A former U.S. ambassador to Canada is taking a strikingly different approach to cross-border relations than the current diplomat in office, as the trade war between the two countries continues to escalate.

Bruce Heyman, who served as ambassador to Canada under U.S. president Barack Obama between 2014 and 2017, has been increasingly vocal in his support for Canada. In contrast, current U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra has offended some Canadians to the point that a parliamentary petition calling for his removal has gathered more than 260,000 signatures.

Both Midwesterners, Heyman grew up in Ohio and served as a managing director of private wealth management at Goldman Sachs before Obama appointed him as U.S. ambassador to Canada. Hoekstra spent most of his childhood in Michigan and is a long-serving Republican, first as a member of Congress representing Michigan’s 2nd District from 1993 to 2011.

Ohio and Michigan are among the states most affected by the Canada-U.S. trade war. Last year, 38 per cent of all exports from Michigan and 32 per cent from Ohio went to Canada , according to data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration (ITA), with motor vehicles and parts both states’ top northbound exports.

Bought a new hat today. pic.twitter.com/rYBetn0bJy

— Bruce A. Heyman (@BruceAHeyman) September 1, 2026

In a series of recent posts on X, Heyman has been emphatic in his support for Canada, writing “never underestimate a Canadian,” “this American is proudly pro-Canadian,” and “love you, Canada.”

He also shared a photo of himself wearing a hat with “Lake Ontario” stitched on the front, after U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to rename the body of water “Lake America,” and on Wednesday claimed that he’d previously been told by senior U.S. military officers that “if they were ever stuck in a foxhole under fire and they couldn’t have an American at their side they would undoubtedly want a Canadian.”

Since leaving the role of U.S. ambassador to Canada in 2017, Heyman co-founded the company Uncharted with his wife, Vicki Heyman, which connects Canadians and Americans to create a positive impact across the Canada-U.S. relationship, political engagement and philanthropy.

Heyman’s vocal support for Canada is likely good for his business. But regardless of the motivation, his public posture stands in stark contrast to that of Hoekstra, who took on the role of U.S. ambassador to Canada in April 2025.

This American is proudly pro-Canadian. 🇺🇸❤️🇨🇦

— Bruce A. Heyman (@BruceAHeyman) August 23, 2026

Among the objectionable comments Hoekstra has made about Canada are his bafflement at why Canadians are angry about “51st state” comments , suggesting Canada’s response to Trump’s actions has been “nasty and mean,” and reportedly aiming an expletive-laden rant at Ontario’s trade representative .

He also reiterated Trump’s claim that the U.S. “does not need Canada” during a radio interview in Montreal, and suggested that the U.S. president’s “51st state” comments could be taken as a “term of endearment.”

More recently, Hoekstra claimed that Canada paying to construct the Gordie Howe International Bridge was a “big myth,” a comment that former prime minister Stephen Harper’s director of communications, Andrew MacDougall, branded a “punch in the face.”

The petition calling for his removal accuses the ambassador of undermining Canada-U.S. diplomatic relations and normalizing “51st state” language, and is sponsored by Green Party MP Elizabeth May.

That said, the stark difference between the two ambassadors isn’t explained by personal politics alone.

pic.twitter.com/FVA66zoVZ1

— Ambassador Pete Hoekstra (@USAmbCanada) June 2, 2026

Heyman, whose current business relies on maintaining a positive relationship with Canada, served under Obama, whose administration committed to forming stronger trade ties with Canada through instructing aides to make it easier for goods and people to move between the two nations, and looking to solve a dispute over exports of Canadian softwood lumber.

Hoekstra, meanwhile, represents Trump during a dramatically different period in the bilateral relationship, characterized by tariffs and the trade war. The fallout has caused Canadians’ views of America to become increasingly negative, with a recent Angus Reid poll finding that 45 per cent of Canadians say their views on Americans are unfavourable or very unfavourable .

And it’s not just Canada that Hoekstra has had a fractured relationship with. During his time as ambassador to the Netherlands during Trump’s first term, he was forced to apologize after making false claims that the “Islamic movement” in Europe was creating “no-go zones” and burning politicians.

Meanwhile, it would be wrong to suggest that Heyman didn’t have to navigate policy differences between Canada and the U.S. during his time as ambassador. Most notable was the Keystone XL pipeline, for which Obama denied the cross-border permit in 2015, stating the project did not serve U.S. national interests .

Heyman later wrote in a book he co-authored with his wife, Vicki, that disagreements between former prime minister Stephen Harper’s government and the Obama administration over the pipeline briefly led to an “ice age in relations.”

And yet, Heyman’s pro-Canada stance has extended beyond his time in office. After Trump first imposed tariffs in March 2025, he said in an interview on CNTV that Canada had “been there for (the U.S.) in thick and thin” and that the tariffs “shouldn’t happen.”

“I just think Donald Trump must have some other issue here, and those issues are either personal with Canada, or … personally think he’s short cash,” Heyman added.

He also called the tariffs “deeply offensive to the Canadians,” and said: “I would just say to the Canadian public, there are millions of Americans that value this relationship.”

• Hoekstra's comments on Gordie Howe bridge 'a punch in the face', says ex-Harper communications chief
• As the petition grows, here's what would happen if Carney actually booted the U.S. ambassador

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.

For as long as anyone can remember, Canada and the U.S. have arguably been the world’s closest of allies and friends. The sibling settler-colonial nations sharing the world’s longest undefended border are deeply linked, culturally and economically, with any differences historically resolved respectfully.

But as the trade war initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump drags on, getting uglier every day, a growing number of Canadians have a very different view of America: our “enemy.”

