WASHINGTON, D.C. — The last time Maine voted for a Republican presidential candidate was in 1988 for George H. W. Bush, yet in every U.S. Senate race since 1996, the Pine Tree State has elected Republican Senator Susan Collins.

Even in 2020, when Democrats tied the race to a broader referendum on Donald Trump — and polls predicted she would lose to Democrat Sara Gideon — Collins prevailed. Some Mainers split their tickets, voting for both her and Joe Biden.

But now, with President Donald Trump’s approval ratings low and tensions with Canada worsening, many pollsters and analysts wonder if Collins’s political fortunes will fade this November.

“I was cautiously optimistic that Susan Collins — after Graham Platner was such a disaster — was going to pull this off in Maine, and then Trump does this,” said Andrew Hale, fellow for Advancing American Freedom, referring to the reignited tariff war with Ottawa.

Hale noted how Collins has worked to put space between herself and Trump.

“She shrewdly has distanced herself from the president and J.D. Vance, who are not popular there,” he said. “She’s articulated why (the tariffs) are wrong for Maine voters … and has actually done quite a lot when it comes to trade to oppose President Trump’s trade war.”

On August 24, Collins did not attend Vice President JD Vance’s event in Brewer, Maine, where he defended Trump’s tariff war with Canada while campaigning for Republicans. Her campaign cited a scheduling conflict, and Hale called Vance’s trip “really, really unhelpful to Susan Collins.”

The senator has written to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, seeking clarity on the tariffs and urging a resumption of U.S.-Canada trade talks. She has also voted in the Senate to rescind some of Trump tariffs.

But pollsters and analysts are unsure whether that will be enough to help Collins win the crossover votes she needs from some Democrats and Independents this cycle.

A July University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll found Democrat Troy Jackson leading Collins, 49 per cent to 46 per cent. A Fox News Poll conducted by Democratic pollster Beacon Research and Republican pollster Shaw & Company Research in early August found Jackson leading Collins 48 to 46 per cent.

Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan weekly online political newsletter, lists the race as a toss-up, while Inside Elections rates it Tilt Republican and the Cook Political Report rates it Lean Republican.

“It’s gonna be hard for her to win,” said Andrew Smith, director of the UNH Survey Center, but noted that she could still pull it off. “I don’t want to dismiss her,” he said, noting how she would need more than 60 per cent of the Independent voters and probably 10 per cent of Democratic voters to do it.

Nathan Gonzales, editor and publisher of Inside Elections, explains why it’s tough to predict the Collins race. “The senator has earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt in her races,” he said. “In 2020, she was behind in most of the polls and won in a race that wasn’t particularly close.”

Likewise, Chris Stirewalt, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said, “I think we’re all a little snakebit by 2020 because her overperformance was so remarkable.” But he also acknowledged 2026 will be harder.

“She’s a remarkable survivor, but this is definitely her toughest test yet,” Stirewalt added.

Gonzales said Collins faces a tougher task holding onto crossover support.

“Voters are just less likely to go against the partisan lean of their state,” he said.

But Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, still thinks non-Republican Mainers who have voted for Collins in the past may continue to do so.

“There might be just something about Maine that makes it more open to splitting its tickets,” Kondik said.

Stirewalt believes Collins’ personal popularity could produce an unusually large bloc of late deciders. “There are going to be a larger than usual portion of Maine voters who hem and haw over that race because they do like Collins, and they do trust her, and think that she is a good person.”

“It’s gonna be harder for them to flip the switch in their brains,” he added.

Democrats are framing this and other races around affordability — a major issue this midterm season for all voters — and in Maine and other border states, Trump’s tariff policies are likely to play into that.

On Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer introduced a bill called the “End Trump’s Tariff Tax Act” that Democrats say would revoke the administration’s newest tariffs and refund duties already paid. The legislation faces steep odds, thanks to the Republican-controlled Congress, but it’s meant to give Democrats a way to pressure Republicans over the tariffs before the midterms.

“Tariffs are a huge part of the conversation in Maine right now,” said Stirewalt.

“This tariff war totally makes (the affordability crisis) worse,” said Hale. “It has the potential to make it so much worse.”

“It’s ruinous for people who are trying to get elected in border states,” he added.

Both Hale and Kondik argued that Trump’s Canada policy was politically damaging to Republican candidates.

“If Trump were actively trying to undermine Republicans, would he be doing anything different? I don’t know if he would be,” said Kondik.

“If he cared anything about Republican candidates trying to get elected in the midterms, he would end this,” said Hale, referring to the U.S.-Canada trade tensions.

Stirewalt said he expects Republicans to push back hard on the affordability narrative and that “the cavalry is already there and will continue to come in for Collins.”

Republicans’ strategy will focus on “making Troy Jackson an unacceptable choice,” he said.

So could a deal be forged that would help Republicans, including Collins, before the midterms ?

Most analysts say a deal would help Republicans, but it would need to be soon.

“If before the end of September the dispute with Canada was resolved, it would be in time to help Susan Collins,” Stirewalt said.

Gonzales, however, thinks it may already be too late. “A challenge is that voter sentiment is rarely sudden,” he said. So while the president may say there’s a deal, “it will likely take time to have a real-world impact for voters to change their mind on what’s happening.”

