Police in Ontario are expected to release more information this morning about a senior Air Canada pilot who logged hundreds of commercial flight hours without the proper licence last year and is now subject of a criminal investigation.

Peel Regional Police will hold a news conference at 11 a.m. EST, during which they will talk more about Project Icarus, which they describe as “a complex fraud investigation.”

The male pilot, whose identity has not been released, is no longer flying for Air Canada, the airline confirmed in a statement .

It also said “safety was not compromised” on the flights because pilots are required to “undergo mandatory recurrent training every six months to validate their flying competency, including a flight check with a certified Transport Canada check-pilot every 12 months.”

While the pilot in question “met or exceeded” the training requirements and had proved himself capable of flying large planes, he lacked the mandatory airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) when he was promoted to captain.

“Immediately upon Air Canada’s discovery of this, the individual was removed from active duty, and the company voluntarily reported the matter to Transport Canada,” Air Canada wrote.

The pilot has already been fined, according to the Montreal Gazette . On June 6, Transport Canada levelled $67,500 in fines for a pilot not having the “appropriate permit, licence or rating” on 18 flights between December 2024 and March 2025. It’s not immediately clear if all those offences were committed by the pilot in question.

Air Canada said it “found no other instances of non-compliance” upon auditing its other pilots. It also said certification cross-checking has been reinforced and will include physical verification of Transport Canada documents.

As the matter is under criminal investigation and due to privacy laws, the airline is reserving any further comment.

More to come.

• Air Canada to contest $426K fine for failing to refund or rebook flyers, says notice is 'unfounded in law'
• Jesse Kline: Tell me again why Air Canada must be officially bilingual

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

On the New Year’s Eve she was 13, her 64-year-old sexual abuser told his adopted daughter, “the devil made him do it.”

The man, now 68, is identified only by initials in a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision sentencing him to nine years in prison for sexually abusing his adopted daughter and a family friend.

“He told (his adopted daughter) that they would have to stop. He said that he felt guilty, was sorry for loving her in that way, and that the devil made him do it and that he had asked God for forgiveness,” Justice Jocelyn Speyer wrote in a May 22 decision.

“A short while later, (he touched her) in a sexual manner again. After that, (she) realized that it was not going to stop, and told her older brother … what happened. Other family members became involved, and the police were contacted.”

The abuser immigrated to Canada in 2002 with his wife and three children. He became a Canadian citizen and adopted several Zimbabwean and Botswanan orphans, including the one he sexually abused.

“In her victim impact statement, (she) eloquently describes how her childhood was stolen from her,” Speyer said.

“She was a child not fully aware of what was happening in the moment. She has experienced shame, anger, self-blame, numbness, anxiety, depression, betrayal, confusion and suicidal thoughts. Instead of learning what healthy love is like, she learned to associate love, as expressed to her by (her adoptive father), with fear, secrecy and silence. In her incredibly articulate victim impact statement, (she) revealed that the abuse did not just harm her body. It changed the way that she understands trust, and her ability to feel safe.”

Her adoptive father abused the girl between October 2018 and December 2022.

“At the time, (she) was between nine and thirteen years old,” Speyer said.

He touched her “in a variety of ways that amounted to an egregious violation of her sexual integrity.”

His wife helped the family of the other girl he sexually abused find a place to live when they immigrated to Canada. The court heard he was “like a grandfather” to the family’s daughter, and she addressed him as such.”It was customary for her to hug him as a form of greeting when the families visited together,” said the judge.

“He was in the position of father to (one victim and grandfather to the other) and took advantage of his time alone with them when they were in his care.”

He abused the family friend, starting when she was seven or eight, between 2017 and 2021.

The court heard that “on many occasions, usually when he greeted her when she went to his house, (he hugged her) and kissed her with an open mouth, forcing his tongue into her mouth. This behaviour started when (she) was seven or eight years old. If (she) tried to keep her mouth shut, (he) would push through to get his tongue into her mouth,” said the decision, which notes he also once “touched her buttock and squished or groped it.”

Police charged him in 2023.

A jury convicted him of sexually abusing the girls when he was between the ages of 60 and 64.

The Crown recommended he get 12 years in prison. His lawyer argued for seven.

Speyer sentenced him to eight years behind bars for abusing his adopted daughter, and tacked on another year for the family friend.

He’s banned from contacting either victim.

The judge found that the man poses a danger to children when he is in a position of trust. She issued several decade-long prohibitions aimed at protecting children under 16.

Those include bans on: “attending a public park or public swimming area, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground or community centre, in the company of any grandchildren, except when he is in the direct company of an adult who is aware of the circumstance of his conditions.”