New polling by Leger found a strong plurality of Canadians (41 per cent) consider the U.S. an enemy country before an ally or neutral (both at 22 per cent).

“Donald Trump, man, he can move public opinion like nobody’s business,” Leger vice-president Andrew Enns told National Post in an interview.

More than half (51 per cent) of those 55 or older perceived the U.S. as an enemy, only 13 per cent of whom see it as neutral. Meanwhile, Quebecers were the Canadians most likely (49 per cent) see the U.S. in that light and the least likely to consider it an ally (17 per cent) or neutral (20 per cent), one of several times an “exclamation point” appeared on some Quebec results.

Enns said they related to the province’s election this fall, which the Trump factor has unavoidably entered into.

“It’s helping, I would suggest, some of those federalist parties,” he said. “It’s probably creating some grief for the PQ, the front-runner in that election, as they’re trying to sort of navigate this.”

Even with the recent sharp movement in how Canadians characterize the U.S, Leger’s results indicate most still distinguish between America the country and the Trump administration ruling it. When asked if his leaving office would change their impression, 64 per cent said yes, 21 per cent said it wouldn’t and 14 per cent were unsure.

Results indicate Quebecers and women would be most open to a change of heart, with 72 and 71 per cent saying Trump’s departure would alter their impression of the U.S. and only 16 per cent, respectively, saying it wouldn’t change a thing. British Columbians (30 per cent) and men (27 per cent) were the least amenable to a new way of thinking.

Brian Rathbun, a professor of international relations and political science at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, said that while Canadians may recognize that most Americans don’t support the way Canada’s being treated, it’s important to remember that Americans, simply as a function of their larger economy and population, are somewhat indifferent to Canadians.

“But at some point, I think Canadians will start to get frustrated if this persists, even if it’s not what the American public wants,” Rathbun told National Post in an interview.

“They can say, ‘Why is it that no one’s standing up to this particular bully?’ Then I think that you could get into something like a deeper problem that couldn’t be fixed by kicking this guy out.”

Rathbun, himself an American who moved to Canada in April 2024 from southern California, said Canadians may be starting to realize that a change in leadership — “even with a Democratic president” — won’t fix the “basket case” the U.S. has become.

“It’s become something of an ungovernable country,” he said.

Leger landed on enemy as a “black and white” catch-all against ally or neutral for people who felt negatively towards the U.S., Enns explained, acknowledging it could mean something different to some, including those who legitimately fear the U.S. will try to invade Canada.

It’s not the first time they’ve felt this way.

Last March, after months of enduring Trump’s jabs at Canada and two weeks into Prime Minister Mark Carney’s “Elbows Up” bid to see the Liberals retain government, 43 per cent saw the U.S. as an enemy. But that number dropped precipitously to 27 per cent in a poll last June after it seemed as though cooler heads might prevail.

Fast forward to this summer, noted Enns, and Trump’s “really, really deliberate comments around Canada” have permeated into “a pretty broad sentiment across the country.”

Rathbun isn’t surprised by the 41 per cent who see the U.S. as an enemy, and reasoned that, unlike Russia, for example, many “Canadians feel like American policy is more malicious vis-à-vis Canada” because it’s more direct.

Both he and Enns agree the freshly stoked rhetoric from Trump and his administration — some of it entirely separate from the trade discussion — is only making things worse. This week alone, aside from Trump blasting Canada on Truth Social, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took a shot at the Canadian Navy’s aging submarine fleet and Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth was accused of body-shaming Canadian cadets.

Enns said the proportion seeing the U.S. as an enemy could climb if Trump and his ilk continue to “double down” on disparaging Canada.

Rathbun highlighted the Lake Ontario-Lake America discussion as a “classic example.”

“It’s entirely unimportant what the Americans call Lake Ontario, and yet, at the same time, it probably galls us more than softwood lumber tariffs, unless we’re in the softwood lumber industry,” he said. “Why? Because it’s indicative of a lack of respect, and respect is so basic to our self-understanding of ourselves as people.”

Leger also sought to gauge Canadians’ feelings on tariffs — both those initiated by Trump and those Canada has launched or promised to in retaliation.

A large majority (87 per cent) of Canadians expect Trump’s tariffs will have some level of impact on their personal financial situation, whether small (24 per cent), moderate (40 per cent) or major (24 per cent), and 38 per cent are somewhat (22 per cent) or very (16 per cent) concerned about losing their job in the next 12 months — especially in Ontario (49 per cent) and among 18-34-year-olds (46 per cent).

As for Canada’s latest economic riposte, Ottawa announced “new countermeasures on $27.6 billion in products imported from the U.S.” effective Sept. 8. The 15 to 50 per cent levies will apply to U.S. steel, aluminum, dishwashers, refrigerators, video game consoles, cheese, beauty products, plywood, paper products and clothing, among others.

Almost three-quarters of Canadians (74 per cent) agree with the counterattack, with only 13 per cent dissenting and the remaining 13 per cent unsure or preferring not to answer.

Solidarity with Canada’s reprisal peaked among the 55-plus crowd (83 per cent) and in B.C. (80 per cent), but wasn’t far off in Quebec (78 per cent). Respondents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan were most likely to disagree (22 per cent).

Canadians by and large (78 per cent) expect Ottawa’s retaliation will result in higher prices paid by Canadian consumers, but 66 per cent agree with Canada’s clapback, with the strongest support from those 55-plus (76 per cent), men (71 per cent), and people in B.C. (72 per cent). Just over a fifth of respondents (21 per cent) are against the retaliation.