• The key to winning the Canada-U.S. trade war is not retaliating, says think tank

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 free-market think tank is calling on Canadian policymakers to turn the other cheek as the United States ramps up its cross-border tariffs.

“When you’re in a trade impasse like the one we’re in with the U.S., what works is being able to outlast the other guy,” said Vincent Geloso, a senior economist at the Montreal Economic Institute and the author of a new research note on the ineffectiveness of counter-tariffs.

“Eventually, there’ll be an opportunity to act at the right time in the right way,” said Geloso.

The Carney government has been scrambling to respond to U.S. President Donald Trump’s use of Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to put 50 per cent tariffs on a host of Canadian goods. The tariffs took effect on Aug. 22, after last-minute trade talks collapsed.

Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced counter-tariffs on $27.6 billion worth of imports from the U.S., which are set to take effect on Sept. 8.

But Geloso says that Carney would be smart to learn from Canada’s response to the U.S.’s first use of the Tariff Act during the Great Depression.

“In the ’30s we did counter-tariffs. We actually did two rounds of retaliation, (both) of which did absolutely nothing,” said Geloso.

The U.S. raised tariffs by an average of 20 per cent on more than 800 Canadian products under the 1930 Tariff Act, prompting retaliation from Liberal prime minister Mackenzie King and his Conservative successor R.B. Bennett. Bennett was especially aggressive in his response, putting matching counter-tariffs on roughly 30 per cent of U.S. exports to Canada.

Geloso says that these measures had no perceptible effect on the American economy or the direction of U.S. trade policy. However, they did substantial harm to Canada’s economy.

He estimates that falling prices for goods Canada sold to other countries caused about half of Canada’s losses during the Great Depression, with counter-tariffs being a key driver of this effect.

Geloso said that what ultimately resolved the impasse was a change in government in the U.S., with Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt winning a massive mandate in the 1932 presidential election. He added that Roosevelt demonstrated his commitment to open markets by naming free-trade evangelist Cordell Hull his first secretary of state.

“Naming Cordell Hull in that position was about as radical of a pro-free trade signal (Roosevelt) could have sent at the time,” said Geloso.

The Roosevelt government quickly restored cross-border trade relations, signing a reciprocal trade agreement with Canada in 1935.

Geloso admits that the situation is somewhat different this time around, with Canada facing punitive, targeted cross-border tariffs, rather than ones the U.S. has broadly applied to all its trade partners. Section 338 has never before been invoked in the Tariff Act’s 96-year history.

However, he says this doesn’t change the fundamental dynamics of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

“What worked then is what will work now, and that’s being patient,” said Geloso.

Geloso said he supported Carney’s decision to walk away from negotiations but said the prime minister needs to avoid being goaded into a tit-for-tat tariff war that Canada cannot win.

“(Carney) can either play the jingoist card or the adult card,” said Geloso. “And the adult card would be to exercise patience and wait for the other guy to tire himself out of the shenanigans he’s doing.”

He noted that Trump’s job approval rating is at a historic low and said he expected Trump to be a “lame duck” after November’s midterm elections.

Geloso said that, for the time being, Carney should focus on implementing measures that mitigate the immediate damage of the tariffs and make Canada’s economy more resilient, such as reducing red tape for businesses.

He added that Carney is in a good position to dig in for extended trade interruption, with a majority government and the strong backing of Canadians on the Canada-U.S. relations file.

National Post
rmohamed@postmedia.com

• Republican Senator Susan Collins could be one of the first victims of Trump's tariff war
• Lutnick says Canadian minister didn't deny trying to 'blow up' negotiations

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 family doctor who prescribed ketamine over the phone and asked patients to sign away their right to sue him or make a formal complaint “of any kind” has been suspended from practising for six months.

Dr. Michael Hart, a past guest of U.S podcaster Joe Rogan who was “cautioned” by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario multiple times dating back to 2016, including over his social media posts, engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded as “disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional,” according to a recent ruling.

“What is more, it was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional to ask clients to sign a document promising not to take legal action against him or make a complaint to the college,” the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal wrote .

“Physicians may not attempt to hinder the College’s regulation of the profession in the public interest by encouraging the withdrawal of complaints” or attempting to discourage patients from exercising their legal rights.

The discipline panel accepted the parties’ joint submission proposing a penalty of a six-month licence suspension, effective July 8, as well as a permanent restriction prohibiting Hart from prescribing ketamine or testosterone replacement therapy upon his return to practice, among other terms and conditions.

The tribunal wrote that a joint submission must be accepted, unless it is “unhinged” from the circumstances and would bring the college’s discipline process into disrepute.

According to the ruling, Hart was “cautioned or provided with advice” eight times between 2016 and 2024 by a college committee that handles complaints against doctors, including over his social media posts regarding gender-affirming care and COVID-19. In five cases, he was required to appear before the committee to be cautioned in person.

“Progressive regulation only protects patients if the physician on the receiving end responds to it, and the (Hart) file shows how long a practice can continue substantially unchanged while the warnings accumulate,” medical malpractice lawyer Paul Cahill blogged.

In a statement to National Post, the college said that while the complaints committee can make a range of dispositions, some remedial in nature, it doesn’t make findings of professional misconduct. “Where a matter requires the determination of disputed facts or involves allegations of professional misconduct,” the case may be referred to the discipline tribunal, which is responsible for adjudicating those matters.

