “and in a manner that builds public trust.”

“At the same time, (British Columbia Association of Police Chiefs) members are united in their concerns regarding the current case management system (CMS), the project timelines, and the overall readiness of the program,” reads the Sept.9 letter, signed by John Brower, assistant commissioner of the RCMP in B.C., and Matt Hardy, a superintendent with Vancouver police.

The letter, released to National Post under federal access-to-information legislation, was also sent to B.C.’s public safety minister.

“Based on feedback from our members and operational realities across the province, we do not believe the (case management system) will be ready in time to allow for the necessary training or deployment during the amnesty period,” it read.

Last year, the federal government extended the amnesty period until October 2026, shielding firearms owners from liability who possess one of the more than 2,500 makes and models of guns deemed “assault-style,” which the federal government has banned since 2020.

The Liberals now plan to launch the compensation program sometime this month to provide firearms owners with money in exchange for them turning over their weapons before the amnesty period concludes.

Leanne MacLeod, interim executive director of the B.C police chief’s association, clarified in an email that the case management system, which its leadership referred to in the Sep. 9 letter, was the federal software being developed that the Public Safety department and its policing partners would use to administer the program, including the web portal where gun owners register and the actual tracking of the firearms themselves. 

She said the comments about the system’s readiness were based on “

initial program launch timelines,” adding the association sent another letter back in November for a status update “in line with new potential launch timelines.”

“This is not a concern about local police IT readiness, but whether the infrastructure will be ready in time to support training, coordination, and operational deployment.” 

A response from the public safety department has not yet been returned.

An email to an RCMP official, also released to National Post under federal access law from back in August, summarized points from a meeting that took place with the public safety department regarding the program and upcoming pilot in Cape Breton,

“(Public safety) provided an overview of the approved approach – November national launch,” the Aug.27 email stated.

Anandasangaree had initially stated in the fall that the national program would be launched by the end of last year. By December, his office confirmed that the date had been pushed back until January 2026. 

At the time, it did not provide details as to why. The minister told reporters at the time that some “minor adjustments” had to be made to the technology involved, as some “technical glitches” had been encountered.

His comments came after the six-week pilot in Cape Breton had concluded, the results of which officials released last week.

It ultimately showed that 25 guns had been turned in by 16 participants. When it was initially launched, the federal government said it could have accepted a maximum of 200 guns.

Firearms groups and their lobbyists, who have long opposed the program, have pointed to those results to argue it was a failure and repeated calls that Carney ought to scrap the initiative. The minister himself has defended the program as being successful in terms of allowing the government to test the system on an operational level.

The B.C. police chiefs’ association, in its Sept. 9 letter and subsequent statements, has recommended the public safety department deploy mobile units “as the primary” way to collect firearms as a workaround to concerns about police training and resources, with agencies in the province ready to help by way of providing security.

It is a model that 

Anandasangaree and federal officials have confirmed would employ, outside of striking agreements with police services and provinces, to assist with collection. 

The police chiefs in B.C. also raised concerns about what they characterized had been up until then a lack of communication.

“We must also underscore that up until the beginning of September there has been no communication with police agencies regarding the details of this program. This lack of engagement is particularly concerning given current staff resourcing pressures, the demands of FIFA 2026 planning, and other critical issues facing police services across the country.”

While police in Halifax, Winnipeg and Cape Breton have pledged support for the program, along with the Quebec government, others, such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, have rejected taking part, same with Yukon, with police services across the Greater Toronto Area saying they have yet to make a decision.

The RCMP has confirmed that its firearms program would assist in contacting affected gun owners to participate.

A senior Mountie, in thanking other RCMP officials for their assistance with a technical briefing that accompanied the launch of the Cape Breton pilot, also hinted that launching the program was no picnic for the police force.

“This is no doubt a challenging program, and appreciate all the hard work!” wrote Bryan Larkin, the force’s senior deputy commissioner.

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.


Former prime minister Justin Trudeau is set to speak at a global

Former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau will reportedly return to the international stage next week when he speaks at a summit in Switzerland.

