With the 25th anniversary of 9/11 on the horizon, the CBC has circulated a memo to reporters and editors across all its news platforms reminding them not to refer to the attacks that claimed 3,000 lives and changed the modern world as “terrorist attacks.”

The missive from the broadcaster’s journalistic standards and practices office, a copy of which was obtained by National Post, includes a section of the “longstanding language guidance” on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks carried out by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda.

“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” it reads about halfway through, with the first part bolded and the last two words linking back to the CBC’s internal language guide.

“The hijackings led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan. The World Trade Center (WTC in second reference) was destroyed.”

The letter was first reported by the Toronto Sun. It is signed BB, who is identified by the Sun as Basem Boshra, senior director of journalistic standards and public trust at CBC News.

On the morning of the attacks, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners in the continental United States.

Two of the aircraft were flown into the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan — both of which would collapse — another was slammed into the Pentagon and the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers fought back against the terrorists.

The attacks spurred the creation of the Department of Homeland Security domestically and led to a protracted war on terror in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks, was found and killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan in 2011.

Rachel Thomas, Conservative MP for Lethbridge, Alta., called the leaked memo shameful and accused the broadcaster of redefining “terrorism in a way that downplays the atrocity” of the terrorist attacks.

“Refusing to call it an act of terrorism dishonours the victims, their families, the survivors, and the first responders who witnessed the horrors of that day,” she wrote on X .

“Trying to sanitize or rewrite that history is deeply offensive and does a disservice to everyone who was affected by the attacks.”

Kerry Kelly, a public affairs spokesperson for CBC, told National Post in an email that “it is wholly inaccurate to state our journalists have been urged to declare that this was not a terrorist act.”

Rather, she said the memo was a regular reminder about adhering to the CBC’s language guide for “the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism.’

“CBC preferences use of these words with attribution to credible sources, a practice shared by many of the world’s top journalistic organizations,” Kelly wrote, pointing to an October 2023 blog by Brodie Fenlon, CBC News editor in chief and general manager.

He was writing in response to a similarly leaked memo to staff regarding the use of the same words in reporting about Hamas’s terrorist attacks on Israel that had occurred a week earlier.

Staff will use the terms, he said, but they will always be “attributed to government officials, authorities, experts and politicians.”

“But CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, regardless of the region or the events, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism,” Fenlon said, noting the policy has existed for decades and many news outlets employ their own.

The post included a portion of the language guide, which urges employees to “exercise extreme caution before using the words terrorist or terrorism” because they can be “highly contested” in some instances and potentially raise questions about the CBC’s “consistency and impartiality” in covering other attacks.

“Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason,” the guidance reads. “But it’s a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.”

Fielding a complaint about coverage of Israel’s war against Hamas, CBC Ombudsman Maxime Bertrand called the policy a “necessary safeguard” but added that “it doesn’t guarantee ethical clarity or eliminate the potential for unconscious bias.”

“In practice, sensitivity to language and power relations demands constant vigilance and nuanced reflection. Essentially, journalists cannot be too careful,” he wrote in March.

• Amanda Eskenasi: CBC fed Canadians a biased view of the Israel-Hamas war — and the data proves it
• Beryl P. Wajsman: Dear CBC — your anti-Israel bias is showing

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.

My brother told me I had great legs.

What incenses me more than the fact he said it, is the fact that I thought it was appropriate commentary, a fair evaluation of my physical attributes. I was 22 years old, he was 28. The thought never dawned on me that eldest brothers shouldn’t think of their sisters in that way.

How did I know Steve and I were different? And I don’t mean different in the typical sense, like how all people are different some way or another. I mean fundamentally different — our values, our ethics, our morals, all the true substances of what makes people who they are. There were countless ways our differences clashed over the years, usually in dramatic fashion.

In university, I was captivated by the study of psychology. Specifically, the hidden workings of the mind and the tangled motivations behind society’s outcasts and broken souls. There was something thrilling about chasing the “why” of human behaviour, like solving a puzzle no one else could see.

In 2002, criminal psychology and profiling were only just emerging, not yet the cultural obsession they’d become. Now, every tipsy undergrad on a Friday night fancies themselves a true-crime armchair detective.

To get my degree, I took courses in my final year that taught me the basics of criminal profiling. I couldn’t get enough. I sought out books to read outside of the curriculum. I watched movies about criminal behaviour. I was bitten by the crime-solving bug.

It stood to reason, then, that policing was a good fit. I expected that it would throw me into a world where my job would be to study and understand criminals. So I applied, navigated the interviews, and found myself face-to-face with a veteran at the police service. He had a presence that reminded me of Gene Hackman in his prime — magnetic, masculine, alluring, with a gaze that seemed to peel back one’s thoughts.

His voice, rough from what I imagined were nights of bourbon and cigars, carried a quiet authority. He moved with a swagger that made me slow my own steps to match his, hyperaware that any haste might betray my nerves.

When we stood to end the meeting, I discreetly wiped my sweaty palm on my pants, hoping he wouldn’t notice. His handshake was firm, his skin calloused, like he spent weekends swinging a hammer. Then, in a move that closed the professional distance between us, he cupped my elbow, pulled me close and whispered in my ear.

“You smell so f–king good.”

Releasing me with a wink, he raised his voice for the benefit of anyone nearby.

“Welcome to the police service, my dear. We’re happy to have you.”

This was the kind of world that allowed my brother Steve to shine; where men were born with worth and women had to earn it. Driving home in my beat-up silver Honda, with its manual windows and no air conditioning, this is it, I thought. Real life, here I come.

I burst through the door of my parents’ house, where I still lived, practically vibrating with excitement, waving my job contract like a victory flag. Steve was there, sharing beers with our dad at the kitchen table. He looked up, one eyebrow raised, and gave me that classic Steve once-over, eyeing me from head to toe. I had become accustomed to this appraisal; it was always how he greeted me, like a hunter eyeing up his prey, weighing how best to slay me.

It wasn’t until more than a decade later that I came to know this was uncommon. All eldest brothers didn’t look at their sisters with such contempt and disgust. Just mine did.

“You’re gonna be a cop? Really? A pig? You sure about that?” he said, pausing for effect. “You’ve got great legs. You could be a great secretary,” taking a swig from his beer.

You’ve got great legs. Four words. It took only seconds for those four tiny words to have an immeasurable impact, to sear themselves into my psyche, forever lodged there.

According to Steve, I would never excel at anything. I would never keep pace with a man. A man like Steve. Or so he wanted me to believe. I laughed it off, too proud to let him see how much his chauvinistic trope stung.

I can’t recall if Dad said anything. Truthfully, I’m not sure whether he was even there to hear that comment. But it didn’t matter, because Steve said s–t like that all the time. It was 2002. The patriarchy reigned supreme.

How ironic then, when I was a detective and Steve was pulled over by one of my policing colleagues after running a red light when he left the strip club in Guelph.

“I know you guys,” he said, as my colleague approached the driver’s side window.

“Excuse me?” was the officer’s response.

“Yeah. My sister, Julie Meier, she works with you.”