What most stuck Cahill was Hart providing two patients with a document asking them to promise never to file a lawsuit or a grievance with his licensing college, which the tribunal found was itself disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

“I’ve been practising medical malpractice litigation for over 20 years now, and I’ve never come across something like that,” Cahill said in an interview with National Post.

“You do see cases where waivers are signed if you’re about to do some dangerous sport. Waivers exist. But medicine? It just didn’t seem right…. That’s an alarm bell. It’s not what happens, or should happen, in our health system, at all,” Cahill said.

“It’s worth letting the public know that.”

A lawyer who represented Hart declined to comment. Hart did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.

Hart has an active social media presence . He was profiled by local media as the first family doctor in London to write prescriptions for medical marijuana and appeared on Rogan’s podcast for a cannabis debate.

According to the discipline tribunal, his practice was found to have “multiple deficiencies” in a case stemming from complaints by two patients and a review of 34 other patients’ charts by two different assessors.

“Dr. Hart showed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment that harmed patients in multiple ways,” according to the tribunal decision.

One concern was his prescribing of ketamine, a powerful anesthetic used for years to sedate people before surgery that has recently gained attention for its potential for treating severe depression. Actor Matthew Perry’s fatal overdose death in 2023 involved heavy doses of legal and illicit ketamine.

According to the tribunal’s findings and penalty reasons, “Dr. Hart failed to properly assess patients, obtain consent, educate patients, prescribe appropriate dosage or keep records.”

The tribunal described how an anonymized “Patient A” sought treatment for anxiety and depression in 2022 from Hart at his ReadyToGo clinic in London, where he was the sole owner and practising doctor.

Both Patient A’s encounters with Hart took place over the phone. “Dr. Hart did not see or assess Patient A in person at any time.”

Among the documents the woman received before her first appointment was a form requiring her signature that read: “I agree not to take any legal action against the assessing physician, the ReadyToGo Clinic or to make a complaint of any kind to the College of Physicians and Surgeons (of) Ontario.”

The woman was prescribed ketamine after an initial phone consultation and experienced side effects she described as “horrific” and “scary,” including loss of balance, slurred speech, increased heart rate and dissociation, meaning a sense of disconnection from reality. According to the tribunal, Hart “failed to adequately explains the risks and side effects of ketamine.”

The effects lasted throughout the day until she went to bed that night.

“Follow-up care was limited to a phone call two weeks later,” according to the tribunal report. “During the call, Dr. Hart pressured Patient A not to complain to the College by repeatedly asking Patient A not to take any action against him or report him. This behaviour made Patient A feel uncomfortable, coerced, intimated and harassed.”

In 2020-21, Hart treated Patient B. Once again, appointments took place over the phone and Patient B was asked to sign a document with the same wording promising no legal action or complaining to the college, according to the tribunal.

Patient B was referred to Hart by therapist Tatiana Zdyb for a prescription for ketamine to be used in combination with psychotherapy. “Dr. Hart identified her as Dr. Zdyb, despite knowing that she did not have a doctoral degree in clinical psychology,” the tribunal wrote.

Zdyb’s licence was revoked last year by the College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario over inappropriate use of ketamine and psilocybin, misrepresenting her credentials and violating professional boundaries by having a sexual relationship with a client.

Hart prescribed Patient B four capsules of ketamine to be taken prior to therapy sessions. He renewed the prescription six months later at a higher dose when Patient B reported that, while the therapy was helpful during sessions, there was no sustained benefit. Four months later, he prescribed at-home ketamine without assessing for a risk of addiction. He also yelled at the patient during a telephone appointment when he realized the patient was calling from a car.

Independent experts who reviewed a total of 34 charts found frequent deficiencies, including lack of appropriate assessment and rationale for ketamine treatment and escalating doses based on the patient’s preference, rather than medical need.

Hart’s misconduct “was not a lapse or gap in one area: there are fundamental problems with Dr. Hart’s approach to the practice of medicine,” the discipline tribunal wrote.

Some of the same issues Hart was cautioned or advised about in the past “happened in this case,” the discipline tribunal said. “This misconduct is more serious, given that it occurred after these warnings.”

Hart pleaded no contest, “saving costs for the College and avoiding the need for witnesses to testify,” according to the tribunal.

“Unlike an admission or entering into an agreed statement of facts, however, the registrant has not demonstrated insight or remorse.”

National Post

• Ontario man dies of MAID after being assessed outside Tim Hortons
• Toronto doctor loses licence for sexually abusing patient

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 federal government has acknowledged that two transgender inmates incarcerated in women’s prisons faced sexual-assault charges following complaints made by female inmates.

On Monday, the government filed its statement of defence in an ongoing constitutional challenge to Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) policy allowing some “gender diverse” inmates to be transferred to women’s prisons. The CSC uses the term “gender diverse” to describe identities or expressions that differ from expectations based on sex assigned at birth, including non-binary, transgender and two-spirited.

According to the filing, one inmate was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment in May 2020 after a female inmate filed a complaint. Another inmate was charged with two counts of sexual assault after a female inmate filed a complaint in October 2024.