According to the U.K.-based brand valuation consultancy Brand Finance, the 54-year-old former head of government will deliver the keynote address at its annual Global Soft Power Summit on Tuesday in Davos.

Trudeau’s scheduled 50-minute appearance includes a fireside discussion with David Haigh, Brand’s chairman and CEO.

The half-day event, which serves as the launch point for the firm’s 2026 “soft power” index, is happening alongside the

World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting

in the Swiss city, Jan. 19 to 21.

While Trudeau doesn’t appear on the WEF’s event calendar, current Prime Minister Mark Carney is scheduled to speak a few hours after his predecessor on Tuesday afternoon in the ski resort city.

The theme for this year’s summit is “Soft Power in a Hard Power World: Investing in Economic Resilience in an Era of Global Conflicts.”

National Post has contacted Brand for comment on Trudeau’s appearance.

“The Summit will convene senior leaders from government, and business, to explore the growing importance of soft power in a rapidly changing global landscape,” according to Brand.

Coined by political scientist Joseph Nye Jr. in the 1980s, “soft power” is a country’s “ability to influence others without resorting to coercive pressure,” according to the

Council on Foreign Relations.

Conversely, “hard power,” is gauged through military and financial might.

Each year since 2019, Brand has released a ranking of 193 United Nations member countries’ “soft power” based on insights from more than 150,000 respondents in over 100 markets. The ranking is derived using global opinion surveys and objective data to gauge culture, education and science, diplomacy, governance, business and trade, values and trust.

As it has been since 2022, Canada was ranked seventh in the

2025 index

, but third in reputation. The U.S., by comparison, ranked first overall, but was 15th in reputation.

Brand also awards “metaphorical medals” to the top three performances in each sub-category, with Canada claiming two gold — one for generosity and another for tolerance and inclusivity. It was also awarded five silver and seven bronze.

“Canada’s soft power is built on inclusivity, safety, and human rights,” the index notes. “Its 14 medals focus on diplomacy, education, and sustainable development. Known for friendliness and tolerance, Canada attracts immigrants and global businesses seeking stability and ethical governance.”

Outside of the speech he gave when handing reins of the Liberal Party to Carney at the leadership convention in March, this will be just Trudeau’s third reported public speaking appearance since he left politics.

Last September, amid rumours about a fledgling courtship of U.S. pop star Katy Perry that have since turned out to be true, Trudeau delivered the keynote at the 26th World Knowledge Forum’s opening ceremonies in Seoul.

In front of an audience of global business and political leaders, Trudeau’s speech titled “Leadership and Resilience in a Time of Transition,” warned that international order is under threat by ongoing conflicts and geopolitical tensions, according to the

Asian News International

agency.

”To navigate the transition, resilience should be in the middle of it,” he said, as reported by the

Manila Bulletin.

“We need every single person to be part of the resilient communities, societies, and systems.”

About a month later, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs awarded him the 2025 Global Leader honours, where he also delivered an acceptance speech.

Trudeau is represented by the Speaker Booking Agency, which quotes his

in-person appearances starting at $100,000

.

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.


$1,000 a week or a million today can add up very differently.

It’s a problem most of us would surely want to have. You’ve just won the lottery. But you have a decision to make. You can take $1 million right away, or $1,000 every week for as long as you live. Which would you choose?

Brenda Aubin-Vega had to make that choice last year when she won the top prize from Loto-Quebec’s

Gagnant à vie

(win for life) lottery. The lottery describes its prize as $1,000 a week for the rest of your life. But

the small print

says you can also walk away with a lump-sum payout of $1 million.

We asked an expert in math and probability to weigh in.

What did Aubin-Vega do?

Aubin-Vega was on a break when she says she went to buy two scratch tickets at a corner store in the Saint-Laurent borough of Montreal where she works. Three piggy bank symbols appeared, indicating a win.

“I couldn’t believe my eyes,”

she told CTV News

at the time. “I checked my ticket over and over again.” She then called her father with the news — and took the rest of the day off work.