The man cannot be within two kilometres of anywhere the victims usually live, attend school or anywhere else he knows they typically frequent.

He is prohibited from working or volunteering in any position that involves having authority over children under the age of 16.

The man “abused a position of utmost trust,” said the judge.

“He breached his duty to protect and care for the victims and this enhances his moral blameworthiness.”

• Ontario special education teacher gets three years in prison for sexually exploiting student
• Calgary man who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl gets reduced sentence because he's Indigenous

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.

National Post reporter Sharon Kirkey is being honoured by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, marking the third straight year a Postmedia journalist has won the group’s Medical Journalism Award.

Kirkey will receive the prestigious award tonight at the CAEP’s annual conference in Winnipeg. Her feature story diving deep into “Canada’s shockingly violent hospitals” ran in Postmedia papers across the country.

“This well-deserved award reflects Kirkey’s commitment to excellent journalism. Her dogged reporting has exposed serious gaps in Canada’s health-care system and highlighted the plight of violence in our hospitals,” said Aileen Donnelly, deputy editor of National Post. “She approaches all her work with an unwavering desire to get to the bottom of an issue, while handling sensitive subjects with compassion and care.”

The award is only the latest for Kirkey, who has been with the Post since 2002 and has previously been honoured by the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and the National Newspaper Awards, among others.

According to the CAEP, “the recipient of this award has told an emergency medicine-related story that demonstrates fairness and balance through accurate, well-researched reporting; timeliness and relevance; and strong insight, offering clear perspectives on complex issues with creativity and human context. The work also reflects meaningful impact on public understanding, along with high-quality writing and production that is clear, compelling, concise, and accessible.”

Last year’s winner was Elizabeth Payne of the Ottawa Citizen; the previous year’s recipient was Aaron Derfel of the Montreal Gazette.

• ER nightmare: Users overdosing on toxic drug supply can turn violent, putting doctors, patients at risk
• More than 153,000 people harmed in Canada's hospitals last year, study finds

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 much-convicted, 71-year-old schizophrenic man now free after brutally strangling a cellmate remains “a significant threat to the safety of the public,” according to a new ruling that singles out his unauthorized use of marijuana for concern.

George Veerman of Hamilton, Ont., was released in 2015, seven years after being found not criminally responsible for the murder, and now lives with his brother.

But Veerman “remains incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment. He is treated with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication every 14 days and 350 mg of Clozapine nightly,” said a decision from the Ontario Review Board (ORB).

“His insight into his mental illness and the need for treatment remains extremely limited, and there is a recent emerging concern regarding cannabis use.”

Veerman was being held at the Hamilton Wentworth Detention Centre on charges of robbery and breach of probation when he killed his cellmate on Oct. 19, 2004.

“Mr. Veerman dragged his cellmate out of his lower bunk and wrapped a white towel around his neck. Mr. Veerman pulled on each end of the towel until the circulation of blood was cut off from the victim’s brain,” said the June 5 decision from the independent tribunal that regularly reviews the status of individuals found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.

“The victim was pronounced dead the next day. The post-mortem examination cited preliminary findings on the cause of death as ‘consistent with ligature strangulation, no trauma to the body.’”

Veerman — who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia compounded by various substance abuse disorders — was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder in February 2008.

A single man born in the Dutch Indies who immigrated to Canada with his family when he was 12, he has been under a conditional discharge since February 2019, under orders not to smoke marijuana, report to hospital monthly and undergo drug testing.

In its new ruling, the ORB found that Veerman “continues to represent a significant threat to public safety,” and “concluded that the necessary and appropriate disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the existing conditional discharge.”

Veerman started drinking at 17, said the decision. “His alcohol use was followed by a long history of polysubstance abuse including use of cannabis, cocaine, and various inhalants.”

Veerman has a “lengthy criminal history” spanning from 1976 until 2004, said the decision. “It includes more than 20 convictions, including seven for assault, six for robbery and theft-related offences, and others for mischief and failure to comply.”

Veerman was sentenced to two years less a day for aggravated assault in 1988. He got a 30-month penitentiary sentence for the robbery charge he was on remand for when he strangled his cellmate.

After being found not criminally responsible, Veerman “was an inpatient at Oakridge in Penetanguishene” until November 2011, when he was transferred to a Hamilton hospital.

He was discharged in October 2015 to live with his mother, said the decision. She died last year and his brother took over as his substitute decision maker, living with Veerman in the family home.