The inmate charged in 2020 was alleged to be an instigator in an additional five incidents against three women inmates, but the government said in its filing that they were not involved in four of these, while a “cisgender woman” inmate was also found to be an instigator in the fifth.

The government uses the term “cisgender women” to refer to “individuals whose gender identity corresponds to the gender assigned to them at birth.”

The inmate charged in the 2024 complaint was also identified in another incident, but this was a false allegation, the government said.

Responding to a demand for particulars, the plaintiff in the case identified 45 cisgender women inmates who were allegedly impacted in 59 incidences of harm. For 45 of the 59 alleged incidences, the government says, “insufficient particulars were provided to allow Canada to respond.”

Of the remaining 14 claims, 10 took place at Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont., three took place at Fraser Valley Institution, in Abbotsford, B.C., and one at the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge on the Nekaneet First Nation, Sask. These include a 2018 complaint that led to a police investigation but no charges, a 2019 report of sexual assault, and a 2021 complaint alleging sexual and physical assault.

The constitutional challenge brought against the federal government concerns CSC’s Commissioner’s Directive 100: Gender Diverse Offenders , and was launched in 2025 by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).

CSC introduced its policy on “gender diverse” offenders in May 2022. The directive states: “Throughout their sentence, offenders may apply for a voluntary transfer to a men’s or a women’s institution according to their gender identity or expression.” It adds that all transfers are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that the Deputy Commissioner for Women is the final decision-maker for transfers to women’s institutions.

Data previously obtained by the Investigative Journalism Bureau found that, between 2017 and 2025, 57 transgender women made 129 requests to transfer to a women’s prison. During that period, 35 requests were approved, and more than 70 requests were denied by CSC.

As of October 2025, there are 90 transgender women in federal prison — 73 in men’s prisons and 17 in women’s prisons. Of the 17, eight have had gender-affirming surgery.

Lawyers funded by the JCCF brought the lawsuit on behalf of Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (CAWSBAR), arguing that allowing transgender inmates to be housed in women’s prisons exposes female inmates to physical and psychological harm and violates their Charter rights.

Ottawa denies that its policy violates female inmates’ Charter right to life, liberty, and security of the person, stating: “In each specific factual context, CD 100 has been implemented in good faith and consistent with the principles of fundamental justice, including not being arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate.”

Also in the filing, the federal government “wholly denies that any alleged harm to inmates housed in women’s institutions flowed from the implementation of CD 100” and maintains that its individualized assessment process provides an appropriate framework for managing risks.

In a JCCF news release Tuesday, constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury said the government’s defence shows that female inmates have raised serious complaints about their experiences in women’s prisons, some of which resulted in sexual-assault charges.

“Female inmates are being exposed to real risks and real harm,” he said. “This case is about protecting their safety, dignity and constitutional rights.”

In total, the government responded to allegations involving 13 gender diverse inmates who are alleged to have “taken and will continue to take advantage of CD 100.” For four of these inmates, there were no specific allegations provided, with the statement of defence reading: “rather, it is their mere presence in a women’s institution that is alleged to cause harm to cisgender women inmates.”

In May 2026, the Federal Court rejected the government’s attempt to strike the lawsuit and granted CAWSBAR public interest standing, allowing the constitutional challenge to proceed. The federal government is now asking the court to dismiss the claim with costs.

The case follows a separate Federal Court decision in July, which saw a transgender inmate lose a bid to be transferred to a women’s prison.

Amanda Joy Cooper, 59, has been incarcerated since 2001 and is convicted of four sexual assaults, forcible confinement and other crimes against adult women and one girl, mostly in Montreal. All those crimes were committed long before Cooper’s 2020 diagnosis of gender dysphoria and 2024 surgery to construct female genitalia and breasts.

Cooper was at the Atlantic Institution in New Brunswick before asking to be moved to a women’s prison, and instead was moved last October to Millhaven Institution in Ontario, a maximum-security prison for men.

Justice Janet Fuhrer ruled that CSC had not acted unreasonably in refusing the transfer request.

• Transgender inmate with history of sex crimes loses bid to be transferred to women's prison
• Transfers of trans prisoners in Canada have fallen. An upcoming case will test gender policies

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 question to a U.S. admiral about the possibility of military action against Canada was met with incredulity from the military leader, who called it “preposterous” and added: “Would you ask me please, also, what my attack plans are for the Martians?”

Gen. Jennie Carignan, Canada’s chief of the defence staff, and Admiral Samuel J. Paparo, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, were holding a joint news conference on Wednesday as the three-day annual Indo-Pacific Chiefs of Defence conference came to a close.

Most of the questions dealt with cooperation between Canada and U.S. military forces and the upcoming decision about the potential purchase of F-35 fighter jets, as well as issues both countries face in the western Pacific region.

However, midway through the event, a reporter asked, “With all due respect, under what circumstances would you obey an order to launch military action against Canada?”

GOING VIRAL: 🇺🇸 US admiral responds to a Global News reporter's “preposterous” notion that U.S. President Donald Trump might seek "military action" to annex Canada. “Would you ask me please, also, what my attack plans are for the martians,” said @SJPaparo. pic.twitter.com/wvVNQ7fs9T

— CCFR/CCDAF (@CCFR_CCDAF) September 2, 2026

Paparo looked flustered and stammered for several seconds before replying: “I find that scenario to be absolutely and utterly preposterous.” He added: “I follow the orders of the commander-in-chief, but that is a needlessly emotional question,” before concluding that “Canada is a close ally.”