By this time, I was deliberately estranged from my eldest brother. Our relationship had long been strained and was ripe for an abrupt ending. That came in December 2014, after an extravagant Christmas party held at his home attended by family, friends and business associates. The night started out as a party, but ended with me having no doubt the relationship must end.

Not being aware of the estrangement between my brother and I, my colleague let him off with a warning. My colleague relayed the story to me the next day. He was confused about the fact that I was annoyed. It was a courtesy of the policing family — if possible, family members of fellow cops wouldn’t get tickets. An unwritten perk of the job, I suppose, except it was usually reserved for family members who weren’t estranged.

Steve leveraged his biological connection to me to escape accountability for running a red light. Funny how the man who shamed my choice of career was unapologetically grateful in that instance that his sister was a “pig.” After all, having a cop in the family would surely help to divert attention from his fraudulent activities. I’m convinced he was already scamming people even back then, because let’s face it, one of Ontario’s biggest alleged Ponzi schemers wasn’t born overnight.

It just took until 2023 for the world to find out that my brother’s name, Stephen Heimbecker, would be synonymous with greed and manipulation, and that he would be accused of swindling well in excess of $100 million from people.

Steve was bankrupt?

It was November 2023 when I learned that my eldest brother was a suspected fraudster. I didn’t learn it all at once, it came to me piecemeal. I think piecemeal was the only way that I could have absorbed it, given the sheer magnitude of his alleged Ponzi scheme involving his mortgage broker business.

Steve and his former business, Nestig Inc., are currently named in more than a dozen civil court cases in Ontario, accused of fraudulently using investors’ funds. He has been found to have committed fraud in one of those cases , and orders have been made against him in seven of the civil suits. The other cases have not been tested in court.

Charges have not been laid in a criminal investigation by the Waterloo Regional Police, but police spokesman Const. Brad Hickey confirmed the investigation is ongoing.

I believe my parents are fairly typical of two 80-year-olds. Our lives are interwoven due to our shared proximity and the many family meals, birthday celebrations and my kids’ sports games that we share together.

But beyond these conveniences lies a deeper rhythm from the ease with which I can check on them. Now into their “golden years,” a sense of responsibility weighs gently but insistently on me. It’s a duty I embrace gladly, stopping over unannounced more often and lingering longer than planned. I am offered endless cups of coffee or tea when I arrive, a small ritual of connection.

One visit, in late November 2023, felt like any other. I stepped through the unlocked double doors, framed by matching urns of holly and cedar, and found them nestled close in the kitchen, focused on a pot simmering on the stove. Dad, peering over his reading glasses, nodded a quiet greeting when I made my presence known.

Growing up, our fridge had always been a tactile map of our lives, at its centre a hanging paper wall calendar, its little squares filled with appointments scribbled in handwriting. The current view of their fridge was the same, so familiar to me from my memories,

Among the usual clutter, a small, tattered newspaper clipping caught my eye, nestled between the calendar and a brochure for an author signing. I had to read it twice, the words blurring at first as my mind struggled to grasp their meaning. A boxy advertisement, three-inches square, the bolded letters screamed their message: Legal Notice – in the matter of the bankruptcy of Stephen Lee Heimbecker. My eldest brother, my parents’ first-born child.

Steve was bankrupt? A man who used private jets on a whim to escape to luxurious sunny destinations, and who gifted his wife jewelry worth more than my house? A man who had a vacation home in a gated Florida community, and a farm used to train the racehorses he owned ? How was this real? My brother was publicly admitting defeat, for all to see.

I had long been suspicious that a man who ran a mortgage broker business could plausibly afford such an ostentatious lifestyle. I assumed that his interests in horse racing may have supplemented his income, though I was still skeptical, believing that gambling rarely earned anyone such consistent opulence. The math never made sense to me.

A tremor stirred deep within me, a sensation that bubbled up and grew as I glanced at Dad. His blank stare met my own, waiting for my response. And then, it burst forth, a raw, uncontrollable laughter. My brother, the one who bragged about making more money in a month than I did in a whole year? The one who poked fun at my clothing when I didn’t wear $500 jeans? He was bankrupt?

My parents gaped at me, unsure how to respond to my outburst of laughter. “Don’t you get it?” I asked.

“Get what?” Mom asked, looking at Dad.

“I knew it would eventually blow up in his face. Something wasn’t right with him for years,” I said.

The validation that tiny scrap of ripped-out newsprint brought me was unexpected. I didn’t know how his kingdom would fall, but I guessed that at some point, it would. He couldn’t keep up with the charade forever, all these people thinking he was such a “great guy.” It was only a matter of time before they saw what I had known for years — that he was a liar and a cheat.

“Does Brad know?” I asked, remembering an agreement I had made with my other brother, the middle child between Steve and me.

Because he lived hours out of town, Brad and I agreed to keep each other in the loop about things happening in the family. Any flow of information about Steve and his family had stopped completely after Steve had cut our mom and dad from his life almost a year prior, and I had lost all contact with Steve many years before, vowing to never speak with him again. Brad agreed to keep us abreast of anything newsworthy. He still maintained an active relationship with Steve and his family, visiting during holidays and talking occasionally over the phone.

“We’re not sure. We didn’t mention it to him,” my mother replied.

“Didn’t mention it? Don’t you think that’s somewhat significant?” I asked, incredulous.

“Well, I guess we don’t really know what to think. They’re both adults, though. I’m sure they can sort it out themselves. If Steve wants Brad to know, he will tell him.”

Nodding, I said, “I’m definitely calling Brad.”

“We’ll leave it to you to decide,” Mom said abruptly. She was letting me know that the conversation was over.

I left shortly after. Sitting in my car in their driveway, I dialed Brad’s number.

“I know we agreed to keep each other in the loop on big things …” I started.

“Oh, no. What’s happened? Are Mom and Dad OK?”

“Yes, yes, sorry, everyone’s fine. I didn’t want to alarm you. I am calling to let you know that there was a notice in the newspaper here about Steve. He’s claiming bankruptcy. I don’t know any of the details, it just announced a date and time for a meeting, but the public is allowed. Dad is going to request to attend, maybe get some details about what’s happened.”

“Oh, yeah, that. I already knew that. Steve told me that was happening. He’s been having some financial difficulties recently, I guess.”

My stomach dropped, and his words replayed in my mind. I was certain I misunderstood him, so I asked him to repeat himself.

“You knew?”

“Yeah, he told me he had to claim bankruptcy. Is everything OK? You sound upset.”

“Why didn’t you tell me? Keep an open path of communication, remember? That’s what we agreed when it came to family stuff.”

“In fairness, I didn’t tell you because you’ve told me before that you didn’t care to hear about Steve and his family. That you didn’t want me to talk about it.”

A quiet pause filled the air between us.

“Do you know any other details?”

“I guess he has a meeting soon, he told me. I guess we’ll find out more then, right?”

Total claims would climb to nearly $150 million

By late 2023, I had become adept at navigating online meetings and video conferences, a skill honed during the COVID-19 pandemic. But my parents weren’t so comfortable with the technology. They occasionally ventured online, but had never witnessed a bankruptcy hearing, let alone one conducted virtually.