She chose the $1,000-a-week option, and was photographed by the lottery holding aloft a novelty oversized cheque for $1,000. (Presumably her actual payouts would be easier to handle.) Left on the table — for the moment — was the additional $999,000 she could have taken right away.

Was it the best choice?

Although the 20-year-old made her decision in July, her move caught the eye of Changpeng Zhao, Canada’s richest man and founder of crypto company Binance, in December. In recent days, the story has gained attention from media in the U.S. and Britain as well.

“She will be better off to accept $1m today, ape bitcoin (or BNB), then spend $1k each week for the rest of her life, with millions left over. Will be clear in a few years. Assume she lives 100 more years, she gets $5m (no inflation). Today: BTC $90k, BNB $865. Let’s see,”

he posted on X

.

Meanwhile, most commentators on social media also said she didn’t make the best choice. While some pointed out that her young age meant the potential of a lot of weeks ahead, and an eventual payout of perhaps multiple millions, most pointed out that inflation would eat away at the value of that weekly cheque, and that shrewd (or even moderate) investments could deliver more than that in interest and dividends.

Someone even noted that investments by the lotto company (or a third party) was how Aubin-Vega’s future payouts could be funded. And she could have done that herself.

What does an expert say?

Jeffery S. Rosenthal, a

professor of statistics

at the University of Toronto, says it’s not a simple answer.

“There’s an obvious answer but then there could be twists I guess is how I would put it,” he told National Post.

He noted that the average life expectancy for a woman in Canada is over 80 years, so by simply multiplying out the amount — 52 weeks times 60 years times $1,000 — she would stand to collect about $3.12 million over her lifetime.

“But one issue is it’s generally considered better to get money right away than later,” he added. “For one thing you could invest it, and hopefully your investments would make more money.”

A quick calculation, with a six per cent annual return over 60 years, yields a total of close to $33 million, he said, although that does involve investing the entire sum and never spending any of it.

He continued: “Then there’s the issue that you might not live to be in your 80s, you might die earlier, so there’s no guarantee you’re going to get it.”

What about the psychology of the choice?

“There’s both psychology and lifestyle issues,” he said. “Some people might be thrilled to suddenly have a million dollars. You can go on incredible trips and buy incredible things, whereas getting $1,000 a week is a good thing in the long run but it doesn’t lead to a sudden exciting change in your life.”

The flip side to that, he said, are stories of people who lose their friends after winning a big jackpot. “You can’t trust people anymore because everyone just wants you for your money,” he said.

“And also you might make poor choices, everything from substance abuse to wasting all your money gambling. Some people who win big lottery jackpots end up not being so happy about it, whereas $1,000 a week is not going to do anything crazy for you.”

What would Rosenthal do?

The question gives him pause. “In my case my finances are fine currently, so it’s not like I desperately need the money. So I would just think more in terms of what I could do…” He trailed off. “That’s a tricky one. I never thought about it in personal terms.”

He pondered his employment status, the option of giving something to charity, “the trip of a lifetime,” and his own actuarial tables. “I’m not 20 any more so I have fewer years left to collect that thousand dollars a week.”

He concluded: “To be honest, no one ever asked me that before, and I actually find it kind of an intriguing question to think about. I guess I could see arguments both ways. and I would have to give it a serious think.”

He said most calls from the media come when a lottery jackpot reaches a record high, and journalists want to know what the odds of winning are. Also: “I don’t buy tickets myself.”

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


The federal government has recently announced $1 billion in funding over four years to improve civilian and military transportation infrastructure in the Arctic.

OTTAWA — U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to occupy Greenland will only make Canada’s sovereignty claims in the Arctic more vulnerable, defence analysts says.

Former chief of the defence staff retired Gen. Tom Lawson said the U.S. setting a precedent of taking Greenland for strategic hemispheric purposes should put the Canadian government on high alert.