The reporter replied: “You didn’t answer the question.”

Paparo started to repeat his earlier remarks before adding: “Would you ask me please, also, what my attack plans are for the Martians?”

The reporter then responded: “If you want to dismiss it, by all means.”

Paparo said: “Yes, sir. I don’t dismiss you, but I do dismiss the question.”

The reporter continued: “You belittle it, and I don’t think that’s the right approach at all. This is a serious question about a serious issue. We’ve had threats of annexation. I know it’s a hypothetical, but nonetheless if you’ve not thought about it, maybe you should.”

At this point, the event moderator thanked the reporter and moved on to another question. The press conference wrapped up several minutes later.

U.S. President Donald Trump has spoken openly of making Canada the “51st state,” even insinuating during trade talks that it was something Canada wanted. He has also talked about annexing Greenland and “taking back” control of the Panama Canal.

Trump also recently threatened to attack Oman, an ally of the United States for more than 200 years , saying last month that if Oman “gets in the way” of his efforts to reach an agreement with Iran, “we’ll bomb the shit out of them.”

In 1840, Oman sent an emissary to the United States, the first Arab diplomat accredited there. In 1980, it became the first Gulf Arab state to formally allow U.S. military access to its airfields and ports, allowing it to operate and resupply without relying on the Strait of Hormuz.

The president has also talked recently about pulling back military support from South Korea, a major U.S. partner in the Asia-Pacific region.

• Chris Selley: We could have just ignored Trump's 'Lake America' trolling
• Carney tells U.S. to stop 'doing memes' and 'throwing shade' as war of words escalates

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 — Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced on Wednesday an extension of the gas tax holiday until the end of January. After that, the government intends to return the tax to half of its regular rate before resuming fully on April 1, 2027.

The previously announced pause on the federal fuel excise tax was set to end on Sept. 7, adding 10 cents per litre of gas and four cents per litre of diesel and aviation fuel after Labour Day.

Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne told reporters that the government can afford the move because the national economy is resilient and higher global oil prices have meant more government revenue.

Canadian motorists didn’t cause the conflict in Iran, he said at a press conference at a Canadian Tire in Ottawa, and they shouldn’t have to absorb a steep financial burden. “We’re building the Canada of today and tomorrow.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the pause on the tax in April as the conflict between the United States and Iran sparked an increase in gas prices.

But higher gas prices are of course not popular with voters and the return of the federal gas tax would have added to pump prices when they’re already at a peak. Polling showed that nearly two-thirds of Canadians disapproved of the plan to let the pause end next week.

The move to extend the holiday by at least a few months is a short-term win for consumers, but will cost the federal government almost $2-billion over the next four months and an estimated $5.3-billion over the full nine-month pause. That will increase the federal deficit, already on pace to be one of the largest in Canadian history.

Don Drummond, a former high-ranking official at the Department of Finance and chief economist at TD Bank, said it would be better for the economy if the government focused more on productivity, which leads to a stronger economy, not stimulating consumption.

“The continuation of the suspension is part of a pattern of borrowing more money in the name of affordability,” said Drummond. “It merely passes the burden forward.”

Economists say about half of the money from federal gas taxes normally goes to municipalities for infrastructure investments. But the federal government did not cut those payments to municipalities following the gas tax pause in April.

Drummond said he’s not surprised by the government’s move largely because pump prices have not dropped in recent months and it would have been an unpopular move to let the cost of fuel increase further.

The gas tax holiday, while popular, will not mean a big boost for economic growth. Economists argue that the government should use tax cuts to stimulate the most growth possible, namely on corporate and personal income taxes, and those that can trigger corporate investments such as the capital cost allowance.

Cuts to consumption taxes such as the GST and the tax on gas have less effect on economic growth, economists say.

“It is politically smart I guess but certainly not good economic policy,” said Jack Mintz, the president’s fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy and a tax policy specialist.

Tim Sargent, director of economic growth and prosperity at University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, said higher oil prices are unlikely to be disappearing any time soon so the government should stop shielding Canadians from that long-term reality.

The decision to extend the gas tax holiday may also not be popular with some in the Liberal caucus who are concerned that the Carney government has again moved away from the Trudeau-era emphasis on pro-environment policies. Higher gas taxes and prices encourage motorists to drive less, which means lower consumption of fossil fuels.

But many businesses — not just consumers — hit hard by higher pump prices will embrace a little relief.

Anne Kothawala, chief executive of the Convenience Industry Council of Canada, said the gas tax pause is good for both drivers and store operators. Convenience retailers operate on razor-thin margins, she said in an email, and see firsthand how higher pump prices squeeze household budgets and discretionary spending at convenience stores and other retailers.

But t he move will likely not sway Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre who has called on the government to remove “all taxes on gas” until at least July 1, 2027.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford wrote to Carney last month to ask him to extend the pause on the federal fuel excise tax until at least the end of the year to help Canadians navigate the impact of additional U.S. tariffs.