As I entered their home that day, I felt the weight of their eldest son’s impending public bankruptcy announcement hanging heavily between them, filling the room with silent anxiety and making them apprehensive about logging in correctly.

We gathered in their rustic home office, a cosy space bathed in sunlight streaming through the large window beside the broad oak desk nestled in the corner. The desk was cluttered with scraps of paper scrawled with websites and passwords, crossed out and rewritten repeatedly, a testament to my parents’ forgetfulness and their relentless effort to create new passwords.

I was eager to watch the video conference unfold. Mom pulled up a kitchen chair for me beside Dad, who settled into their faux-leather rolling desk chair directly in front of the screen, positioning himself so his face would be visible if needed. Mom chose the plush chaise in the corner, but she couldn’t stay still. She stood, paced in and out of the room, then sat again like a Jack-in-the-box, wringing her hands in restless tension.

Right on time, I clicked the link provided by the bankruptcy trustee. The camera’s birds-eye view from its high perch in a corner took a moment to focus before revealing a dark wood boardroom table dominating the centre of the room. Black office chairs with armrests crowded around it, some seats hidden from view. Something felt off. I wondered if we’d clicked the wrong link, because every seat was taken. People stood along the windows, stacked two deep in one corner, with more still entering.

As I leaned forward, I recognized the daughter of my mom’s best friend, grown since the last time I’d seen her as a 20-something, our families having shared Christmases and vacations together. Some attendees wore pristine business attire, others sported hoodies and track pants. As it turned out, many people in that room were not strangers to my family: friends, relatives, social acquaintances and community members.

Then Steve entered. He looked the same as I remembered him. Tall, wearing a button-down shirt, carrying a satchel over his shoulder. He had glasses on, perched below the bridge of his nose, making him appear older than my memory of him. The room fell silent as he slid into the last empty chair, reserved just for him, next to the bankruptcy trustee leading the meeting.

My stomach sank. We had the right link. We were in the right meeting. The room was full. In that instant, I knew Steve’s bankruptcy claim was much more involved than I imagined.

The trustee’s voice sliced through the stillness, calm and professional, announcing that the meeting was to begin, and explained the rules in basic terms. Steve’s assets would be sold, the profits divided up between the claimants named in the agenda.

The agenda was a document each attendee had received beforehand, a ledger detailing Steve’s tangled web of assets and debts. My dad had handed me this very document just as I’d logged us into the meeting. As I flipped through its pages now, my eyes locked on the list of creditors, a seemingly endless roll of names, each one claiming that Steve owed them money.

Collectively, the sum detailed in this creditor package was approximately $108 million. This included secured and unsecured claims, as well as “contingent claims,” reflecting the claims filed against him in civil courts as of the date of the meeting.

The voice of the trustee through the desktop speakers warned that more claims were yet to be formally submitted, promising that the total debt would climb higher, but to what amount was yet unknown as their office was still fielding calls from would-be claimants.

We would later learn, through a second bankruptcy meeting and other civil actions filed in Ontario courts, that the total claims against him would climb to nearly $150 million .

Steve sat silently beside the trustee, absorbing the weight of the room’s collective shock. Then, breaking the heavy silence, a man unknown to me cleared his throat and raised a hand, pulling a thick leather dossier from the floor. Steve acknowledged him by his first name; obviously, they knew each other. The man flipped through the pages until he found a creased corner and asked bluntly, “Do you have an alcohol addiction, Steve?” No preamble, no softening, just a sharp, raw question.

Steve’s reply was clipped and evasive. “I can’t answer that.” The next question, about having a gambling addiction, met the same deflection. One after another, Steve dodged each query, revealing nothing. Frustrated, the man slammed the dossier down and demanded bitterly, “Where’s the money, Steve?”

My frustration was also mounting. Who was this man speaking? Did he have a formal role in this process? What were the rules of engagement? I felt time slow as the room plunged back into a suffocating silence. I found out later that he was a local businessman, who claims he was owed about $1.6 million by my brother.

Then, a woman who had been silently leaning against the window spoke up, her voice trembling but fierce. “Can you please explain what’s going on here? I only found out about this meeting yesterday from a friend who’s also a victim of Steve’s. We don’t understand this process. We don’t have lawyers. We can’t afford one. Steve, you took everything from us,” she claimed.

Her words were an affirmation that I wasn’t the only person confused about the process, unknowing about the rules. Her voice gained strength as she stood, facing him directly. “You promised us. You said we’d get our money back, with interest … Did you forget about us, Steve?”

Steve’s response was disturbingly casual. “Don’t worry, I’ll get your money back.” I couldn’t tell if he believed these words, but I surely did not.

Tears streamed down her face as she pressed on. “Steve! We lost everything. We lost our house. We’re in a shelter with our kids. We have to tell them there won’t be a Christmas at home this year. What the hell is wrong with you?” Her sobs shattered the room. She collapsed to her knees, her husband holding her tightly.

I pressed the volume button on the keyboard, certain I had misheard what she said, but the volume was already set to maximum. How had she lost her home? What kind of deal did they make with Steve?

I was desperate for details. I took a deep breath to pause the checklist of questions springing to my mind. I was not the detective assigned to this case, I was not in control, I was just like the rest of the group, learning these details in the moment as they were shared.

Across from Steve, an elderly man leaned forward, his voice dripping with scorn. “Do you even care?” He shared his own story: Once Steve’s loyal IT technician, he said he was now unemployed and had lost all his investments. Despite Steve’s shutdown and bankruptcy claims, the gentleman said he had used his own money to keep Steve’s cloud account alive, safeguarding every file, every email, every digital trace.

His final words hit me like a punch. “I was supposed to retire next year. Forty-five years of work, all my savings. You told me to trust you, Steve. I gave you everything. Now I have nothing. The only thing I can think of … is to kill myself.”

A tear slid down my cheek. How did it come to this? I felt like I was falling, overwhelmed by the flood of information, struggling to piece it all together. Then, a man wearing a baseball hat cut through the tension. “Where is the money, Steve?”

My mother’s ears perked up. She jumped from her chair, her eyes narrowing at the screen. “That’s my nephew,” she whispered. Before she turned to leave, I heard under her breath: “This is too much, I can’t watch.”

I looked to my father. His brow furrowed deeply; he shook his head in disbelief, mouth agape with words he couldn’t find. I grasped his hand, fragile and bony in mine, and promised to help him understand once the meeting ended. I don’t know why I said that, because I didn’t understand what was happening either.

I felt outside myself in that moment, sitting next to my dad, staring into the void of a computer screen, learning for the first time tiny breadcrumbs of the secrets Steve had been harbouring for years.

While I had my suspicions about his wealth, I never contemplated that it was something so sinister.

The other brother

Inside the dark, icy cocoon of my car, parked in my parents’ driveway, tears stung my eyes. Unlike in the company of my parents during the videoconference, I sat alone, free from the need to hold back, free from the pressure to sort out facts from feelings.

My mind replayed the hours that had led to this moment, each memory dragging slowly, like thick mud oozing. How had I not known? How had all those people not known?

Then, like a sucker punch stealing the air from my lungs, heat surged through me. I sat upright, burning from chest to neck, flames crawling across my cheeks that only moments ago had felt chilled by the cold.