Enns said the results tell him there “are some conflicting opinions within the Canadian public and at some point, the ‘Ra-Ra, Canada-proud, sticking to the American with some tariffs,’ could start to soften if it becomes really painful for households’ pocketbook.

“If this thing just sort of settles and all of a sudden we’re into the fall going into the winter, we’re not talking necessarily about Donald Trump and maybe his insults aren’t making the front pages,” he said. “But what might be making the front pages is suddenly the impact on food prices.”

That’s a topic already on respondents’ minds, evidenced by the 35 per cent who cited inflation and rising cost of items as the top issue facing Canadians. Trump, his tariffs and U.S. aggression were the second biggest (24 per cent), followed by health care (10 per cent) in a distant third.

Enns and Rathbun warned the conflict of tariffs and the cost of living could put some heat on Carney and the Liberals.

“The big question is, and the big challenge for a leader, is how long you can persist in that course and basically how much resolve ordinary Canadians will have? We don’t know,” said Rathbun. “Because it’s easy to say this now because we haven’t really paid the price yet.”

Still, he said the “childish” and “bullying” behaviour from the U.S. side is only emboldening Canadians and likely helping Carney’s cause.

Canadians may be willing to endure blows in the trade war because national pride has surged since it began, according to polling data.

A plurality of Canadians (83 per cent) say they are proud to be Canadians, but the proportion who feel very proud (56 per cent) increased by 11 points since polling last June, and up from 40 per cent in 2024. Only 13 per cent said they weren’t very proud (eight per cent) or not proud at all (five per cent).

“The overall pridefulness of Canadians hasn’t wavered much since we started asking that question around when all this sort of stuff started happening in 2025, but the intensity really, really jumped up,” Enns said.

Since the trade war hit a fever pitch this summer, 41 per cent told Leger they feel more proud, including 45 per cent of Ontarians and men. Only 15 per cent are less proud and 44 per cent said their level of pride hasn’t changed.

Overall net pride was highest in Ontario and B.C. (85 per cent, respectively), among women (86 per cent) and 55-plus Canadians (88 per cent). And while Quebecers were the most likely to say they are not proud to be a Canadian (17 per cent), 79 per cent of them still expressed pride.

Rathbun said that sense of nationalism is understandable and offered a different perspective.

“It’s also understandable that Canadians feel more pride, even though nothing about Canada has changed — it’s the Americans that are essentially reducing American pride,” he said, “So that pride is really just a reaction to something that they don’t like somewhere else.”

Canadians also remain steadfast against becoming the 51st state (85 per cent opposed), again with Quebecers (89 per cent) and the 55-plus group (93 per cent) opposed. British Columbians (13 per cent) and the 18-34 crowd (14 per cent) showed the most support.

The survey of 1,552 respondents in Canada was conducted by Leger between Aug. 28-31. For comparison purposes, a probability sample of 1,552 respondents would have a margin of error no greater than plus or minus 2.48 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

• Canadians are happier than they've been in years, poll finds
• Republicans split on Canada as Trump’s trade war escalates: polls

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.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Unless Washington and Ottawa change course, Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on more than 700 U.S. products entering Canada — covering CA$27.6 billion in annual imports — are scheduled to take effect Tuesday.

The duties, ranging from 15 to 50 per cent, come as U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said this week that “there are no negotiations happening on trade right now.” A source close to the Canadian side said on Friday that no talks were underway.

The Canadian duties would cover a broad range of vehicle-related goods, including a 25 per cent tariff on trailers and semi-trailers, as well as higher duties on steel, aluminum and industrial inputs used in automotive and equipment manufacturing. The U.S. measures raise costs for Canadian goods entering the United States; Canada’s retaliation does the same for selected U.S. goods entering Canada.

Analysts say the Canadian package is broader in scope than the U.S. measures it answers.

“The actual tariffs imposed by the United States were really a list of annoyances,” said Patrick Anderson, CEO of Lansing-based Anderson Economic Group. “The Canadian tariffs appear to be much more pervasive… Canada’s reaction here has been both rhetorically and substantively significantly larger than what the U.S. actually imposed.”

Several U.S. states will feel the impact, including Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Maine, but Michigan could take the hardest hit, analysts say. The mitten-shaped state is most exposed because it ships about $1.5 billion in tariff-listed products to Canada each year. Canada was the destination for 36 per cent of Michigan’s goods exports in 2025, according to U.S. trade data, and motor vehicles and auto parts accounted for a large share of that.

“Michigan is the single largest auto parts exporter to Canada,” said Jason Miller, a supply chain management expert and professor at Michigan State University, noting that “the auto parts suppliers in Michigan who are exporting to those plants are going to be hurt.”

“The Detroit metro area writ large is about the most export-dense manufacturing area to Canada of anywhere in the country,” he added.

“The worst affected province would be Ontario, and the worst affected states would be Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Texas,” Anderson predicted.

Analysts and industry groups say the earliest pain may show up not on factory payrolls but in wholesale margins and inventory decisions.

“Everybody’s focusing on manufacturing, but there are so many jobs in the wholesaling side of imported products,” Miller said, noting that he’s curious about “Michigan wholesalers getting caught up in this and being negatively affected.”

Drew Beardslee, the vice president of government affairs at the Michigan Retailers Association, says the earliest impacts will be on wholesale margins and inventory decisions, with consumers seeing effects within a quarter.

“Like when you grab a rope and sort of lift up on it, you can watch it travel down the rope. And so I think it sort of travels through the supply chain that way in terms of where the cost is,” Beardslee explained, using the rope imagery to liken how the duty is paid at entry and then moves through the importer, wholesaler, retailer, and then, often, to the consumer.