After her death, “there was a noticeable withdrawal from previously tolerated activities and community participation,” the ORB panel said. According to his hospital report, Veerman “continues to demonstrate only partial insight into his illness and the need for ongoing treatment.”

In March, Veerman told staffers at the Forensic Outpatient Clinic he had smoked a joint the night before.

“He reported that it was precipitated by ‘curiosity’ and he was ‘just relaxing.’ When asked about his frequency of use, Mr. Veerman reported ‘not very often.’ When the case manager followed up with him, Mr. Veerman denied engaging in further cannabis use.”

Veerman tested positive in April for marijuana, and admitted some use. His brother said he had no idea Veerman had been using, but Veerman told the ORB both men smoked cannabis.

The ORB noted Veerman complained of being tired, missed a required appointment and resisted blood tests, and found that he needed to be monitored “to assess his risk to the public.”

In the meantime, it said, he isn’t ready for an absolute discharge.

“Veerman continues to require structure and oversight to maintain psychiatric stability and public safety. This is especially true at the current time given that new concerns have arisen with Mr. Veerman’s use of cannabis. It was clear that this was a new development, and the treatment team needs to monitor Mr. Veerman very closely to determine whether it is a pattern of consistent use, and how it affects his mental status and physical health.

“The panel also had concerns that Mr. Veerman and his brother were not being transparent with the treatment team, and this should also be taken into account moving forward.”

• Schizophrenic man who stabbed stranger at Toronto Tim Hortons gets absolute discharge
• Schizophrenic man who killed his mom has cannabis ban removed to see how he handles it

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

An Ontario Provincial Police officer who was once in charge of security for the premier of Ontario is suing his police service and his police union claiming he was ruined by an arrest on gun charges that were later dismissed by a judge who savaged the flawed prosecution — including concerns that police witnesses lied.

The lawsuit, filed last Tuesday by Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Staff Sergeant Roberto Manca, claims the OPP’s actions destroyed his law enforcement career and drained him financially while his union failed to adequately support him.

Manca, 56, remains an OPP officer who has been under suspension since 2020, after a fellow officer complained that Manca and three other officers exhibited “tyrannical conduct,” including during firearms training, according to Manca’s lawsuit. The complaint turned into a criminal probe and led to his arrest and a trial.

“That day was a pretty traumatic day for sure,” Manca said in an interview with National Post of a meeting in March 2020 when he was told to turn in his police badge and gun pending an internal investigation. An even worse day, he said, came six months later when he was suddenly and publicly arrested outside his Barrie, Ont., home.

“It is the most shocking thing I’ve ever experienced, for myself and my wife. I’ve arrested many people. I’ve done it as a uniformed officer. I’ve done it as a tactical officer. I’ve done it in civilian clothes as well. And there are processes,” he said.

Manca said that despite him reporting to work at an OPP detachment each day and cooperating with the internal probe, two uniformed officers pulled up in a cruiser and arrested him on his driveway and then several more officers swarmed into his house.

“It was something out of a movie scene. You would think I had murdered someone or did something along that line,” he said. “And then to find out later that I was being charged with some significant, fairly serious charges for incidents that didn’t even occur just blew my mind,” he said.

After Manca was arrested, the OPP issued a media release saying he was charged with four counts of recklessly discharging a firearm and four counts of carelessly using a firearm. The release said the incidents did not involve the public.

“I was accused of drawing my pistol and firing into the ground behind the officers while they were in front of me (preparing to shoot at targets at a firing range), which is something you would never do,” Manca said. “Had I done that, with the three or four other supervisor officers there, I would have been arrested on the spot. It never happened. It was all rumour and hearsay,” he said.

Manca said he believed it would soon be cleared up, but the case carried on and last year he faced a criminal trial.

By the time the trial began the reckless use charges had all been dropped and the Crown proceeded only on the careless use charges. During his trial the charges against him were halved again, down to two, after the Crown conceded two weren’t viable.

At the conclusion of Manca’s trial, Ontario Court Judge Peter West said he found the prosecution flawed and inadequate — and that some of the testimony from officers could not be trusted.

In his decision, the judge said the case was “doomed from the beginning.”

The eight police officers the Crown called as witnesses gave testimony that was incomplete and sometimes contradictory, West said. The long passage of time didn’t help. The charges spanned two incidents, years apart.

“A couple of the witnesses, in my view, left much to be desired in terms of their honesty. I do not believe one of the officers in particular was honest with the court in his evidence,” West said in his oral judgment, according to the court’s transcript of the hearing. “It caused me concern about veracity of his evidence.”

