Your middle-of-the-week jump in a rain puddle ...
That
sounds like something a tyrant would say:
Nobody has the right to own a home.
I can’t shake this comment from an Ottawa mandarin, made during an unguarded moment at a Bay Street event where it spilled into a casual conversation about affordable homes for families.
As Canadians do, I grinned, walked away with a drink in hand and stewed. What can families expect for the billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on housing by all levels of government?
Not much, not even suitable family-oriented rentals with the space children need to thrive. Recent announcements out of Ottawa and Ontario’s Queen’s Park are case studies in housing malpractice. They emphasize spending and unit numbers but neglect the detail of outcomes: Building affordable family-friendly rentals.
Take the June 8 announcement by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. “Today, the federal government announced over $112-million in funding to help build 217 secure rental homes in Toronto.” The CMHC claims the project is “designed for families.”
Is it? The 15-storey rental apartment building in Toronto’s tony Leaside neighbourhood could be. Yet asking for details from the office of the federal Minister of Housing, Gregor Robertson, proved futile.
CMHC was good enough to reply. But it had no idea how many two- and three-bedroom family units would be for rent, or the size of such apartments. CMHC directed me to the developer, who, like the Minister’s office, didn’t respond.
We know a lot about what kind of housing supports family formation and what does not. We’ve known for more than a century. The Bain Apartments Co-operative in downtown Toronto is the classic example of what works for families, 260 townhouse-style units with lots of green space.
Yet we bankroll skyscrapers with taxpayer-backed loans. The Ryerson City Building Institute, now City Building TMU, documented in Density Done Right why tall doesn’t support family formation.
Building tall leads to a “lack of units suitable for larger households, overburdened infrastructure systems, and a mismatch between population density and the provision of services, such as transit, schools, health and community services, parks and recreation.”
The goal here is lip service and limiting the population to
single workers and not families.
Are we sure we want to alienate Alberta?:
Canadian income taxpayers would have to pay, on average, an additional $1,000 every year to maintain Ottawa’s current spending levels if it were not for Alberta’s contribution to federal finances, a new report by the Fraser Institute has found.
A study released Monday by the think tank says Alberta’s relatively high employment rates, higher average incomes, and younger population mean the province makes an outsized contribution, paying more to federal revenues and national programs than it receives in transfers and federal spending.
From 2007-2008 to 2026-2027 Albertans’ net contribution is a projected $321.9 billion, according to the research — nearly four times British Columbia’s at $87.8 billion and more than five times Ontario’s at $59.6 billion.
The other seven provinces were net recipients during that time period, which means they received more money back from Ottawa than the amount of revenue they sent.
According to the study, Alberta’s large net contribution helps fund federal programs across the country and reduces the tax burden that would otherwise fall on taxpayers elsewhere. It concludes that maintaining federal spending levels without Albertans’ net fiscal contribution over the time period would require taxpayers in other provinces to pay an additional $1,007 per year on average.
“Many Canadians don’t realize what a sizeable contribution Albertans make to federal finances and how taxpayers in other provinces benefit from it,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the research.
“As Canadian federalism increasingly takes centre stage in many of the country’s important policy discussions, it is important that all Canadians and policymakers understand the significant contribution Albertans make every year to federal finances and how Canadians in other provinces benefit from that.”
Previous research from the Fraser Institute found that the combined federal and provincial net debt, adjusted for inflation, has nearly doubled from $1.24 trillion in 2007-08 to a projected $2.44 trillion this fiscal year, a growth of 97.7 per cent.
The Fraser Institute’s latest study comes days after research found half a million Canadians migrated to Alberta over the past 30 years, making it the country’s most popular province.
Data from the past three decades showed Alberta had the largest net gain in migration from other provinces, gaining 538,824 more people than it lost. This was the largest net gain in the country, and more than double British Columbia’s at 214,883.
Canada
has become unliveable and we all know it:
A record number of people left Canada in 2025, according to new Statistics Canada data.
Statistics Canada’s latest international migration estimates show 120,640 people emigrated from Canada last year breaking the previous record of 118,409 set the year prior .
Ontario led the country in number of departures, with 56,266 people leaving, nearly half (47%) of all emigration from Canada, disproportionately higher than Ontario’s share of the country’s population (39%).
British Columbia recorded the second-highest number of departures at 25,145, followed by Quebec at 15,913 and Alberta at 14,690.
British Columbia posted the highest emigration rate per capita, with approximately 442 emigrants per 100,000 residents.
That was well above the national average of roughly 290 per 100,000 people.
Together, Ontario and British Columbia accounted for about two-thirds of all Canadians who left the country in 2025.
The figures also show Quebec experienced its highest level of emigration since 1971, while Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta all recorded the highest annual totals on record.
The increase comes amid ongoing concerns about housing affordability, cost-of-living pressures and economic uncertainty.
I think he meant
to say that Cuba needs foreigners to exploit the people there:
Canada is soon welcoming a “high level delegation” from Cuba, says the chair of the Senate foreign affairs committee. “Cuba needs friends,” said Senator Peter Boehm (Ont.), who singled out the United States for criticism.
Would China
use nuclear weapons?:
Russia and China have made it clear they are partners, something the pair has repeatedly affirmed. Although the U.S. does not need to maintain parity in warheads with all adversaries to maintain deterrence, a serious imbalance is nonetheless dangerous because it can embolden these bad actors.
The combined number of China's and Russia's nukes — not to mention North Korea's — is beginning to create the imbalance that could lead to horrible consequences.