Canadian importers would pay the duty when covered U.S. goods enter Canada. They could absorb the cost, pass it along to wholesalers, retailers, and consumers, demand price concessions from U.S. suppliers, or replace those suppliers, depending on contracts and market dynamics.

Businesses were already grappling with thin margins and uncertainty caused by shifting U.S. trade policy. Tariff changes have caused a whiplash effect for everyone involved in trade this past year — from importers and retailers to consumers and customs officials. It’s been hard to keep up, but not knowing the tariff levels from one week to the next makes business planning incredibly difficult.

“The cost associated with tariffs was bad enough, but the inconsistency with which they were applied made it so hard to guess what to do,” said Beardslee. “What they’re looking for more than anything is some more consistency and certainty.”

Beardslee pointed out that grocery margins are already just two to three per cent and that 73 per cent of respondents to a Michigan Retailers Association member survey reported that tariffs have already “had a negative or strong negative impact” on them since April 2025.

Further duties mean wholesalers could be “squeezed dramatically,” Anderson said, on contracts already signed. Smaller distributors, meanwhile, have “much less room to manoeuvre” and less influence to seek exemptions.

The uncertainty also makes it hard for businesses to react to everything that’s happening, stymying both positive and negative planning decisions.

“Expansion plans get put on hold when uncertainty is high,” said Miller. “But believe it or not, layoff plans also get put on hold when uncertainty is high.

“I think especially for companies in Maine, in Michigan, in Wisconsin, northern Minnesota, where there’s a lot of cross-border business involved, what you’re going to have right now is a freezing of decisions.”

Given the time of year, Beardslee pointed to tariff volatility impacting retailers and distributors of back-to-school products as an example. Prices are already up on common school items, such as shoes, pencils, crayons, binders, and folders, he said, comparing tariff collections and effective tariff rates from March through June of this year to 2025.

“Those kinds of products are one area where you’d expect to see more (price increases),” he said. “Our retailers are trying to source things months in advance, so when that effective tariff rate is changing constantly, it could very well be that when an order is placed that there was no effective tariff rate on it, but by the time it arrives, there is.”

Anderson agreed and noted that there is a bigger risk to long-term trade between Michigan and Canada.

Some retailers, he said, “may just decide it’s too much trouble to stock them when they can get cheaper goods from China and Vietnam.”

Owing to the negative tenor of trade politics between the two countries, not to mention the unhelpful renaming of Lake Ontario, distributors and retailers may already be looking for new suppliers, he said.

“Unfortunately, raising the rhetorical temperature… makes business people start thinking really hard about finding other places to get their goods,” said Anderson.

“So unfortunately, some of the damage here is already done.”

National Post

• A Republican senator could be one of the first political victims of Trump's tariff war
• Harley-Davidson becomes unlikely flashpoint in Canada-U.S. trade war

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 — An Ontario company that is being threatened by a massive retroactive tax bill because its golf carts were categorized by Ottawa as electric vehicles (EVs) isn’t alone.

At least one other Canadian company that also has its motorized push carts manufactured in China says it has also received a tax bill from Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) that is large enough to threaten its business.

Hanson Xie, director of operations of Markham, Ont.-based Axglo Inc., says the federal government has told his company to pay about $500,000 in back taxes for the importation of its carts. The three and four-wheeled buggies are just large enough to carry a golf bag, but have never been confused with an electric-powered sedan or sport utility vehicle.

Xie said his six-person company, which has been in the golf cart business since 2009, is profitable but doesn’t have the money to cover an unexpected bill of that size. “What type of small business has $500,000 to pay CBSA?”

As National Post reported late last month , Xie’s tax tale is similar to JPSMGolf of Pickering, Ont., a competitor that had been hit earlier this year with a tax bill of $178,000. In both cases, the companies are facing hefty interest charges as they look for solutions.

The government has an appeal process for such matters, but companies say they must first either pay their tax bill or post a bond that is lost if they lose the appeal.

It’s unclear how many other Canadian companies that make small motorized products have also been hit with retroactive tax bills because they’ve been categorized as EVs. The domestic golf cart business has only a handful or so players, but small businesses that import and sell mobility scooters, power wheelchairs and other electric or battery-powered gadgets may also fall under the same automotive classification.

In a letter to JPSMGolf earlier this year, CBSA confirmed its ruling that his golf carts are “undoubtedly” considered EVs because they “are conveyances used by the golfer to get their bag and associated accessories across the golf course during play.”

Finance Canada, which categorizes importers’ goods, was unavailable for comment. When contacted about the JPSMGolf case, a CBSA spokesperson said that the department couldn’t comment on specific company cases, nor does it have the authority to deviate from the wording of surtax rulings.

But an Ottawa customs broker said he regularly deals with categorization problems. Olexiy Tyshchenko, of Ambassador Customs Brokerage, said not every product fits neatly into one of the government’s specific categories, especially when it comes to new technologies and products.

“This happens quite often,” said Tyshchenko. “I’m not surprised.”

The two Ontario golf cart companies’ retroactive tax bills stem from a 17-month window in 2024-25 where Chinese-made EVs were taxed by Ottawa at a rate of 100 per cent, following a brief trade war between the two countries. The Trudeau government applied the tariff to protect the Canadian auto industry and to stay on side with similar policies by the United States and some other western countries.

That trade war and the surtax ended earlier this year after the Carney government reached a deal with Beijing to allow 49,000 Chinese EVs (about 3 per cent of the Canadian market) into the Canadian market at a tariff rate of 6.1 per cent. In exchange, China agreed to drop its tariffs on Canadian seafood and some key agricultural products.