“The evidence in both counts, in my view, is filled with unanswered questions. No witness observes Staff Sergeant Manca actually discharge his firearm,” West said in his judgment.

”No one saw where he was standing … no one saw where his firearm was aiming or pointing when it was discharged, none of the witnesses observed any craters, holes, or divots in the ground which would establish that the firearm was in fact discharged into the ground, (or) where the conduct occurred in relation to the OPP officers on the firing line.”

The judge said none of the police officers who testified had complained to a superior after the shooting exercises.

“It is only improper speculation for the Crown to jump to the inference that Staff Sergeant Manca fired into the ground behind the firing line.”

Even the prosecutor’s expert on firing range safety testified that it was important to know where the shooter was and where he was aiming to determine if the actions could be considered careless.

Manca was acquitted of everything.

Manca has not returned to work, however, because the internal OPP investigation has not concluded, he claims in his lawsuit. He still logs in each day at an OPP detachment and remains on the payroll but can’t do police work, he said.

Instead, he works his new career as a realtor.

The lawsuit names the OPP, which is Canada’s second largest police force, and the Ontario Provincial Police Association, the union for more than 6,000 uniformed OPP officers and 3,000 civilian employees.

Both the OPP and the OPPA declined to comment on the lawsuit.

“The OPP is aware of the court’s decision in this matter…. The OPP is not in a position to comment on the decision or on any related matters before the courts,” the OPP said in an email.

“With this matter being before the court, we are unable to comment at this time,” said Scott Mills, a spokesman for the OPPA.

Manca’s claims have not been tested in court.

Manca joined the OPP in 1997 and has been a member of a Tactics and Rescue Unit, the Emergency Response Team, a training coordinator at the Provincial Police Academy, and commander of the Dignitary Protection and Investigations Section (during which he was in charge of the premier of Ontario’s protection in 2011 and 2012 when Dalton McGuinty was in office). Manca was named commander of the Emergency Response Team for the Central Region in 2013, according to his lawsuit.

Manca is claiming damages against the OPP for lost income, expenses of starting a new career, and for leading a “negligent investigation.” Against the police union he is claiming damages for negligence and breach of duty of care. Against both he claims damages for, among other things, $477,000 in legal fees, and more than that for “injury to reputation, pain, suffering, humiliation, and emotional distress.”

“I’ve remained silent for the last six years, basically since the inception of this investigation,” Manca said. “I’d like to know how this happened, why did it happen?”

Manca’s lawyer, Kathryn Marshall, said of his lawsuit’s claims: “What happened to my client is appalling. He is a man of integrity and proud of his service as an officer. It is time for justice to be done and for accountability…. The public places a lot of trust in the police and cases like this erode that trust and faith.”

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | Twitter: AD_Humphreys

• Charges against Toronto police officers lead to Ontario-wide corruption review of all police agencies
• Toronto's last shooting range wins legal battle against chief firearms officer

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.

OTTAWA — No matter what the decision is, the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on Quebec’s controversial secularism law will probably inspire violent extremist rhetoric, warns a federal intelligence assessment.

In a March intelligence brief, Canada’s Integrated Threat Assessment Centre (ITAC) said it was “very unlikely” that violent extremists would target the court’s four days of hearings later that month on the challenge of the law known as Bill 21.

But, ITAC noted, “it is a realistic possibility that the Court’s decision — whether the law is found to be constitutional or not — will inspire violent extremist rhetoric.”

Quebec’s controversial secularism law Bill 21 prohibits certain Quebec public sector workers, such as judges, police officers, teachers and prison guards, from wearing religious symbols at work. It also requires them to perform their duties with their faces uncovered.

Though popular in the province, the 2019 law is fiercely opposed by religious groups, civil liberties advocates and many groups representing women’s or anglophones’ rights.

To pass the bill seven years ago, then-Quebec Premier François Legault invoked section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, better known as the notwithstanding clause.

The pre-emptive invocation of the clause — which allows a government to suspend the application of certain Charter rights for up to five years before needing to renew it — to block a court challenge of the law is at the heart of the case at the Supreme Court.

Over four hearing days in March, dozens of challengers and interveners opposed the law and asked the top court to rule it to be unconstitutional or impose limits on the invocation of the notwithstanding clause.

On the other hand, seven provinces including Quebec and Ontario argued that the court had no power to limit the invocation of the clause and to do so would amount to a constitutional amendment.

The top court’s decision is expected in the coming months.

In its unclassified March brief, ITAC assessed that there was a higher chance of a violent extremist attack linked to the enforcement of Bill 21 than there was against the apex court.