My other brother, Brad, said that he already knew. He said Steve told him of his “financial difficulties recently.”

He knew this and was still associating with Steve? Fury and rage exploded inside me. I grabbed my phone from my jacket pocket, shaking as I tried to dial Brad’s number. Tears streaming down my face, I was fuelled now by my blazing anger.

I told myself it wasn’t a good idea to call right now. Pull yourself together, I urged silently. This was just an investigation, another case like any other. I shoved the phone back into my jacket pocket, grabbed my key from the mat and slammed it into the ignition. The drive home blurred into a haze; I don’t remember a thing.

I kicked off my shoes the moment I stepped into the laundry room, slamming the door so hard the wall shook. My husband stood in the doorway, leaning casually against the frame, eager for the latest scoop on Steve’s downfall.

“What happened?” he asked. When he saw the tears staining my cheeks, he pulled me into a warm embrace, wrapping me tightly in his arms. “Are you OK?” he asked. “Talk to me.”

“Give me a minute, I’ll tell you everything. I just need to talk to Brad first.”

I stepped into my home office and shut the door behind me. I chose not to turn on the light, preferring the darkness. The soft glow from my phone lit up the screen as I began punching in the numbers. Just before entering the last digit, I stopped. I didn’t want to talk to him. Anger churned inside me, making any conversation pointless and unproductive. “Keep it together,” I whispered aloud.

I fired off a text to Brad instead. My fingers flew over the screen, pouring out several paragraphs, filled with raw disdain. I told him that I was disgusted he had known all along and had brushed it off as just a minor financial hiccup, when in reality it was a monstrous tsunami of alleged fraud. I made it clear that under these circumstances, I refused to continue any relationship with him or Steve.

As I hit Send, nausea swept through me like a sudden storm. I never imagined the day would close knowing one brother was accused of ruining lives, taking homes and life savings to fuel his own greed, and another brother would protect him.

A message popped up suddenly, dinging over and over, signalling multiple texts. Brad claimed ignorance, insisting he was just as shocked and disgusted as I was. Steve downplayed his financial troubles to him, admitting only that he owed a few people some money, nothing more complicated.

Then came the last text, the briefest one, and it hit me like a weight, stealing my breath.

“I’m also one of his victims. He owes me a lot of money I only now realize I might never get back.”

Steve was accused of taking money from our own brother.

Julie Meier retired from the Guelph Police Service as a sergeant in 2020 after 18 years, where, as a detective, she investigated sexual assault, homicides and other major crimes. She is now a licenced private investigator and an aspiring author, who has written a memoir about her life with her brother. She encourages victims of fraud to report them to Canada’s fraud reporting website.

EDITORS NOTE: National Post reached out to Stephen Heimbecker for comment on the allegations in this first-person story. This is his statement:

I acknowledge that I have made mistakes in the past, and I am genuinely sorry for the things I did wrong and for the people who were affected by my actions. I take responsibility for my mistakes and deeply regret the consequences they caused.

Over time, I have done a great deal of reflection and have made significant changes in my life. My faith in Jesus Christ has become an important part of that process, and I am committed to living my life differently and moving forward in a positive and honest way.

That said, some of the information contained in your inquiry is not accurate or does not reflect the circumstances as I understand them. Because there is ongoing civil litigation relating to these matters, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the specific allegations or underlying facts at this time.

I respect your right to report on matters of public interest, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide this response.

Main image: Julie Meier at her home near Waterloo, Ont. Photo by Peter Power/Postmedia News

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith rejected the idea of using the province’s oil exports as leverage in the U.S. trade war, saying that such a move would “devastate the Canadian economy” and inflate energy prices for consumers across Canada.

The premier was responding to growing calls — including from Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi and former Alberta premier Jason Kenney — to consider using Canada’s energy exports to retaliate against U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs. But such a move, Smith said, would prompt the U.S. to slap fresh levies on everything from crude oil to natural gas to diesel, crippling eastern provinces like Ontario and Quebec that rely on the U.S. for much of their energy supply.

“I cannot think of a more disastrous policy decision than cutting off or taxing Alberta’s oil to the United States,” Smith said in prepared remarks on Wednesday.

• Greer says 'no open channels right now' with Canada on trade talks
• Why is Air Canada still offering passengers American booze?

Her warnings come as the U.S. trade spat has escalated sharply in recent days, with Prime Minister Mark Carney suggesting Canada is “at war” with its largest trading partner after the Trump administration placed punishing 50 per cent tariffs on $28 billion worth of goods. Smith, for her part, has long favoured what she calls a more measured approach to the U.S. that avoids ensnaring energy exports.

On Wednesday, Smith said she would prefer “de-escalating and doubling down on diplomacy” rather than adding new tariffs onto U.S. products.

“We need to be wise, patient, careful and deliberate to overcome the economic attacks our country is facing,” she said. “So, rather than making threats and promises we know we cannot keep, Canada should focus on what we can control and do.”

The Canadian and U.S. energy sectors are deeply integrated, with more than 80 per cent of Canada’s oil exports going to U.S. markets. Among the biggest buyers are oil refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, whose facilities are calibrated to accept Alberta’s heavy-grade crude, and who have for years enjoyed cheap Canadian supplies.

At the same time, a lack of east-west pipline connectivity in Canada has meant that eastern provinces are heavily reliant on the U.S. for crude and refined energy products. Energy products have thus far remained off the table in the Canada-U.S. trade tiff, largely because steep tariffs on Canadian oil would no doubt cause a politically damaging spike in U.S. gas prices for Trump.

Nenshi has not called on Alberta to curtail oil supplies to the U.S. but recently said in media interviews that Smith was “incredibly foolish” to attempt to take energy off the table in Canada’s retaliation plan. Kenney has similarly argued that Canada risked “limiting its options” by effectively eliminating a major bargaining chip.

Smith on Wednesday reiterated that Trump’s latest trade salvo against Canada has badly wounded relations between the two countries, saying there is “no excuse for their behaviour.”

“Make no mistake, the United States has betrayed a special trust between friends and allies,” Smith said. “We were there for them during 9/11, Afghanistan, and fought alongside them as we led the charge at Juno Beach on D-Day. We have fought their fires and welcomed them with open arms. We have built one of the most successful integrated economies on Earth, and defended it through NORAD and NATO together.”

While placing tariffs on oil exports would hurt the biggest producers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, the move is particularly sensitive in Alberta, where voters are preparing to vote in an independence referendum this October.

Much of the resentment in the province is based on the perception among many Albertans that their oil and gas sector has been unfairly treated by Ottawa over the years, and federal negotiators’ use of their key export in the trade war would likely be seen as yet another attack.

National Post

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

OTTAWA – United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says there are “no open channels right now” with Canada on trade talks, adding that it remains unclear for him when negotiations can resume.

“The Canadians, you know, put out a press release saying they were suspending the talks,” said Greer, during an interview with CBC News on Wednesday. “The Canadian side is proceeding with additional retaliation and a variety of things like that, so it’s not clear to me on that front.”