National Post

• The government says this golf push cart is a Chinese EV. The tariffs are crippling a Canadian company
• Ottawa needs to be more transparent about major projects, think tank says

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

The mayor of a New York State city on the shore of Lake Ontario has said his community is taking the lake’s renaming “very personally” and will not be using the new “Lake America” name.

Robert Corradino is a Republican and has been mayor of Oswego, in the Republican stronghold of Oswego County, since January 2024.

Despite the area’s political allegiance, he says his community is “trying to understand why a name that has endured for centuries would suddenly be changed” when there is “no practical, historical, or cultural need to change it.”

In an interview with National Post, Corradino said: “We can disagree with the current administration’s take about renaming Lake Ontario and still support some of its other initiatives. But we’re taking the renaming of the lake very personally in Oswego.”

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America” in U.S. government records and maps on Aug. 27.

The change has since been adopted by both Google and Apple Maps for users in the U.S., but Corradino has said that Oswego does not support the renaming, and won’t be altering any signage, tourism materials or official communications to reflect the new name.

“The lake provides so much for our community as well as our identity,” Corradino said, citing the economic boost from charter boats and cruise ships as well as “beautiful sunsets.”

“Lake Ontario is in the DNA of Osweganians,” he said, adding, “Everything that we are emanates from the lake.”

The mayor said that the souring relationship between Canada and the U.S., which re-escalated following the breakdown of trade negotiations last month, has hit the tourism industry in Oswego, located just an hour from the border.

“Our tourism from Canada is down substantially. We have stores, we have museums that depend on tourism, and Canadians are a big part of our tourism business,” he said.

It’s a trend that has rippled across the U.S., with recent data from Statistics Canada revealing that Canadian travel to the United States dropped by 10.6 per cent in the first quarter of 2026 compared with the same period in 2025.

Speaking about the direction he’d like to see Canada-U.S. relations take, Corradino added: “I would hope that our two countries, because of our long-standing relationship, could sit down in a conference room and discuss issues calmly and professionally, and work these differences out without changing the name of the lake.”

His comments come after Prime Minister Mark Carney rebuffed U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s recent claim that Canada pulled out of trade talks with the U.S. due to political reasons.

Meanwhile, other politicians in the U.S. have also condemned Trump’s executive order , including former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who simply wrote, “It’s Lake Ontario,” in a post on X, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who said , “The American people don’t want to rename Lake Ontario Lake America.”

It’s Lake Ontario.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 27, 2026

On the Canadian side, Carney responded to Trump’s actions shortly after the executive order was signed, explaining on social media that “the name Lake Ontario comes from the Wendat word Ontari’io, which, appropriately, means ‘the lake is beautiful, the lake is big’.”

He added that the name is more than 400 years old and predates both Canadian Confederation and the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

“We know that America is changing. Their trading relationships, their foreign policies, their national monuments, their hydronyms,” he wrote. “Canadians also know that naming reality means calling it Lake Ontario — then, now and always.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre echoed Carney’s sentiment in his own post on X , adding that the lake is not Trump’s “to rename on a whim.”

On Saturday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford unveiled a new Lake Ontario sign in Winona, Ont., to remind Trump “it’s Lake Ontario, now and forever.”

It’s Lake Ontario, now and always. pic.twitter.com/KNahtPAMeJ

— Doug Ford (@fordnation) August 29, 2026

In a video posted on X, the Ontario premier said, “You may have heard that President Trump is trying to rename this lake all because he doesn’t like Ontario and Canada standing up for ourselves.”

Ford continued: “Long before President Trump, this lake was called Lake Ontario. And long after President Trump is gone, it will still be called Lake Ontario. But just in case President Trump or anyone else forgets, we have set up a sign to remind them, it’s Lake Ontario now and forever.”

Ford’s comments on the lake’s longstanding name were echoed in a press release issued by Corradino on Tuesday, in which he was quoted as saying: “Lake Ontario has carried its name for hundreds of years. It is a name rooted in history, geography, and the shared identity of the communities that surround it…The name Lake Ontario comes from a Huron Indigenous people’s word that means lake of shining waters. The province of Ontario took its name from the lake in 1867, over two hundred years after the name first appeared on the maps of European explorers.”

He added: “The city of Oswego will continue using the name that reflects our history and honors the generations who have lived, worked, and built their lives along its shores.”

• Ford's $25K Lake Ontario sign a costly way to send Trump a message: Taxpayers Federation
• Lake Ontario renamed 'Lake America' for U.S. users of Apple Maps

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 new survey on public safety perception in Canada’s urban centres finds that Quebec City has the strongest net perceived safety score in the country, while Winnipeg has the weakest.

But the survey, updating a previous version of the study conducted almost a decade ago, also recorded a big change in several large municipalities. Edmonton, Vancouver and Toronto were all perceived as much less safe than they were in 2017. Those cities are clustered at the bottom of the list, along with last-place Winnipeg.

The survey, conducted by Liaison Strategies , asked respondents whether they consider each city very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe, or whether they did not know enough to say. They were also asked what most shapes their impression of city safety, including news coverage, personal experience, stories from friends or family, social media, crime statistics or a city’s general reputation.

“Net safety” is the percentage who say a city is very or somewhat safe minus those who say it is somewhat or very unsafe. By that measurement, Quebec City leads the 15 cities tested with a score of 57, followed by Ottawa at 56 and Charlottetown at 51.

Five of the cities ended up with a negative score. Saskatoon had a net safety rating of -5 followed by Edmonton and Vancouver, both at -8, then Toronto at -18 and finally Winnipeg at -28.

The firm found that Quebec City has changed the most since it did a similar study in 2017, rising from 7 to 57. Edmonton and Vancouver, meanwhile have moved sharply in the other direction, each falling from positive net scores in 2017 to -8 today.