“State actions seen to be sacrilegious or blasphemous could be a mobilizing factor for a violent extremist with intent, or a radicalizing factor for an individual with existing grievances,” reads the brief, though noting that there was no information at the time indicating such action was brewing.

ITAC is a part of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that focuses on assessing the risks of violent extremism in the country. It also sets Canada’s national terrorism threat level, which is currently at “medium” or “realistic possibility.”

In an interview, foreign interference and national security specialist Jean-Christophe Boucher said no matter the decision, he expects the outcome of the decision to be “instrumentalized” by groups on either side of the issue.

“If Bill 21 gets shut down, then you’ll have probably a lot of possibly far-right, but also Quebec separatists… amplifying issues around judicial overreach,” said the political science professor at the University of Calgary.

“If Bill 21 is upheld, then of course ethnic communities will feel wronged, and that will increase… not necessarily extremism, but at least kind of conversations around whether or not Canada is as welcoming as it used to be,” he added. “And I can see how other actors could actually kind of use this as a way to recruit and radicalize.”

He also said foreign actors who are trying to undermine Canada’s democratic institutions like the courts or governments will also seize on the decision to sow further division.

In a statement, Supreme Court spokesperson Vanessa Racine said the court had the appropriate security measures in place during the March hearings.

She also noted that “any potential security concerns will not affect the outcome of the decision in this case.”

In its assessment, ITAC said it that violent extremists in Canada are unlikely to even be able to breach the security of a secure location like the Supreme Court.

In the unlikely eventuality of an attack on the fortress-like building, “it would likely involve an inspired lone actor using basic weaponry and targeting security checkpoints or areas outside the building perimeter,” reads the brief.

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

• 'Extreme' hypothetical scenarios won't decide notwithstanding clause appeal, chief justice says
• New limits on notwithstanding clause would be 'irreparable' attack on federation, Ontario argues

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.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — National political parties tend to steer clear of candidates with controversial pasts because they put future wins at the ballot box at risk.

But a U.S. Senate candidate in Maine is bucking that trend and is likely to leave Democrats in an awkward position this year.

Maine’s Senate race matters not only for control of the chamber, but also because the state sits on the front line of U.S.-Canada trade, where tariffs, border policy and cross-border supply chains are daily concerns.

Oyster farmer Graham Platner, 41, has gained early momentum with his progressive platform and populist style — striking a chord on affordability issues that matter to voters — and his bid to oust five-term Republican Senator Susan Collins.

Despite his popularity, Platner has also been dogged by scandal. He has faced criticism for a Nazi-symbol tattoo from his younger years (he claims he didn’t know what it meant and has since covered it up), his offensive posts on Reddit, and sending sexually explicit texts to other women while married . His latest scandal involved allegations from women he’s dated that he was toxic and behaved in unsettling ways. Platner has denied the accusations.

Heading into Tuesday’s Democratic primary, Platner remains the favourite, despite the controversies. That means he will almost certainly face off against Collins in November’s midterms. Governor Janet Mills had been running for the seat and remains on the primary ballot, but she suspended her campaign in the spring amid fundraising woes and Platner’s surge.

“It is deeply disturbing that senior Democrats, or anyone for that matter, would still stand by Graham Platner,” said Andrew Hale, fellow at Advancing American Freedom, “and his disgusting moral failures involving violence against women, online pornographic writings, sexting, sexual predation, and a Nazi tattoo.”

“Anyone else would have been immediately disqualified.”

Hale said that Collins and Mills have been “true public servants who have proven their dedication to Maine without the moral failings of Graham Platner.”

Nonetheless, Maine’s Democrats are likely to pick Platner for the job this week, and structurally, the odds are tough for Collins come November because Maine is the most likely GOP-held Senate seat the Democrats could win.

It’s the only Republican-held seat in a state Trump has never won — Kamala Harris beat the president by seven percentage points there — which makes it inherently vulnerable, explained Jessica Taylor, Senate and governors editor at The Cook Political Report.

“On paper, (it) should be the most competitive Senate seat because it’s the only one held by a Republican that a Democrat carried in the presidential election,” Taylor said.

For Democrats, it could be the different between controlling the Senate in November and watching Republicans continue to dominate there.

“I don’t think Democrats can win the Senate without winning Maine,” said Taylor.

Still, Collins has managed to win in the past by currying favour despite the state’s Democratic lean.

“(She) is really the only Republican in the Senate who sits in a state that tends to vote for Democrats at the presidential level but still reelects her,” said Erin Covey, Taylor’s colleague and the editor in charge of The Cook Political Report’s coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives .

“That’s because she has managed to separate herself from the national party, and she is one of the few Republicans who will criticize Trump or will vote against his policies from time to time.”

However, this year could be different, they both agreed.

“Even though (Collins) has built up a lot of goodwill with Democrats and independents in Maine over the years,” said Covey, “I do think that over time frustration has grown, because even as she occasionally does break with Trump or criticize him, people feel like she hasn’t done that enough.”

Taylor agreed, pinpointing that the race is likely to come down to one thing: anti-Trump sentiment.

“Donald Trump is the biggest complicating factor for Susan Collins’ reelection,” she said.

“If you want to voice your displeasure with Trump, the only way you have to do that is to vote against Susan Collins.”

A small survey of 100 people conducted by Trump-aligned pollsters Tony Fabrizio, David Lee, and Travis Tunis late last week found Platner and Collins tied at 46 per cent. Platner’s unfavourability rating, however, had plunged from 29 per cent in January to 49 per cent now, and the poll pointed out that “the recent revelation about Platner can further erode his support.”

A May poll by the Pan Atlantic Research Survey — taken before the latest scandal broke — put the oyster farmer ahead of Collins, 48 per cent to 41 per cent, while 11 per cent were undecided.

Taylor thinks Platner could overcome the controversy.

“Even with the baggage …,” she said, “there’s still a very good chance that he could still win this race.”

Collins, Taylor said, is in “the most vulnerable position she’s ever been,” making the race a true toss-up.

But what could it mean for Maine-Canada relations if the Pine Tree State loses Collins? That is less clear.

While Platner has been campaigning on pocketbook issues, he has said little about trade with Canada, and there is no guarantee that a Democratic win in Maine — and even control of the Senate — would lead to more pro-Canada trading policies.

Progressives like Bernie Sanders, for example, support tariffs as a trade tool, even if they oppose Trump’s chaotic approach to using them.

“If the midterms come and Democrats come in, I don’t see that necessarily being good for (Canada),” said Carlo Dade, director of international policy at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“(Platner) is an AOC guy, and I could see him and the other progressives that are coming in and joining Bernie Sanders and AOC who have said tariffs are fine.”

“So thinking that the midterms are going to elect people who are gonna say, ‘Yes, on day one, I’m going to fix the relationship with Canada,’” is misguided, Dade explained.

“These aren’t bad people. They’re not going to be malicious, but they can’t be our friends,” he said.

National Post

• Can Trump play Canada and Mexico against each other?
• There are major implications for Canada in upcoming Michigan and Wisconsin primaries

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.

OTTAWA — Opposition Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to listen to Albertans who want to separate from Canada, as he urged the rest of the country to do the same and cautioned against “name-calling” and “fearmongering.”

Poilievre spoke from Calgary to deliver what his office billed as a speech arguing for a “stronger Alberta within a united Canada,” kicking-off his efforts to campaign for the province to remain in Canada ahead of an October provincial referendum, which asks whether Albertans wish to stay, or begin the process of holding a binding vote on separating.

“Just as I speak to Bloc Quebecois members of Parliament every day on Parliament Hill, I will be speaking to Albertans on both sides of this referendum to hear their thoughts and to make the respectful case for Canada,” the federal Conservative leader told the crowd Monday.

“The goal should not be to beat one another in this referendum, it should be to unite us all when it is over, to show our fellow citizens, all of them, that they belong in Canada, that they are a treasured part of our national family.”

Poilievre’s speech comes after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced last month that the set of referendums she had previously scheduled her province to hold in October on different immigration and constitutional questions would include one on independence.

That came after an Alberta court quashed efforts for a citizen-led petition that organizers of the separatist movement said had garnered upwards of 300,000 signatures from getting onto an official ballot, citing how the province failed to consult with First Nations under Section 35 of the Constitution.

Smith called the ruling “anti-democratic” and pledged to appeal, but outlined how she was adding a question on independence to October’s referendums because of the time an appeal would take and the thousands of signatures gathered, including those tied to a pro-Canada petition.

Poilievre, who after losing his Ottawa-area seat in last year’s election successfully won a byelection in the rural Alberta riding of Battle-River Crowfoot, pledged that the federal Conservatives would spend the summer campaigning for the province to stay.

With 33 out of the province’s 37 MPs hailing from the Conservatives, the federal party with the deepest routes in Western Canada, some of Poilievre’s MPs have begun speaking out about the importance of Alberta remaining a part of the federation.