The collapse of negotiations between Canada and the U.S. last Friday has led to a tit-for-tat escalation in the trade conflict between the two countries.

The U.S. has applied 50-per-cent tariffs under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act on nearly $28 billion worth of Canadian goods. In return, Canada has applied retaliatory tariffs ranging from 15 to 50 per cent on $27.6 billion worth of U.S. imports, effective Sept. 8. Canada has also doubled tariffs on U.S. steel and aluminum.

U.S. President Donald Trump has also threatened to double tariffs to 50 per cent on Canadian autos and trucks and put a levy on auto parts, effective Jan. 1.

After weeks of negotiations for an interim agreement, Prime Minister Mark Carney said ultimately several last-minute demands from the U.S. side led to his government having to walk away from the agreement that was offered.

Greer said Wednesday that Canada also made additional requests between Tuesday evening when a tentative deal was announced by Trump and Friday when the two sides were finalizing the deal.

“Minister LeBlanc went back to Ottawa and they spoke with premiers, spoke with the prime minister, and when they came back, they had some additional views, they had some additional requests,” Greer told CBC News. “They had some additional things that were too much, too much for the United States.”

Carney said the last-minute U.S. demands included Canadian trucks not receiving the same tariff relief treatment as Canadian autos, language in the deal around restricting Canada’s ability to make trade deals with other countries, and “efforts to restrict our protections of our language, our culture, and in effect, our sovereignty.”

Greer disputed this on Wednesday, saying the French language was not a “red line” for the American side in negotiations.

“We know that this is important to Quebec,” said Greer. “It’s been presented in the Canadian press like some big thing that we held the line on; this is not true at all.”

On Wednesday, Canada’s former chief trade negotiator Steve Verheul said the war of words between the two sides could have far-reaching consequences.

Verheul said he doesn’t expect formal negotiations on the review of the Canada-United States-Mexico-Agreement (CUSMA) between Canada and the U.S. to happen anytime soon, following the collapse of trade talks between the two countries last week.

“I think that the discussions between Canada and the U.S. on the CUSMA review have now been put into some question,” said Verheul, who now serves as a principal at GT and Company, during a webcast hosted by BMO Capital Markets on Wednesday.

Verheul said the expectation coming out of negotiations for an interim deal on Section 338 and Section 232 tariffs between the two countries, would be a commitment for both parties to enter the formal process of reviewing the North American trade pact.

“I expect at some point we will get back to that kind of discussion, but I don’t think it will happen anytime soon,” he added.

Verheul was the chief negotiator who led Canada’s role in the creation of CUSMA. The trade pact is now subject to annual reviews, after the U.S. decided in July not to renew it for another 16 years.

Mexico and the U.S. just completed the third formal bilateral negotiation round under the joint review of CUSMA last month in Mexico City. On Monday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she was optimistic that Mexico and the U.S. could reach a deal on Section 232 tariffs.

Verheul cited other reasons as to why talks broke down in between Canada and the U.S., including that American negotiators also wanted Canada to match U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum from other countries and would not include aluminum-containing products as part of the reduction in tariffs.

When asked what it would take to get back to the negotiating table, Verheul said he expects Trump’s tariff policy to become progressively more unpopular domestically.

Verheul noted the U.S. business community is virtually unanimous in its support for the extension of the North American trade pact, and the American public is not in favour of tariffs. He also said manufacturing starts and jobs are down in the U.S.

“I think those kinds of pressures will come to bear, and I hope sooner rather than later,” he said.

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.

To qualify for higher income assistance in Nova Scotia, a home now needs running water and a sewer connection.

The province filed the legislative amendment on Aug. 25 and it took effect the same day. It rewrites the provision the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal interpreted on Aug. 7, when it ruled that Bradley Lowe’s tent was his accommodation.

Lowe died Dec. 15, 2023, of an overdose in a tent in front of Halifax City Hall, after camping at Victoria Park. Two months earlier he applied to move from $380 a month to the enhanced rate of $974, saying he had a disability and owned his tent. He was denied because he was deemed unhoused.

Under the amended rates, a single person on income assistance receives $410 a month without a home and $738 with one. The rate rises to $1,022 for someone with a home who has a disability, is 55 or older or meets other criteria in the regulations.

“I am satisfied that the tent owned by Mr. Lowe, and in which he resided, was his accommodation within the meaning of s. 49 of the Regulations,” Chief Justice Michael Wood wrote in the decision.

The amendment strikes “is renting or owns their accommodation” from Section 49 and substitutes “lives in a home.”

The previous regulations never defined accommodation, but now defined a home as the primary residence of a recipient that is a self-contained unit they rent or own, a room in a municipally approved or licensed rooming or lodging house or a single occupancy room in a building run by an approved provider under the Supportive Housing Program.

A self-contained unit requires private living, kitchen and bathroom facilities, including a plumbed water supply and sanitary sewer disposal. The definition of mobile home is repealed outright.

Vince Calderhead, the Halifax lawyer who represented Lowe’s estate, said in an email to National Post that the plumbing requirement is “the key change that serves to overturn the court of Appeal’s decision.”

Calderhead said this month that people living in their cars might also have qualified under the ruling, and that it was hard to say whether people in trailers would. The province could rewrite the regulations and redefine accommodation “in a way that would exclude tents or cars or campers or anything like that,” he said.

The same test now applies to the $738 rate, which Section 48 pays to a recipient who “lives in a home or boards.” Anyone who qualifies for neither falls to $410.

The order describes itself as updating assistance rates, adding income exemptions, amending definitions and modernizing language. It does not mention the court.

The Department of Opportunities and Social Development said in a statement that the court interpreted the regulations as they were written at the time and identified that some language, including how accommodation was described, could be clearer. “While previous decisions had supported the department’s interpretation of the regulations, the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion, highlighting the need for greater clarity,” the statement said.

The amendments “provide clearer direction on how different living situations are considered when determining eligibility for income assistance rates,” the department said. Eligibility for income assistance itself has not changed, it said, and people experiencing homelessness will continue to be able to access it and other supports for which they qualify.

Rafey Zuberi, a communications advisor with the department, did not answer whether someone living in a tent can qualify for either of the higher rates.

Nicole MacDonald, who speaks for the department, told the National Post in an email on Aug. 18 that it was carefully reviewing the decision and the existing legislative and regulatory framework. She did not say whether the regulations would be rewritten or whether the province would appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

She said an estimate of what the ruling would cost would be speculative because eligibility is decided case by case. The minister’s recommendation for the amendment is dated the next day.

Dalhousie Legal Aid Service prepared a guide encouraging homeless people to apply. Mark Culligan, a community legal worker there, said on Aug. 18 that it had helped half a dozen file.

Asked whether the amendment reaches applications made before Aug. 25, Calderhead wrote that it “is harder to say.” The department said applications from between Aug. 7 and Aug. 25 are assessed “on a case-by-case basis, looking at all of the circumstances of the individual.”

The amendments strike the word accommodation from five provisions and leave it in one. Subsection 55A(2)(b) still requires a recipient to board, rent or own their accommodation to receive a disability supplement, set at $324 a month in the new table.