On Wednesday, Ford welcomed news of the extension of the gas tax holiday. “Now let’s make it permanent,” he wrote on X.

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.

Americans are becoming increasingly divided on their feelings about their northern neighbours and the freshly stoked trade war, according to new polls released this week.

Polling conducted by YouGov for The Economist found that 38 per cent of Republican voters “now view Canada as unfriendly or an enemy, by far the highest level in the past decade” and up from 22 per cent in February polling. Only 12 per cent of Republicans felt the same way in April 2024, before U.S. President Donald Trump began his second term.

Meanwhile, only eight per cent of self-identified Democrats viewed Canada in the same light, up from three per cent this February.

Overall, a majority of Americans (net 64 per cent) describe Canada as either an ally (39 per cent) or friendly (25 per cent). Less than a quarter (net 22 per cent) now see Canada as unfriendly (19 per cent) or an enemy (three per cent) — “a new high since 2016.”

YouGov also polled respondents about Trump’s renaming of Lake Ontario to Lake America in the U.S., finding most citizens (68 per cent) strongly or somewhat disapproved of the move.

The 17 per cent who strongly or somewhat approved were predominantly Republicans, but Republicans more broadly were divided, with 41 per cent disapproving and 37 per cent endorsing it.

“The exception is MAGA Republicans: 47 per cent approve of the renaming and 29 per cent disapprove,” YouGov wrote, “while non-MAGA Republicans disapprove by 67 per cent to 22 per cent.”

A similar pattern emerged on a question regarding Canada’s trade treatment of the U.S.

Asked whether they felt Canada was treating the U.S. unfairly in trade, 45 per cent said no, 28 per cent said yes and the remaining 27 per cent were unsure. Republicans (49 per cent) were more likely than Democrats (11 per cent) to say Canada was being unfair.

But fewer Republicans who identified as non-MAGA (33 per cent) judged Canada to be unfair, compared to 58 per cent of MAGA Republicans.

Polling by Ipsos also explored Americans’ feelings on the new 50 per cent tariffs enacted by the Trump administration last month, finding more Republicans support (44 per cent) than oppose (33 per cent) the sanctions, with 22 per cent unsure.

Republicans were similarly split on who was most responsible for the trade hostilities — Canada (31 per cent), the U.S. (19 per cent) or both equally (30 per cent). A fifth of respondents (20 per cent) were unsure.

And when it comes to ending the trade dispute, the majority of respondents (68 per cent) said the U.S. should be willing to “make tradeoffs with Canada even if it means it doesn’t get most of what it wants.” Only a quarter of respondents (25 per cent) want team Trump to “take a tough stance with Canada and insist on getting most of what it wants.”

Across political lines, while Democrat voters are overwhelmingly (88 per cent) in favour of concessions that would leave the U.S. short of its desires, Republicans were largely split on the matter — 47 per cent on the side of trade-offs and 50 per cent in support of holding firm.

Ipsos also asked about the contentious Lake Ontario-Lake America issue, garnering results similar to Leger’s.

More Republicans oppose (43 per cent) than support (33 per cent) the change, but 24 per cent remain unsure. Across the board, 63 per cent of Americans are against Trump’s executive order.

A third poll, conducted by Abacus Data , explored “the political consequences of the trade war in the five states most likely to determine Senate control” following the upcoming U.S. midterm elections — Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Maine and South Carolina, where 500 people were polled, respectively.

It found that those “voters have not turned on Canada.”

Positive impressions of Canada are highest in Maine (81 per cent), “where cross-border ties are part of daily life,” but even the low water mark was still high at 66 per cent in Ohio.

Their “feelings toward the Canadian people are warmer still,” landing between a low of 74 per cent in South Carolina to 87 per cent in Michigan and 88 per cent in Maine.

“Americans are drawing a line between a government dispute and a neighbouring people they continue to like,” Abacus wrote. “For Canadian readers, the audience on the other side of the border is not hostile, it is more conflicted about its own government’s policy.”

Data also indicated that Trump’s own approval rating in every state is higher than approval of how he’s handled trade with Canada — even in the red state of South Carolina, where his approval reaches 46 per cent.

“When one of the president’s signature economic initiatives polls behind the president himself in his strongest state, the initiative is not building his coalition. It is borrowing from it,” the pollster wrote.

Most respondents also predicted the tariffs will be “mostly bad” and hurt the American economy, workers, farmers, their own states and their own households.

“Across 25 combinations of measure and state, ‘mostly bad’ beats ‘mostly good’ every single time, usually by wide margins,” Abacus said.

And given the chance to have the Canada-U.S. relationship return to what it was before Trump, three times as many respondents said they would prefer that to the present fracturing.

“The current state of relations with Canada is not an equilibrium Americans in these states have accepted,” they wrote. “It is a condition most of them want reversed.”

South Carolinans were the only ones on side with the current White House strategy, and only by two points (33 to 35 per cent), “a policy defended likely out of loyalty and a weaker bond with Canada.”

The overall sample of YouGov’s poll, conducted among 1,592 U.S. citizens between Aug. 28-31, has a margin of error of roughly 3.5 per cent, as did Ipsos’ poll of 1,023 people, conducted Aug. 28-30.