Monday’s speech was the first time the Conservative leader, who grew up in Calgary, outlined what his pitch would be on the question of keeping the country together. He delivered it by weaving in memories from his childhood spent watching the 1988 Winter Olympics, which the province hosted, and working as a kid collecting trash off tables during the Calgary Stampede.

He argued that frustrated Albertans have “legitimate grievances” that deserve to be addressed through policy changes by Ottawa, which he said ought to be met by banding together with other oil-producing provinces like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, and pushing for change.

Poilievre also warned against dismissing those concerns as illegitimate.

“Those who caused the problems in Canada today will tell you to pretend those problems don’t exist, and they will denounce as unpatriotic anyone who speaks honestly about them.”

“Doing that in this referendum would only drive people further away. If you want frustrated Albertans to vote for Canada, the absolute worst thing we can do is dismiss their legitimate grievances and thus signal there’s no hope of fixing them at all.”

Later in his speech, he delivered a message directly to those participating in the debate, urging them to see Albertans wishing to separate not as “enemies” but as fellow citizens.

“Demonizing people who have lost hope in Canada is no way to restore it,” Poilievre said. “Name-calling, fear mongering, and ostracizing will only worsen and broaden the divide.”

Instead, the federal Conservative called for understanding and persuading Albertans to stay by tackling what he characterized as “the easily solvable problems they are asking us to fix.”

“We should not just tell Albertans how bad it would be to have separation. Let’s instead talk about how great it can be if our country is truly united and respectful of Alberta.”

Poilievre repeated his party’s longstanding calls for the federal government to repeal the Impact Assessment Act and oil tanker moratorium off British Columbia’s northwest coast.

Carney’s government has signalled it stands ready to amend the tanker ban, according to a memorandum-of-understand the prime minster signed with Smith last fall, which paves the way for the construction of a new oil pipeline to the West Coast, in exchange for Alberta increasing its industrial carbon tax.

The federal government is also eyeing more regulatory reforms to speed up the timelines it takes to approve major projects, after ushering in a separate process last year that gives cabinet the power to grant upfront approvals for projects deemed to be in the “national interest,” and that would undergo evaluations by a special projects office Carney established.

Last week, the federal government announced it would be extending the consultation period it had announced on the upcoming reforms that had been set to expire on Monday, pushing the date back until mid-July.

National Post

• Fewer than half of Albertans say they would stay in a newly independent province: poll
• Clarity Act will not apply to Alberta referendum question, says Carney

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.

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is expected to table its long-awaited legislation aimed at online safety this week, including a ban on social media platforms for children under 16 years old.

A government official, speaking on the condition of background, confirmed plans to present a bill in the coming days, which will usher in a path to create a new regulator and target different types of harmful content online.

The official confirmed that the government’s plan to establish a social media ban for minors younger than 16 will include provisions that allow platforms to seek exemptions should they demonstrate an ability to keep the youngest Canadians safe while using their products online.

The bill is expected to tabled on Wednesday, with the House of Commons set to rise for its summer break next week.

The legislation is not expected to include the same type of ban for AI chatbots, but will establish a set of responsibilities platforms need to meet.

Kaitlynn Mendes, a professor and researcher at Western University, said she welcomes the federal government’s allowance of exemptions under its social media ban, saying it creates room for platforms to fix their design, which is where she and other academics believes the focus ought to be placed.

“I’m maybe optimistic that we’ll see more of the push towards getting platforms to change their design rather than just …regulate and monitor young people, and try to chase them off these platforms, which we know doesn’t work,” she said in an interview on Monday.

She pointed to figures from Australia that suggest many children have found ways to circumvent its social media moratorium, adding there exist “larger questions” about whether such bans even work and what platforms a Canadian model would include.

When it comes to platforms making design changes, Mendes says the government could act by compelling companies to be more transparent with their data and limiting the use of features, such as auto-play.

Since taking office last year, Carney has faced calls from child safety advocates and children’s health organizations to revive efforts that were advanced under former prime minister Justin Trudeau to legislate tech platforms to tackle the harms users face.

The Trudeau government’s last bill, known as Bill C-63, died in Parliament in early 2025. Advocates and other proponents of tech regulation have argued that Canadian children are less protected than those living in the United Kingdom and Australia, which have their own online safety regimes and regulator.

Under the previous bill, the government had proposed requiring platforms to submit annual safety plans outlining how they were mitigating users’ exposure to the most harmful content online, from the non-consensual sharing of intimate images to content that encourages a minor to engage in self-harm or incites extremism.

Canadian Heritage Minister Marc Miller, who is tasked with shepherding the Carney government’s new efforts to legislate against online harms, had previously said the federal government was “very seriously” looking at the idea of banning social media for minors, a policy first introduced by Australia.