“I hadn’t noticed that but you are right,” Calderhead wrote when the provision was put to him. Someone in a tent could possibly still qualify for the supplement, he wrote, “so long as they have a disability.”

Calderhead said this month that the ruling could have applied to between 200 and 300 people in Nova Scotia’s warmer months. Culligan said about 50 people live at Halifax’s two designated encampments.

Wood’s reasoning turned on the purpose section of the Employment Support and Income Assistance Act, which he wrote speaks of independence and self-sufficiency and does not reference shelter or housing types. The order amends the regulations, not the Act. Calderhead wrote that “we’ll need to review it closely.”

The amendments do not change what a recipient in a home receives. They write the current rates into the regulations and add an annual adjustment for inflation.

Calderhead wrote that the province had a choice after the ruling. “It could leave the regulations stand and give a measure more dignity to people who are desperately poor or they could choose to re-write the law in a way that pushes homeless people back into desperate poverty, miles below the official poverty line. Today, we see which way this government has chosen.”

The ruling still stands for Lowe’s estate. Wood found he was entitled to the enhanced rate at the time of his October 2023 application and awarded $3,000 in costs.

• Karen Stintz: Give the homeless an address, not the right to an encampment
• Legal activists trying to leverage N.S. tent ruling to broaden welfare benefits for homeless people

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 — A nicotine users’ rights group is calling on Ottawa to loosen restrictions on nicotine pouches, after uncovering a booming illicit market in a cross-country road trip.

Members of Rights 4 Vapers purchased 148 illegal nicotine products from 42 retailers during a nine-day summer tour of five provinces, starting in Montreal and ending in Edmonton.

Founder Maria Papaioannoy said this haul would have been much bigger if the group didn’t exhaust its budget.

“We saw thousands of illegal products available,” said Papaioannoy.

Papaioannoy said the Liberal government has fueled a massive black market for nicotine pouches by approving only one brand, Zonnic, for use in Canada and restricting its sale to behind-the-counter at pharmacies. The government also limited potency to 4 mg or less and prohibited flavours other than mint and menthol.

A 2024 ministerial order regulating nicotine pouches sought to keep them out of the hands of young people.

Papaioannoy says the opposite has happened.

“They created a poorly thought-out, reactive regulation that was based entirely on fear. And how has it worked out for them? They’ve created one of the largest black markets in the country with pouches (and) all safer nicotine products.”

Papaioannoy says she was struck by the number of youth-targeted nicotine products she saw on the trip, including those with candy-style flavours such as gummy bear, Skittles and cotton candy.

The illicit pouches, several of which were obviously counterfeit, came in concentrations as high as 50 mgs.

Papaioannoy, 53, had an especially eye-opening experience when a retailer in Saskatchewan declined to sell her barely hidden contraband pouches.

“I could clearly see them behind the curtain,” said Papaioannoy.

She then sent in her videographer, who was 30, and he had no trouble buying illegal nicotine pouches from the same retailer.

“Even though they wouldn’t sell to me, the younger guy was able to buy stuff there left, right and centre,” said Papaioannoy.

“It’s almost like the illicit market is the opposite of the legal market: the older you are, the harder it is to get them,” said Papaioannoy.

Papaioannoy also noticed that pharmacies were a lot harder to find than convenience stores and vape shops in the rural and remote areas she travelled through. She said this disparity means fewer safe nicotine options for some Canadians than others.

“We’re saying to these places, you can sell cigarettes, you can sell booze but you can’t sell people harm reduction products,” said Papaioannoy.

“People across Canada use nicotine pouches to help them quit or reduce smoking,” said Papaioannoy. “These need to be available anywhere people buy cigarettes or other nicotine products.”

Popular nicotine pouches like Zyn have become a political flashpoint in recent years . The Conservative party promised during last year’s election to “free the Zyn” by legalizing the sale of nicotine pouches at stores.

Ontario MP Jamil Jivani has been an especially visible advocate of loosening restrictions, notably signing Zyn cannisters during a recent tour of college campuses.

Papaioannoy says she’s ambivalent about the culture war framing that Jivani and other prominent conservatives have given nicotine pouches.

“I just wish that when (Jivani) is autographing the Zyn tins, he says, ‘you know what, these are illegal products, but here’s what you can do to speak up to government,’ said Papaioannoy.

Jivani’s office could not be reached for comment.

David Clement, policy director at the Consumer Choice Centre, said that Health Canada should follow the lead of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in approving a reasonable variety of adult-focused nicotine pouches .

“I think the FDA has struck the right balance of permitting a wide range of flavours and concentrations, but also flavours that don’t fall into the category of obviously being attractive to young people, because that’s a serious consideration,” said Clement.

Health Canada denies that the 2024 ministerial order has contributed to the growth of the black market for nicotine pouches.

“To date, there is no evidence that the 2024 place‑of‑sale restrictions have contributed to increased illicit market activity or diversion of authorized products. Current illicit sales appear to be driven primarily by unauthorized products approved as recreational items in other jurisdictions and by illegal cross‑border importation,” said Health Canada spokesperson Karine LeBlanc in a statement.

National Post
rmohamed@postmedia.com

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

While provincial and federal ministers this week revived pleas for the nation’s citizens to “buy Canadian” in the fallout of torpedoed Canada-U.S. trade talks, the country’s largest airline is offering business class passengers American bourbon.

As reported by Global News , a subsequently removed social media post Monday claimed Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Whiskey was being served to those seated in business class during an Air Canada flight out of Montreal.

Air Canada told National Post in a statement that, “As a global airline transporting international customers including to and from the U.S, Air Canada carries a range of onboard products that reflects our customer preferences.”

At least one Canadian wine is featured on every international flight, “and we’ve made a deliberate shift toward Canadian spirits and Canadian producers,” Air Canada said. “In addition to the range of Canadian products we proudly feature, we also carry some internationally recognized products that are particularly important to our global customer base, including U.S. bourbon, which is available in Business (Signature) Class only.”

In a statement to National Post, Porter Airlines said it “emphasizes partnering with high-quality Canadian brands whenever possible,” such as Jackson Triggs wine from Niagara and Alberta-based Tumbler & Rocks cocktails, but that no American alcohol is served on board.

Porter has flights to destinations in Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Costa Rica and the Caribbean.

Most provinces removed American liquor from government-run shelves last year in retaliation to the first batch of Trump-imposed tariffs on Canadian goods.

Prime Minister Mark Carney asked provinces to restock American alcohol when a trade agreement appeared near last week. But Ontario Premier Doug Ford has said he has no plans to instruct Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlets to do so anytime soon. While wholesale customers like grocery and convenience stores, bars and restaurants are no longer able to place orders for U.S. products, “it is at their discretion to sell existing inventory,” the LCBO notes on its website, explaining why the boycott is for “the good of Ontario. The good of Canada.”

Some online commentators said Air Canada’s decision to keep a stock of U.S. bourbon on board seems “a bit tone deaf ” given the escalating trade war. Why not buy into the boycott strategy, others asked.

Air Canada is under federal and not provincial jurisdiction, said Charles-Étienne Beaudry, a teaching professor of political science at the University of Ottawa and author of the independently published book, Radio Trump: How he won the first time.