As SIPRI writes about those consequences, "States are increasingly relying on nuclear weapons as instruments of national power—reversing decades of efforts to reduce the numbers and role of nuclear weapons—even as the risk of miscalculation and escalation are rising."
“Do as I say,”
says noted hypocrite and liar:
Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner yesterday said Canadians deserve a judiciary free of politics, but would not discuss his own criticism of the Freedom Convoy. Wagner declined to recuse himself from sitting in judgment on protestors he described as anarchists and hostage takers, though none were charged with either offence: “Can you explain why you will not recuse yourself?”
Their responses were reasonably unsurprising, but tickling nonetheless.
"Can you please put your hands up, those of you who welcome the ban," the reporter asked of the handful of students, all aged 11 to 14 years old.
None, it seemed liked the idea — with not one student inspired to raise their hands.
The reporter spoke to one student in particular, Isabella, whose answer baffled commenters. She told the reporter her screen time over the weekend was nine hours.
Pointing out the hours of extra time the student would soon have, the reporter then asked what her what she would soon do instead.
"Stare at a wall," Isabella responded deadpan.
Also:
Australia’s legislation “specifically prohibits platforms from compelling Australians to provide a government-issued ID or use an Australian Government accredited digital ID service to prove their age.” To comply with the law, platforms have implemented widespread use of behavioural analysis, device signals, and facial age estimation scans. By mid-December 2025, platforms had already removed access to approximately 4.7 million suspected under-16 accounts.
But large numbers of teenagers quickly found workarounds. Surveys conducted in early 2026 show that more than 60 percent of under-16s who had accounts before the ban continue to access at least one restricted platform. Common methods include using borrowed phones or parents’ ID, fake age declarations, VPNs, and printed mesh masks to fool facial recognition.
Without robust age verification systems, therefore, a meaningful ban doesn’t exist. It might initially remove under 16s, but millions of ineligible minors will find a way to return to these platforms, as has taken place in Australia.
This begs an important question: What is the point of an age verification system that is only half effective? This would create a new set of problems including the loss of privacy rights for everyone, without actually solving the underlying problem the legalization is reportedly designed to fix.
Canada is aware of this conundrum. What would Canada do, then, to both kick minors off the platforms and keep them off the platforms? There is no reason to think that parental oversight or enforcement will be any different here than across the Pacific.
One possibility is social media users must submit verification of identity every time they log in to the platform. The most obvious way to do this would be a government-mediated login system. This would essentially grant government an immense amount of metadata about who logs in to what, how often, etc.
Another possibility would be for social media platforms themselves to monitors users’ data, either by periodically scanning faces and matching it to submitted photo ID, or by evaluating user behaviour (i.e., what content is being accessed and predicting the age of users). This would give an immense amount of data to social media companies that, if retained, could lead to significant privacy violations. Imagine a camera monitoring you every time you use Instagram or Facebook. Think about the fact that biometric technology can already be used to predict age based on wrinkles, skin texture and elasticity, facial proportions, eye shape, hairline, and bone structure. Researchers have even found statistical correlations between typing speed, error patterns, touch pressure, and age.
In this latter possibility, Canadians would be handing highly sensitive biometric data (faces, fingerprints, typing style, etc.) to foreign corporations that are subject to foreign laws (U.S. CLOUD Act, Chinese national intelligence law, etc.). These companies can be compelled by their own governments to hand over your personal and identifiable data. This type of data is also permanent. If it gets hacked, leaked, or demanded by a foreign government, you cannot change it like a password.
Finally, a mandatory social media ban for minors under 16 would significantly restrict their ability to access information about the world. Freedom of expression under the Charter section 2(b) includes not only the right to speak, but also the right to receive information. Canadian courts have recognized this in several cases. Social media platforms have become one of the primary ways many young people receive news, public debates, educational content, and diverse viewpoints.
One doesn’t have to be an absolutist to value freedom and privacy, but the fact of the matter is we have not tried alternative strategies that would minimally impair this fundamental freedom of privacy for everyone, and freedom of speech for minors. Yes, facial recognition is already used voluntarily on some platforms (such as dating apps). And a driver’s licence is often required from gambling sites to ensure compliance with the law. But there is a profound difference between choosing to use one of these sites and being required by law to submit biometric data to participate in modern public discourse. The scale is also vastly different.
We should pursue less invasive strategies instead of choosing between an ineffective ban or a robust and draconian one. Aggressive cultural campaigns against early smartphone use, phone-free schools until at least Grade 9 or 10, and better parental control tools have all shown meaningful results for youth mental health in multiple studies. Stronger platform liability for addictive design specifically aimed at children could also be pursued.
At the end of the day, parents are responsible for their children’s social media use with or without a law that requires everyone share their digital data. In other words, even if a robust law existed, parents would still be responsible to ensure their children avoid workarounds.
"Another email sent to parents earlier in the month said the school would be welcoming Adrianna Exposée." A drag performer.
Notably, before cancelling the event, principal Sandy Miller and vice-principal Marc Laliberté told parents the presentation was “intended to promote literacy and themes of equity, diversity and visibility in a unique and memorable way,” according to correspondence obtained by CTV News Ottawa.
The event was not merely proposed; it had already been approved, organized, scheduled, and communicated to families.
In other words, the school had already decided the event was appropriate enough to place on its calendar.
That fact raises an obvious question: If the event lacked curriculum alignment, why was it approved in the first place?
Why did the parents approve of it?