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew has said his province wanted to do the same.

The tabling of the Carney government’s online safety bill comes just days after the prime minister and Artificial Intelligence Minister Evan Solomon released the government’s AI strategy, which underscored how Ottawa would spend millions of dollars helping encourage more mass adoption of the nascent technology and claimed that tens of thousands of new jobs would be created in the field.

Opposition parties last week called that AI strategy short on details, including when it came to what safety measures and privacy protections the government would offer. The strategy did suggest that the Carney government would be moving ahead on measures to legislate around online safety.

Concerns about online safety grew earlier this year when reporting by The Wall Street Journal revealed that OpenAI had previously flagged internal exchanges Jesse Van Rootselaar had with its chatbot, ChatGPT, months before they killed family members and opened fire on a school in Tumbler Ridge, B.C., located in the province’s interior, but did not communicate any of its findings to police in Canada.

That prompted B.C. Premier David Eby’s NDP government to call on federal ministers to regulate AI chatbots and legislate a mandatory “national reporting threshold” for platforms when information is received that a user may be plotting violence.

Unliked the last Trudeau-era online harms bill, the Carney government has signalled it will not be introducing legislative changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow for complaints of online hate speech to be brought forward, which was of major concern to the Opposition Conservatives and other civil liberties advocates.

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.

The Ontario home where Colonel Sanders, KFC founder and face of the fast-food brand, once lived recently hit the real estate market with an asking price of $1.5 million.

When Harland David Sanders, accompanied by his wife Claudia, moved north in 1965 to oversee the expansion and operations of the brand then known as Kentucky Fried Chicken, they settled on 1337 Melton Drive, “a modest bungalow near the corner of Dixie Avenue and The Queensway” in Mississauga as their home, according to Visit Mississauga .

The Sanders lived in Mississauga for part of the year until his 1980 death in Louisville, Kentucky.

View this post on Instagram

Sanders was 75 at the time and already a millionaire, having sold off most of his franchises to a group of U.S. investors a year prior, but he retained franchising rights and stayed on as the trademark and quality controller.

Sanders himself originally hailed from Indiana, and while he first sold his fried chicken at a roadside restaurant in Kentucky during the Great Depression — during which time Governor Rub Lafooon bestowed him with the honorary title of Kentucky Colonel — the first Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise opened in 1952 in Salt Lake City, Utah. A store remains there to this day. (The original franchisee was also the first to use Sanders’ likeness in branding, created the “finger lickin’ good” catchphrase and was the first to introduce the cardboard bucket of chicken.)

Sanders later abandoned his own restaurant and started travelling the U.S., franchising his “Original Recipe” to restaurateurs and turning it into the largest fast-food chain in the U.S. at one point.

Upon his relocation to Canada, Sanders turned to Toronto lawyer Terrence Donnelly, whom he’d met at the CNE Food Pavilion during an earlier visit, to assist in expansion. Donnelly became his counsel, sat on Sanders’ board of directors and eventually became the head of the Harland Sanders Charitable Organization, a registered Canadian charity that has donated millions to health care initiatives and carries on his legacy.

In 2000, the community-based, academically affiliated Ontario health network Trillium Health Partners named its women’s and children’s care center in the Colono Hardland Sanders Family Care Centre in honour of his donations over the years.

Donelly also helped facilitate the purchase of the Sanders’ Lakeview home, which was listed by Jaclyn Deme and Meta Realty without specifying that it was once the residence of a fast-food franchise icon.

The “impeccably maintained 4-level side split” spreads four bedrooms, three full baths, two laundry rooms, an open-concept kitchen and multiple living and family rooms over its 2,000-plus square feet of finished space.

“A standout feature is the private main-floor primary bedroom retreat, complete with an accessible ensuite bathroom (with skylight and heated flooring), and private laundry/mudroom with ample storage,” the listing reads.

The home’s footprint has changed in the 46 years since Sanders and his wife lived there, the most recent being an addition in 2014, partially designed by award-winning Mississauga-based interior designer Jane Lockhart.

Other feature perks include an attached garage, a powered garden shed, front and rear lawn irrigation systems, a home alarm system, a carpet-free interior, a central vacuum, a backup generator, electrical sliding back doors and two fireplaces.

Property taxes are listed at $8,446.67 annually.

• What is halal chicken? KFC's switch to 'diverse menu options' sparks boycott calls
• Rahim Mohamed: No, the Islamists aren’t coming for your fried chicken

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.