“This private company does not buy its alcohol at the liquor store. It buys directly from global distributors like Diageo, moving the product via carriers directly into warehouses located on airport grounds,” and all under federal jurisdiction under the federal Customs Act, Beaudry said in an email.

“There is a ‘duty-free’ loophole in this: for international flights, Air Canada pays no taxes or tariffs on the alcohol in the airport warehouse,” Beaudry said. It only applies for in-Canada flights. “The situation is the same for Porter, WestJet, Flair, etc.”

It could be “commercially very costly” for Air Canada to boycott U.S. alcohol, he said.

On the other hand, the airline could choose to apply the boycott on flights inside Canada only, he said. “It would be showing some efforts to participate in the Canadian trade struggle.”

Alternatively, “the federal government can amend the Customs Act to ban U.S. alcohol in all air transportation.”

WestJet and Air Transat did not respond to a request for comment before deadline.

National Post

• Chris Selley: On Canada-U.S. trade negotiations, what are we even doing?
• Even with tariffs, it's still cheaper for Americans to buy B.C. wine

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.

A company that sells the ability to identify a stranger from a photograph left more than nine million files unsecured online, a researcher found.

ClarityCheck sells reverse image searches. A user uploads a photo and the site returns names, social profiles and where else the image appears online. Canadian visitors are quoted $1.69 for a seven-day trial and $38.99 every 28 days after that.

The company also sells lookups on phone numbers, email addresses, vehicle identification numbers, names and businesses. Its homepage says it can “identify unknown callers, verify online contacts, check photos, and decode vehicles using publicly available data from trusted sources.”

Cybersecurity researcher Jeremiah Fowler found 9,042,977 image files in unsecured cloud storage belonging to the company, in folders labelled faces and profiles. The images included adults, teenagers and children, he wrote in a report published by ExpressVPN.

The site is offered in more than 20 languages and prices its trial separately for the United States, Britain, the European Union, Australia and Canada. How many of the images were Canadian is unknown.

The people in those folders are not the customers. They are the people being looked up. ClarityCheck’s image search page says the subject of a search will never be notified, and the company will pull a phone number or an email address from its results on request. It has no equivalent for a photograph.

“If you’re trying to find out who a person is, you might not have authorization or permission, so people might not know that their image had been dumped into this database that was public,” Fowler told Wired magazine.

A scammer holding those images could identify someone, build a fake profile and approach their friends and family as that person, his report said. A face cannot be reset the way a password can. ClarityCheck’s about page says its services “must not be used to stalk, harass, dox, or monitor any person.”

Fowler found the storage in early April, he said in an email to National Post. Most of the ClarityCheck addresses he tried bounced, and messages he sent through the company’s customer support did not reach the right people, he wrote. Public access was not restricted until July, after Wired contacted the company.

A ClarityCheck spokesperson told Wired access “required knowledge of a specific, unindexed URL that was not discoverable through ordinary use of the ClarityCheck service or a general web search.” The company said the files included duplicates, resized copies and non-image data rather than nine million unique images.

Fowler wrote that he did not see duplicate, cropped or resized images in the sample he reviewed, though he was not claiming they were absent. The storage URL appeared in code on ClarityCheck’s own website, Wired reported.

Teresa Scassa, the Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy at the University of Ottawa, said Canadian law puts a duty on companies to protect the personal information they hold. “I don’t think that that would qualify as meeting that duty or that obligation,” she said.

The company is registered in Delaware. Its reverse image search page tells Canadian visitors it handles personal information under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Canada’s private sector privacy law. It points them to the opt-out in its terms, which works by sending a one-time code to the number or address being removed.

Scassa said the law reaches the company regardless, and that it keeps separate privacy policies for American, British and European users. “All that’s required for PIPEDA to apply is for there to be that real and substantial connection,” she said.

The only control on an upload is a box the user ticks confirming they own the image or appear in it. Canada’s privacy commissioner examined that model in 2024. It found Pornhub’s owner, Aylo, could not rely on uploaders to confirm consent, even though Aylo checked government identification against a live face scan.

Scassa said the comparison holds, with a caveat. Intimate images are far more sensitive than a photograph, she said, so ClarityCheck’s position is less serious than Aylo’s. “I still don’t think it’s adequate consent. They should have something more than that.”

A Canadian who suspects their face is in there can ask the company what it holds on them, and it has to answer, Scassa said. Finding out would likely mean handing over a fresh photograph to search against. If the company has something, they can ask for it to be deleted, and Bill C-36, tabled in June, would make that right clearer, she said.

Beyond that the privacy commissioner can investigate and issue findings, Scassa said, but they are not binding, and any Federal Court order would have to be enforced through an American court.

Fowler’s report quotes ClarityCheck’s terms setting a 14-day retention period for uploaded images. The terms now say seven days and carry a July 28 update. It appears the company edited them after his disclosure, Fowler wrote.

ClarityCheck’s FAQ says it does not provide facial recognition. Marketing copy on the same page describes face recognition and facial recognition search. A Wired reporter who uploaded their own face was shown the phrases scanning facial landmarks and mapping unique face geometry.

ClarityCheck did not answer questions from National Post by deadline. Five replies came back from customer support on Friday, each signed with a different first name, saying the questions had been routed to the responsible team.

The company said in an email over the weekend that the questions reached its escalations team late on Friday and would need input from its legal, engineering and product teams. It asked until Aug. 28 for written answers. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has contacted ClarityCheck to obtain more information and determine next steps, the office said in an email.

Fowler wrote that he saw nothing in the images showing where they came from. He did not report the exposure to a Canadian regulator because the company is registered in the United States.

The one way to find out runs through the company itself. “You won’t know if you’re in the database until you get in the database,” Scassa said.

Editors’ note: An earlier version of this article stated that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada did not respond to a request for comment. National Post regrets the error. This story has been updated with the office’s comment.

• The internet is calling them 'pervert glasses.' Here's what Meta's smart glasses can actually do
• Canada’s tech industry warns 'entrepreneurs are leaving in droves' for U.S.

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.

The Toronto Police Service says its hate crimes unit is investigating an incident that occurred Sunday in Toronto, when a man with a megaphone was recorded allegedly making antisemitic comments near Bathurst Street and Sheppard Avenue West, a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood in the north of the city.

Videos shared on social media show the man speaking through a megaphone and wearing a keffiyeh around his neck.

The language, including talk of Jews eating children on “Epstein island” and of “black magic and horrible things,” drew a stark response from Jason Kenney, former Conservative MP and premier of Alberta from 2019 to 2022.

“This kook sounds like a Sacha Baron Cohen parody,” he wrote on social media, above a post showing one of the videos. “But sadly, he is all too real. An avatar of the Islamist-left coalition that is fuelling out of control antisemitism, particularly at our universities and colleges. Cut funding for these colleges if he is not fired immediately.”

Social media posts have claimed that the individual is an instructor at three Ontario schools: University of Niagara Falls, Georgian College in Barrie and Conestoga College in Kitchener.

National Post has reached out to the schools. A representative from Conestoga said the individual was not an employee there. Georgia also said “the individual identified in the video is not an employee and is not teaching” at the Barrie school.