Toronto and Winnipeg were the bottom of the list in both surveys, but their numbers also fell. Toronto had a score of -12 in the first survey and -18 in this one, while Winnipeg dropped from -18 to its current score of -28.

“We brought this study back because city safety has a long memory” David Valentin, Principal at Liaison Strategies, said in releasing the data. “Quebec City now leads on net safety, Ottawa remains very strong, and Winnipeg and Toronto remain at the bottom.”

“Winnipeg is the clearest safety concern,” Valentin added. “It ranks last on perceived safety, with only 31 per cent saying it is safe and 59 per cent saying it is unsafe. It also has the highest official Crime Severity Index among the cities tested, so in Winnipeg the perception problem and the official data are pointing in the same direction.”

The Crime Severity Index , developed by Statistics Canada in 2009, is a summary measure of the volume and severity of police-reported crime in a given area.

“Toronto is different,” said Valentin. “Toronto is perceived as almost as unsafe as Winnipeg, but the official crime-severity data does not put Toronto in the same category. That is why Toronto stands out as the clearest reputational penalty in the report.”

He added: “Only 12 per cent say crime statistics are the main thing shaping their impression of city safety. That matters. If people are mostly relying on news coverage, personal experience, and word of mouth, then city safety is not just a policing issue. It is also a reputation issue. That reputation can take years to build, and years to repair.”

The survey also noted a clear gender gap, with women seeing a sharper safety problem in several major cities, including Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto.

“A city can have one national number, but the lived meaning of safety is not the same for every audience,” said Valentin.

The survey contacted 1,500 Canadian adults between August 30 and 31, 2026. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.53 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

• Third suspect charged in Vaughan, Toronto synagogue shootings
• Videos show man with megaphone claiming Jews use 'black magic' in Toronto neighbourhood

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 “scheduling issue,” not deepening political friction or American barbs at Canada’s military, is to blame for a U.S. Air Force demo team pulling out of the Canadian International Air Show in Toronto this weekend, organizers said.

In a social media post earlier this week, organizers of “North America’s longest running air show” held each year on Toronto’s waterfront announced that the U.S. Air Force’s F-16 Viper Demonstration Team would no longer be participating in this year’s show. “Last-minute schedule changes are a reality of real time Air Show operations, and these decisions remain outside of our control,” the CIAS said.

“Our full remaining lineup, including celebrating the 55th Anniversary of the CF Snowbirds, RCAF CF-18 Hornet and our WWII Heritage Flight, remains set for an incredible weekend” the post read . “Transparency with our fans is a top priority, and we will always keep you informed of any updates.”

Speculation ran high over whether the abrupt call-off was down to the trade war, U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America” or U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s taunts this week that Canada’s navy lacks military firepower. “I mean, we’re not at war with Canada. How are we going to be at war with Canada,” Bessent said on CNBC. “What, are they going to take their two submarines from the Edmonton mall and sic them on us?”

As reported by the Toronto Sun , organizers said the rhetoric and mocking had “absolutely nothing” to do with the 11th hour schedule adjustment.

“It was a scheduling issue,” CIAS executive director Lori Duthie told reporters at the air show’s media day. “We work very closely, our Canadian Forces and the United States Air Force across North America.”

In a statement to the Sun, a spokesperson for the F-16 Viper Demonstration team also blamed a double booking.

The team “sincerely regrets to announce that, due to a scheduling conflict, they are unable to participate in this weekend’s Canadian International Air Show,” Staff-Sgt. Steven Cardo said.

The U.S. Air Force demo team is scheduled to perform at an air show in Batavia, New York Sept. 5 and 6. The Toronto air show takes place Sept. 5 to 7 during the final weekend of the CNE (Canadian National Exhibition).

“Decisions to withdraw from the scheduled appearances are never made lightly,” Cardo said. “We understand the anticipation surrounding this event and extend our deepest apologies to the air show organizers, our Canadian partners, and the aviation fans who looked forward to our performance.”

National Post

• U.S. Treasury secretary taunts Canadian navy's lack of firepower: 'Two submarines from the Edmonton mall'
• Trump signs executive order to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America

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.

U.S. President Donald Trump said 50 per cent tariffs targeting Canada’s aircraft industry was prompted by a complaint from a friend who couldn’t buy the corporate jet of his choosing.

Trump made the remark during a six-minute-long rant about Canada in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

“I had a case about a week ago, where a friend of mine was buying a Gulfstream jet, and he said, ‘You know, it’s a crazy thing. We’re not able — that Canada won’t certify Gulfstream,’” Trump said.

“Gulfstream is the best private jet, you know, the best of the best,” he noted, adding that Canada “won’t certify it because they make a competitor, Bombardier Global Express.”

The unprompted remark appeared to be a glimpse into what was behind his threat to decertify Canadian-made aircraft and impose 50 per cent tariff on sales back in January.

The friend was close to Gulfstream, Trump said, and had asked the head of the company to arrange a call with him and explain the situation.

“We called, we spoke,” he said, adding that the head of Gulfstream told him the American manufacturer had spent $60 million trying to get certified in Canada for “nine years without success.”

“So I immediately said, ‘I’m putting a major tariff on Bombardier and other things that they sent until they’re certified,'” Trump said.

“They got certified in two hours.”

He had spoken to the prime minister, Trump said, without naming Mark Carney directly.

“Essentially (Gulfstream) can’t sell any plane in anything having to do with Canada, but Bombardier has free rein over the United States,” Trump said, while noting they were both “very good planes.”