Abacus’s survey of 2,500 voters was conducted Aug. 26-28. The overall sample carries a margin of error of 4.4 per cent, while the margin for a probability sample of 500 is two per cent.

• Nearly half want a federal election if new Canada-U.S. trade agreement is reached: poll
• Most Canadians oppose concessions as response to looming 50% U.S. tariffs: poll

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 — U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said a Canadian minister did not deny it when asked if Canadian negotiators were trying to “blow up” trade negotiations last month.

Lutnick, the brash Trump cabinet member who is a close advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump, made the claim during an interview on CNBC Wednesday morning when discussing the end of negotiations late Friday Aug. 21.

“Friday at 4 o’clock, the Canadians call. They start adding crazy ideas to the mix. So, I said to one of the ministers, ‘are you actually trying to blow this up?’ And his answer to me was, ‘I’m not allowed to say that.’ And they blew it up for political reasons only,” Lutnick said.

The only minister present at the negotiations with the U.S. was Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc. LeBlanc’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Lutnick’s comments were the latest salvo in an escalating war of words between the U.S. and Canadian federal governments since trade talks fell through on Aug. 21.

The Canadian and U.S. governments have consistently blamed the other side for blowing up recent trade negotiations aimed at avoiding new tit-for-tat tariffs and reducing ongoing U.S. tariffs on key Canadian sectors.

The day after instructing Canadian negotiators to leave the table and come home, Carney told reporters the U.S. had added a series of last-minute unacceptable conditions to draft deal text that pushed him to cut negotiations.

He cited the addition of language on auto industry tariffs, such as a failure by the U.S. to reduce tariffs on heavy-duty trucks such as those produced in auto plants in Southern Ontario. He also cited “efforts to restrict our protections of our language, our culture, and in effect, our sovereignty.”

In response, U.S. Trade Representative Jameson Greer and Lutnick have accused the Canadians of cutting talks off for political reasons.

Days after talks ended, Greer attributed the collapse to Canada ultimately wanting more than what his administration was willing to give, noting that the proposed agreement included halving U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, reducing tariffs on Canadian autos and tariff relief on Canadian softwood lumber.

The USTR said it was the best market access to the U.S. compared to any other country in the world.

“They wanted more,” said Greer. “I don’t know if it was political for them, it certainly doesn’t make economic sense, but perhaps for political reasons, they have some byelections coming up,” Greer said in reference to three federal by-elections that occurred Monday Aug. 31. The Liberals won all three.

National Post also recently reported a senior Canadian government official noting that the country’s negotiators pulled out because Ontario Premier Doug Ford “was not on board.” A key Canadian concession in the negotiations was that all provincial liquor boards would resume stocking U.S. alcohol.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Carney said “no” when asked if Doug Ford had any role in the failure of the negotiations.

“We consult with the premiers, take into account their views,” Carney said. “The decisions on trade are the decisions of the government of Canada. I’m the prime minister. Ultimately, I am responsible with the Cabinet for those decisions.”

“Those of us who are at the table, or next to the table if you will, know exactly why an accumulation of issues, each of them (were) serious enough… to not have a deal.”

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

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

Canada is just days away from 50 per cent tariffs taking effect on hundreds of exports, after U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month invoking the never-before-used Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

And Canadians are divided on what Ottawa’s response should be, with 36 per cent of respondents in an Abacus Data poll favouring counter-tariffs, even if they raise prices and risk escalation, compared to 30 per cent who want continued negotiations instead.

Meanwhile, just 18 per cent favour offering concessions to the United States, such as easing dairy restrictions or ending bans on American alcohol , even if doing so gets the tariffs removed.

Abacus Data notes that these responses suggest the public “want the government to be firm, avoid escalation where possible, and get an agreement without appearing to give too much away.”

However, this point sees some differences across regions and political affiliation, with just 12 per cent of Quebecers open to concessions, compared to 23 per cent in Alberta. Only 16 per cent of Liberal supporters and 14 per cent of NDP supporters favour concessions, compared with 26 per cent of Conservatives.

The survey examined Canadians’ awareness of ongoing tariff negotiations with the U.S. and found that Canucks are paying close attention to the dispute, with 91 per cent of respondents saying they have seen, read or heard at least a little about the threatened 50 per cent tariffs.

Elsewhere, 55 per cent say Canada should prepare to move on from CUSMA and build trade relationships with other countries, compared with 34 per cent who want to keep working to preserve the agreement. That view is shared by 60 per cent of Liberal voters, compared to just 43 per cent of Conservative supporters who are prepared to move on.

Abacus Data says that this apparent openness to a future where Canada is less dependent on CUSMA gives Carney room to resist U.S. pressure.

National Post previously spoke to trade analysts about what Canada’s response to the 50 per cent tariffs should be and, much like the Canadian public, they were split on the best approach.

Lawrence Herman, senior fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute and a specialist in international trade and investment law, said he thinks a list of possible tariff countermeasures should have been produced immediately after Trump’s announcement last month.

“You maintain those tariffs and enact them on the 19th of August, here’s the list that we’re going to use for our counter-tariffs,” he offered as an example of how Ottawa should have responded to the threat.

However, Ed Fast, Canada’s former minister for international trade under PM Stephen Harper, cautioned against retaliation, urging negotiators to keep the economic asymmetry between the two countries front of mind.