“In fact, I think it would be fair to say that Denmark’s claim to sovereignty over Greenland is far stronger than Canada’s claim to sovereignty up to the North Pole for the entire archipelago,” said Lawson, who currently serves as chair of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute.

During a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen last week in Paris, Prime Minister Mark Carney said the future of Greenland will be determined “solely” by the people of Denmark and Greenland. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand will also visit Nuuk, Greenland, in the coming weeks for the opening of Canada’s consulate in the region.

Lawson said recent investments by Carney’s government to bolster a military presence in the North, is an acknowledgement that Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic is under threat.

In addition to the increasing defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035, the federal government has recently announced $1 billion in funding over four years to improve civilian and military transportation infrastructure in the Arctic, a partnership with Australia to develop Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar, and has made an initial investment to develop next-gen military satellite communications for Arctic operations.

Lawson said while these efforts are admirable, it may not be enough.

“Whether it’s enough to offset American desire to own territory in the north?” said Lawson. “I don’t know.”

Greenland, an autonomous territory which belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), is an island of strategic importance in the Atlantic Ocean.

Trump has stepped up his threats to occupy the island in recent weeks, noting that if the U.S. doesn’t take Greenland, Russia and China will.

“One way or another, we will have Greenland,” he told reporters on Sunday.

Amid rising tensions, the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers will meet U.S. Vice President JD Vance and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday.

“If they were to acquire Greenland, it would be the first step in eventually acquiring control over all of northern North America,” said Whitney Lackenbauer, research chair of the study of the Canadian North at Trent University.

This is not the first time Trump has expressed the desire for the U.S. to own Greenland. In 2019, Trump publicly confirmed his administration’s interest to buy the island, likening it to a real estate deal.

Now Trump is using the rationale of U.S. security interests in the Western Hemisphere, what is now being dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine” a re-imagining of the Monroe Doctrine that dates back to the 19th century under former U.S. President James Monroe, which aimed to stop European Nations from intervening in newly independent states in the hemisphere.

“It’s such a bizarre distortion of the Monroe Doctrine, which was about not allowing non- North American powers to assert and control North America,” said Lackenbauer.

Frederiksen has vehemently opposed any encroachment by the U.S. over its sovereignty in Greenland.

The U.S. has a longstanding relationship in place with the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland that goes back to 1951, which gives the U.S. an established military presence in the region.

Lackenbauer does not buy the rationale that Trump is threatening to occupy Greenland based solely for security purposes.

“It’s telling that the Trump White House has not come back with any specific asks,” he said. “And that, to me, points to the fact that this is smoke and mirrors and this is about America wanting to grow.”

Robert Huebert, director of the centre for military, security and strategic studies at the University of Calgary, said there are a few possibilities of how the U.S. could assert itself in the North.

“The first part that we’ve always been concerned with is that the Americans would say we’re not pulling our weight, and they would go to systems that don’t need Canadian territory,” he said.  “In other words, cut us out, so that NORAD either becomes hollow or doesn’t even become functioning.”

The second possibility is that the U.S. establishes over-the-horizon radar stations in the high Arctic Archipelago.

Recent events like the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power and Trump’s threats against Colombia and Cuba demonstrate a more aggressive shift in U.S. foreign policy to protect its hemispheric interests.

“I think the EU and Canada, all of us are tiptoeing around Trump because we know he is very volatile,” said Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba.

“We are all economically very dependent on the U.S. and militarily dependent on the U.S.”

Charron said a potential rupture in NATO and Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine” runs the risk of creating “strong men” spheres of influence across the world.

“This then gives the nod to Russia to continue to control its sphere of influence and perhaps continue to try and annex Ukraine,” she said. “And China is going to take this as a licence to be able to dominate its area of the world.”

Ultimately, this raises the risk of potential global conflict.

“We’ve seen in history when you have this multi-polarity and these multiple spheres of influence, there’s the greatest likelihood of conflict because of this increased great power competition,” said Charron.

“And then accidents and incidents are more likely to be interpreted as nefarious, and everybody comes out swinging.”

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.