“I said, ‘So what we’re going to do is, we’re going to charge you tariffs on various products, including Bombardier,’” he added. “We put a nice big tariff. And within 30 minutes, I guess it took maybe less, everything got certified.”

In February, Transport Canada granted regulatory approval to two business jets produced by Gulfstream. It came nearly four weeks after Trump had threatened to decertify Bombardier and impose 50 per cent tariffs on all aircraft sold by Canada to the United States.

Trump’s anecdote was part of a litany of complaints he had about Canada’s trade practices amid a trade war between the two countries covering roughly 5 per cent of Canadian exports. Trump was answering a question on his plans to renew trade talks with Ottawa.

In his response, Trump said the U.S. does not need “anything” from Canada, adding that its leaders were “emboldened,” and was “toughest” to deal with. The remarks were made during a meeting with travel executives to mark the end of the summer season.

“We can’t lose 60 to $100 billion dollars for the privilege of allowing them to make cars; we don’t want their cars,” Trump added. However, in reality, the U.S. runs a trade surplus with Canada in the auto sector, according to RBC.

Trump also seemingly voiced displeasure at Doug Ford, who he referred to as a “slob” without naming the Ontario premier directly.

He also repeated an unfounded claim that Canada barred U.S. banks from operating within its borders. ”I think they have six or seven major banks here, (but) we don’t have our banks there,” Trump said.

That assertion has been contradicted by the Canadian Bankers Association, which pointed out in 2025 that 16 U.S. based bank subsidiaries and branches operate in Canada.

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.

Can Ottawa and Alberta actually work together?

Adriana LaGrange is not waiting for permission. Alberta’s minister of hospital and surgical health services is rolling out a dual-practice model that lets some surgeons work in both the public system and a private-pay lane at the same time — something no other province allows. The question hanging over it is not just whether the model works. It is whether Ottawa and Edmonton can drop the familiar script — western grievance versus federal lecture — and treat a provincial experiment as a chance to fix something both sides say is broken.

When I catch up with LaGrange in late August, she is not in campaign mode. She is in implementation mode. Legislation passed last December created a new category of “flexibly participating” physicians, mainly surgeons. Starting this fall they can do publicly funded work and, on a case-by-case basis, privately paid elective procedures: hip and knee replacements, cataracts, hernia repair, selected ENT, gynecology, dermatology and plastic surgery. Emergency care, cancer treatment and family practice stay fully public.

Right now, she says, Alberta has two camps: physicians who are “fully opted out” or “fully opted in.” She puts the opted-out group at about 15 — doctors who do only private work. Everyone else stays inside the public system. Dual practice is the attempt to stop the binary. Doctors keep a public contract, meet a minimum number of public hours with Alberta Health Services or Covenant Health, then add private volume in approved facilities. At first, those will be accredited non-hospital surgical facilities.

The Alberta Medical Association neither endorses nor opposes the plan. It has spent months pressing for guardrails so the private lane does not lengthen public waits, poach staff, or slide into queue-jumping by ability to pay. LaGrange says that is her test too. “What we want to do, pre-emptively, is make sure we have those strong guardrails in place so we are protecting our public system first and foremost.” Dual-practice doctors, she says, “would have to put the minimum public surgery hours in before they could actually do private surgeries.”

Her pitch: Albertans already leave the province — and the country — for these surgeries. “Alberta doctors are flying out, Alberta patients are flying out, and we have other provinces, their patients and their doctors flying here to do those surgeries here. It just doesn’t make sense.” Keep the work here, she argues, and you add capacity, keep complications inside a system that will treat them anyway, and give patients a local choice for elective care.

She keeps drawing the line. “I emphasize elective, not medically needed at this moment, because of course if it was an emergency or if it was cancer, that would be done here, no cost, no impediment to that whatsoever.”

Federal Health Minister Marjorie Michel is not convinced the model fits the Canada Health Act. In mid-August she told the Toronto Star she was “very concerned” and did not see how dual practice could operate within the Act. Her office confirmed a July 24 letter asking Alberta to protect the public system. Reporting around that interview floated discretionary penalties — an unusual step beyond the deductions Ottawa already takes from health transfers when provinces allow patient charges.

That is where the relationship gets tested. LaGrange says Alberta had already sent Ottawa the draft regulations “and some of our thoughts around the safeguards that we’re putting in place to protect the public system.” The letter back, she explains, was that Ottawa would “monitor,” had “some concerns that it may not adhere to the spirit of the Canada Health Act,” and that the two departments should keep talking. Then came the Star piece. “That’s why I was quite surprised by the tone and somewhat implied threat of discretionary penalties.”

She is still waiting for a straight answer. “From their perspective, they would say it’s not in keeping with the spirit of the Canada Health Act, and I keep asking for clarity on that. So that’s where I would say we differ, because I do believe it does keep with the spirit of the Canada Health Act.”

The federal statute dates to 1984 and has never been rewritten. Long waits, workforce shortages and private delivery already exist across the country under different provincial rules. Alberta’s claim is that simultaneous public-and-private practice for the same elective procedures is compatible with the Act.

She still describes the working relationship as good. “I do believe Minister Michel wants to improve the overall health-care system in Canada. She also knows the challenges of the funding for health care that all the provinces are experiencing.” The disagreement is definitional. Ottawa hears “ability to pay.” Alberta hears “choice for elective surgery, with public hours locked in first.”

LaGrange wants time to prove the model increases surgical volume without starving the public list. Michel wants proof it will not create two queues for the same medically necessary procedure. The money argument sits underneath everything.