“If we retaliate with tariffs, as some have suggested, the Americans are much better able to absorb that retaliation than we are to absorb their tariffs against us,” he said. “As more and more tariffs get levied, the more difficult it becomes for Canada.”

Meanwhile, three senior federal or provincial government sources recently told National Post that despite frequent meetings between the Canadian and American negotiating teams, the two camps are “not even close” to making a deal .

Now, the sources say, the Canadian side is refocusing its efforts to find an “interim” deal to prevent sweeping new tariffs on Aug. 19.

That said, the Abacus Data poll found that Canadians aren’t convinced this latest round of tariffs will actually take effect, with 40 per cent of respondents putting the odds at 50/50, compared to 38 per cent who believe they will happen and just 10 per cent who think they are unlikely or definitely will not happen.

Despite this uncertainty, Canadians overwhelmingly expect negative consequences of new tariffs, with 70 per cent believing they would have a negative impact on the economy in their area, including 29 per cent who expect a very negative impact.

This view crosses regional lines, with 75 per cent in Quebec expecting a negative effect, along with 74 per cent in B.C. and Alberta, 68 per cent in Ontario, 65 per cent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and 58 per cent in Atlantic Canada. Overall, just nine per cent expect a positive impact.

Meanwhile, 74 per cent say the ongoing trade war over the past year and a half has had an impact on their household, including 30 per cent who describe the impact as major, a finding that remains consistent across regions and age groups.

The Abacus Data poll was conducted with 1,499 Canadians from August 7 to 12, 2026. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

• If Trump imposes 50 per cent tariffs, should Canada hit back? Trade analysts disagree
• As tariff deadline nears, what does Trump want from Canada? And will he get 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.

Apple has changed the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America on the web version of its Apple Maps, but only for U.S. users of the service.

The decision by the tech giant took place on Tuesday, the same day John Ternus officially took over as CEO, succeeding Tim Cook, who had led the company for 15 years.

It follows a move by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, to change the name of the lake on its Google Maps, also for U.S. users.

“These updates follow our long-standing policy for bodies of water with names that vary from country to country, and are starting to roll out now,” Google said in a statement announcing its change. “People using Maps in the U.S. will see ‘Lake America,’ those in Canada will continue to see ‘Lake Ontario,’ and those outside of the U.S. and Canada will see both names.”

U.S. President Donald ‌Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to rename the lake, which was given its original title, Ontari:io , millennia ago by Indigenous people and means “the lake is beautiful, the lake is big.” European settlers in the 1600s started using the word, which also became the official name of the adjoining province in 1867.

In an ‌interview on Fox Business’ Mornings with Maria program on Monday, U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said Trump had reached out to Apple directly, “so I’m sure that we may be seeing that change coming up soon to Lake America.”

This comes even as a new poll finds that almost two-thirds of Americans oppose the renaming.

The Ipsos poll reported that 63 per cent of Americans were against the new name, with only 14 per cent in favour and another 21 per cent unsure. Democrats and independents were most likely to be opposed (84 and 65 per cent respectively) but even among Republican voters, just 33 per cent were in favour and 43 per cent against.

The Google change caused confusion and consternation in Canada, as maps on sites run by Hydro One, Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario, the LCBO and others all displayed the American name over the weekend.

However, Ontario government agencies have restored Lake Ontario to their websites, with Metrolinx telling National Post on Monday that “the issue has since been resolved, and our maps once again show Lake Ontario.”

The international boundary running between the U.S. and Canada means that about 52 per cent of the surface area of Lake Ontario is in Canada, with the remainder in New York State. However, Trump has pointed out that, due to the varying depth of the water, more of Lake Ontario by volume is on the American side.

The naming issue mirrors that of the Gulf of Mexico, which Trump ordered to be renamed the Gulf of America early last year. Both Google and Apple subsequently revised their map apps to reflect the change for U.S. users.

New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul responded to Trump’s latest renaming saying that her state would not follow the new naming, adding in a social media post : “An acronym for the Great Lakes used to be HOMES. Thanks to Donald Trump, it’s now SHAME.”

Trump has posted several AI-generated videos on social media, including a clip of him kicking over a Lake Ontario sign and replacing it with another that says “Welcome to Lake America.” Ontario Premier Doug Ford responded by placing a real sign on the shore, declaring the body of water “Lake Ontario now and forever.”

We're not changing the name of Lake Ontario. Name it whatever you want at your leisure: https://t.co/E2I0Ezd57W

(tag us so we can see your work 🙂) pic.twitter.com/x8lIAMt6ab

— MapQuest (@MapQuest) August 27, 2026

Meanwhile, MapQuest, a free web mapping service, said on social media : “We’re not changing the name of Lake Ontario. Name it whatever you want at your leisure.” It included an image with the lake labelled: “Lake Are We Doing This Again?”

News reports noted that MapQuest became one of the most-downloaded applications on both sides of the border following the change. Forbes reported it had “ soared to the top of Apple’s App Store rankings,” while other reports said it had reached second-place among Canadian downloads over the weekend.

• Here are the Trump lakes, islands and an avenue Canada could consider renaming
• 'Sad and pathetic': U.S. politicians condemn Trump’s renaming of Lake Ontario

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.