In a statement posted on Tuesday, the University of Niagara Falls wrote: “ We are aware of a video that has surfaced and that allegedly involves a sessional faculty member. These are not our views and UNF has zero tolerance for discrimination, hate, harassment, or any conduct that threatens the dignity and well-being of others.”

The university said it had initiated an internal investigation but was unable to comment further.

Kenney added that police should, “charge him with inciting hatred under the Criminal Code. Revoke his visa if he is not a citizen. And hold the college administrators who hired this lunatic to account. No more BS from politicians that ‘antisemitism has no place in Canada.’ It has a large and dangerous place, including in many of our public institutions.”

This kook sounds like a Sacha Baron Cohen parody.

But sadly, he is all too real. An avatar of the Islamist-left coalition that is fuelling out of control antisemitism, particularly at our universities and colleges.

Cut funding for these colleges if he is not fired immediately.… https://t.co/rEyGcWg4ZW

— Jason Kenney 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 (@jkenney) August 25, 2026

A joint statement was issued Monday by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Friends of Simon Weisenthal Center, saying: “What happened at Bathurst and Sheppard this weekend was blatant antisemitism.”

It adds: “An individual who is reportedly a university instructor stood in a Jewish neighbourhood and repeated some of the oldest and most vile lies and conspiracy theories about Jews…. These are antisemitic blood libels that have been used for centuries to justify hatred and violence against Jews.”

In a 74-second clip, apparently reading from his cellphone, a man says: “The British colonizers have planted this cancerous, false Zionist state of Israel in the Palestine and right in the heart of the Muslim countries, and right in the heart of Islam.”

“This is not coincidence,” he continues. “These Zionists have never had a country of their own, because of their mischief. They are the most kicked-out people in the world, for making black magic and horrible things.”

He goes on: “We can see the corruption crystal-clear in the Epstein island, where they have seduced leaders from all around the world, including Trump. They have raped and killed and ate children at the same time. They have done the unimaginable to blackmail them and control them.”

He concludes: “That’s why you can see, now, a guy like Trump, who causes genocide in Gaza, kidnaps the president of Venezuela, kills the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, may God sanctify his soul, and stays on the throne. It is because of them, the terrorist Zionists.”

In another clip, the man addresses “those Israelis on the other side of the street,” telling them their passports will expire soon and be useless, and adding: “Your mischief will cause your annihilation, and it is coming soon, and as it is prophesied it will be from the north, from the resistance in Lebanon.”

“We have seen how anti-Israel hate is being used to legitimize hostility toward Jewish Canadians, with increasingly dangerous consequences,” says the joint statement from Jewish groups. “When this behaviour is allowed to continue without meaningful consequences, the message is that targeting Jews in this way is acceptable. It is not.”

The statement calls for Toronto Police to investigate the incident and lay charges where necessary. “There must be consequences for those who repeatedly use public demonstrations as cover to spread hatred, incitement and target Toronto’s Jewish community. Allowing this behaviour to go unchecked is to normalize antisemitism as an everyday feature of life in this city.”

The Toronto Police Service Hate Crime Unit is investigating this incident.

Anyone who witnessed this incident or has information is encouraged to contact police at 416-808-3505. https://t.co/BznFfdJ0kh

— Toronto Police (@TorontoPolice) August 24, 2026

Toronto Police responded on social media to say they are investigating.

”The Hate Crime Unit is investigating comments made by a demonstrator in the Bathurst Street and Sheppard Avenue West area over the weekend,” police told National Post in an email. “We are asking anyone who witnessed the incident or has additional information to contact police.”

• Jewish groups want Ottawa to ban militia allegedly tied to Toronto shootings
• Avi Benlolo: Canadians don't need more reports on antisemitism — we need action

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has thrown his support behind Prime Minister Mark Carney’s retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., as tensions between Canada and the Trump administration continue to escalate.

Speaking at a media conference in Vaughan, Ont., on Wednesday, Ford said Carney had done the “right thing” by walking away from a deal with the U.S., and that the PM has his “full support in standing up for our country” by introducing retaliatory tariffs. He added that Canada is “going to fight like we’ve never fought before against President Trump.”

Ford also stood by his previous suggestions that he would consider cutting off the electricity and critical minerals that Ontario ships south as part of retaliation against the U.S.

“Everything’s on the table,” he said, but stressed that any such move would require a coordinated approach across Canada.

“I’m not the only province that ships electricity down to the U.S.,” he said. “We need a Team Canada approach, and I’d be happy within the provinces to lead that approach.”

Ford also addressed a memorandum letter he sent to Ontario board chairs encouraging them to support local companies instead of American businesses, saying: “It drives me crazy when I hear someone’s buying something off the U.S.”

Canada is “in a war” the premier said, and “when you’re at war, you protect your own … You don’t go down to the U.S. and buy a product.”

Ontario spends more than $30 billion every year on procurement. We’re doubling down on our Buy Ontario policy so that every penny possible is supporting Ontario workers targeted by President Trump’s tariffs. pic.twitter.com/C2I0Qv9W4I

— Doug Ford (@fordnation) August 26, 2026

Ford has been vocal in his combative stance against the U.S. and its president in recent days. On Monday, he told Toronto radio station Newstalk 1010 that Trump could “kiss my ass” and said Canada should use “every tool in our toolbox to go after President Trump.”

Trump responded with a post on Truth Social in which he called Ford “flunky” and compared him unfavourably to his late brother, former Toronto mayor Rob Ford.

Later that day, while speaking at a press conference in Hamilton, Ford refused to back away from his blunt language, saying that he had “plenty of real estate” on his behind for Trump to find a place to kiss.

When asked about Trump’s criticism, Ford said: “I’ve dealt with guys like that my whole life,” before directing a blunt message to the U.S. president: “You’re a loser.”

He also said: “I have more courage, more brains in my baby toe than he has in his whole body.”

Ford’s comments came shortly after Trump posted on social media that he would bring 50 per cent tariffs against Canadian automobiles and auto parts in January.

However, Ford said at Wednesday’s news conference that things have since “simmered down” between himself and Trump, adding that “it was a heated day for both him and I.”

But the Ontario premier rejected the suggestion that his comments against Trump had gone “too far.”

“Not at all,” he said. “Those words resonated. I usually don’t use those words, but when your country’s under attack and your province is under attack … this guy’s just nothing but a bully.”

The trade deal between Canada and the U.S. collapsed last week after Carney walked away from negotiations on Friday , citing unfair last-minute demands and accusing the U.S. administration of introducing measures that would restrict Canada’s ability to do deals with other countries.

Speaking at a press conference on Saturday morning, the PM said that Canada is now “at war” after being “attacked” by Trump’s steep tariffs.

As a result of the collapsed negotiations, 50 per cent tariffs came into effect at midnight on Saturday, impacting $28 billion worth of Canadian goods. In response, the federal government has retaliated with dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs that will hit the U.S. starting Sept. 8.

• Ford tells Trump to 'kiss my ass' as U.S. president calls premier a 'flunky'
• Jesse Kline: Doug Ford is right, time to hit Trump back hard

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.