“When health care was first envisioned in Canada, it was a 50/50 split with the federal government. Right now, we receive about 21 per cent,” says LaGrange. Premiers have spent years asking Ottawa to lift that to 35 per cent; some now talk about a 50/50 split again. The Canada Health Transfer rises 5 per cent to $57.4 billion in 2026-27. Alberta’s portion is about $7 billion, against a $34.4-billion provincial health budget.

What galls LaGrange is the mix of a shrinking cash share and a growing list of conditions. “The fact that the number continues to decline … and yet they would like to have more and more strings attached to it and more and more say on what happens in what is a provincial jurisdiction, I think is problematic.”

LaGrange is not only defending dual practice. On Oct. 19, Albertans will vote in a referendum on a constitutional question: should Alberta work with other provinces to let a province opt out of federal programs in health, education and social services — and keep the cash? She says she will vote yes, that the ballot language is aimed at programs such as pharmacare and the federal dental plan.

Her line is that individual provinces should run health care because individual provinces’ needs are not the same. That is a legitimate constitutional argument. It is also why a letter about the “spirit” of the Canada Health Act lands like a warning. Alberta is asking Ottawa to trust a new surgical model in the same season it is asking voters to weaken Ottawa’s leverage.

Alberta’s surgery experiment is an opportunity for clarity: If dual practice shortens public waits and keeps surgeons in Alberta, the collaboration argument gets easier. If it does not, Ottawa will have its evidence and Alberta will have a political problem it created.

• Canada part of 'scourge' of antisemitism experienced by health-care professionals internationally: report
• Internal document warns of preventable deaths and too many critical near misses in Alberta ERs

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 — Indigenous lawyer Leighton Grey was the surprise star of an Alberta independence rally at the provincial legislature in Edmonton over the weekend.

Grey, a criminal defence attorney and Carry the Kettle Nakoda Nation member based in Cold Lake, Alta., delighted the pro-independence crowd when he laid out his vision for a future Alberta where all citizens are treated equally under the law.

“To the government, (and) I’m talking about the federal government now, I’m the other. I’m an Indian,” said Grey. “Which is to say I live in an apartheid state. That’s what Canada is.”

“If we’re going to create the greatest society, a new Alberta that’s free and prosperous, that society has to be one that unifies Indigenous peoples and, as Albertans, invites them into the community that ends the otherness,” he finished to applause.

Grey made the case, through his 20-minute speech, that the Indian Act of 1876 set the Indigenous on a separate, and inferior, path from the non-Indigenous.

“They call us the First Nations, but I find we’re first in all the wrong things and we’re last in all the good things,” said Grey.

He said he didn’t understand why the Indigenous groups fighting the referendum on separation want to continue a “dysfunctional relationship” with Ottawa.

“What I would say to these chiefs who are pleading and going to court and trying to stop Alberta independence, explain to me how this relationship is good for our people. Because I’m just a dumb country lawyer, but it goes way over my head,” said Grey to another round of applause.

Grey said the way to break the “cycle of abuse” was by voting for Option 2 in the Oct. 19 referendum on separation .

His self-assessment as a “dumb country lawyer” undersells his impressive resume , which includes, among many other accolades, becoming Alberta’s youngest lawyer appointed to the King’s Counsel in 2010 and being named one of Canada’s Top 50 Lawyers in 2024.

National Post spoke to Grey about his support for Alberta independence. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

The referendum is in six weeks and polls show most Albertans have already decided how they’ll vote. Why wait until now to make your case for independence?

I was not personally involved in the referendum drive. I’ve just, more or less, been a speaker who’s invited to attend various events. What’s pushed me to jump into the fray a bit more has been the oppositional attitude toward the referendum that’s been taken by the premier (Danielle Smith). If I had known, say six or nine months ago, that she’d be taking this stance, I probably would have done things differently.

Much of the reporting heading into the referendum has framed the pro-independence side as racist and anti-Indigenous — and not without the help of comments made by some of its purported leaders. Do you think you could have weakened this narrative by taking a more visible role earlier on?

Well, I have a lot of respect for what people like Mitch Sylvestre and Jeff Rath have done to bring this issue to the forefront, and I’d never want to disparage those guys. But one of the things the independence movement lacks right now is a clear leader that can set the tone and establish message discipline. There’s no question that the other side has used this against us.

Do you see your self as someone who could possibly be the face of the movement?

No. I don’t have any aspiration to be an out-in-front political leader. That isn’t in my DNA right now. I would see myself more as maybe a key advisor. Someone who could help develop policy for, for example, Indigenous peoples.

Is media attention on Indigenous critics of Alberta independence — such as court challengers and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew — underrepresenting Indigenous support for independence?

Absolutely. When I connect with Indigenous people, either through my podcast or when I go out and speak, I generally find that they want the same things as everyone else does: safe streets, proper health care, good schools for their kids. It’s hard to argue that Canada is succeeding in these areas, especially when you look at the living conditions on reservations. Many don’t even have potable water!

Of the people planning to vote “Option 2” next month, there seems to be two groups: those who want a clean break from Canada and those who want to send Ottawa a message. Which one are you?

I think the best we can hope for is to send Ottawa a message. Unlike some in the movement, I happen to think that we already have a pretty good Constitution. The problem is that we’re not governing ourselves in accordance to it. It was never intended for us to have this all-powerful federal government, with really all effective lawmaking power concentrated in the prime minister’s office. I’m more in the line of seeing the independence movement as a way of showing Albertans, and indeed the rest of Canada, that there’s a better way to govern ourselves.

National Post
rmohamed@postmedia.com

• Trump administration staying out of Alberta separation referendum, ambassador says
• Alberta wins praise for stressing Indigenous support in new pipeline plan

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.