Bill C-9 Passes

Canada went full Nazi, something one should never do:

The Commons yesterday by a 189 to 128 vote passed into law new hate crimes legislation. The cabinet bill written to counter anti-Semitic public disorder drew contentious amendments unrelated to safety of Canadian Jews: “It is less sober second thought and more quick hot takes.”

 

To wit:

Bill C-9 has removed the “good faith religious expression defence” from convictions for criminal hate speech.

It is illegal under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code to publicly incite hatred by “communicating statements in any public place (that) incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.”

(Sidebar: no committees or debate in the House of Commons have demonstrated where the quoting of Biblical passages led to crimes of any kind.)

It is also illegal under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code to communicate statements, “other than in private conversation” that “wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group,” and under 319(2.1) to wilfully promote antisemitism by “communicating statements, other than in private conversation… condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.”

 

Interesting.

Now about that:

The Liberal government sought to erase from the record of the House of Commons the celebration of a Nazi war veteran during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit last Friday but that request was denied by the Conservatives who say to do so is “absolutely wrong.”

Government House leader Karina Gould stood up on Monday afternoon to ask for unanimous consent to adopt a motion calling to strike “from the appendix of the House of Commons debates” and from “any House multimedia recording” the recognition made by Speaker Anthony Rota of Yaroslav Hunka, 98, whom he described as “a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero.”

Rota has apologized but is now facing calls for his resignation by two of the four recognized parties in the House since it was revealed that Hunka was in fact serving in the First Ukrainian Division, also known as the Waffen-SS Galicia Division or the SS 14th Waffen Division which was a voluntary unit that was under the command of the Nazis during the Second World War.

**

Nearly one-third of Canadians believe that antisemitism or anti-Jewish attitudes are becoming more acceptable in the country, according to a new poll.

The Leger survey, conducted on behalf of the Association for Canadian Studies, found that 31 per cent held that view, while the highest level of agreement was concentrated among university students (37 per cent), men (38 per cent) and Canadians between the ages of 18 and 34 (35 per cent). English speakers were more than twice (35 per cent) as likely to agree with the statement as opposed to just 16 per cent of Francophones.

Slightly over a fifth (22 per cent) of Canadians agreed that “Israel’s military actions in Gaza justify negative attitudes toward Jewish people in Canada,” as opposed to nearly half (49 per cent) of respondents who disagreed. Canadians aged 18 to 34 (26 per cent) and men (29 per cent) were most likely to agree with the statement.

“The findings suggest that condemnation alone has not been enough. While many leaders have denounced antisemitism since October 7, the survey shows that a significant minority of Canadians still believe that events in the Middle East justify negative attitudes toward Jewish Canadians,” Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies, told National Post in a written statement.

Roughly one-sixth (17 per cent) of Canadians surveyed agreed that they have become more negative toward Jews since the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel, while a majority (62 per cent) disagreed with the statement. Women (68 per cent), college students (66 per cent) and Canadians over 55 (69 per cent) were the most likely to disagree with the statement. Those born outside of Canada were more likely to agree (24 per cent) than respondents born in the country (16 per cent).

A similar split was seen on the question of whether “Jews in Canada are responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.” Nine per cent of all respondents and eight per cent of people born in Canada agreed, while nearly twice the number of respondents born outside of the country (15 per cent) agreed. Strong majorities of respondents born in Canada (73 per cent) and outside the country (62 per cent) disagreed with the statement.

**

A Nova Scotia high school has asked students to return their new yearbooks after a Holocaust denial reference was found inside.

“6 million? Nah, 271k” a screenshot of a West Bedford High School yearbook shared on Facebook reads, a reference that 271,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust and not the generally accepted figure of six million. …

The yearbook quote generated mixed reactions among members of the Halifax Share Anything group on Facebook, with some suggesting it was innocuous and others saying it did not clearly amount to Holocaust denial.

“Am I missing something, where did they deny the holocaust?” one wrote. “I see them claiming a different number, not that it didn’t happen.”

“I would have not known without your context that this was holocaust denial,” another wrote. “I hope that it slipped through because the yearbook committee and staff involved also didn’t get the reference. I would be contacting the school’s admin right away.”

 

 

Further:

The penalties for these crimes are up to two years in prison. …

The Supreme Court of Canada has defined hatred as the most extreme forms of the emotions described by vilification and detestation. The Court has said “detestation tend[s] to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will … which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike.” The Court has said vilification will “seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize (a group)… (or) render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience.” The Court added that this type of speech “goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.” The Court has not defined antisemitism.

 The Court has also said that hatred can be identified by looking for “hallmarks of hatred” including speech that:

“vilifies the targeted group by blaming its members for the current problems in society”

“alleg(es) that members of a group are a “powerful menace”

“accuses a group of carrying out secret conspiracies to gain global control or that they are plotting to destroy western civilization”

“suggests members are illegal or unlawful,” such as by labelling them “liars, cheats, criminals and thugs”

calls people “pure evil”

(Sidebar: that could be any part of the Bible in which working-class prophets point out the corruption of their leadership. It also sounds a hell of a lot like demonising of anyone who isn’t Liberal or Democrat. Yet the latter is not banned. How strange.)

“equates the targeted group with groups traditionally reviled in society, such as child abusers, pedophiles or deviant criminals who prey on children”

describes members of a group as “animals or as subhuman”

“calls into question whether group members qualify as human beings” or

refers to them as “horrible creatures who ought not to be allowed to live,” “incognizant primates,” “genetically inferior,” “lesser beasts” or “sub-human filth.” …

 

Really?:

5:60 Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way."

**

Say (O Muhammad SAW to the people of the Scripture): "Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allah and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Taghut (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hell-fire), and far more astray from the Right Path (in the life of this world)."

 

Does the Koran fall under the Bill C-9 ban?

 

Further:

Bill C-9 creates a new hate crime of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols in a public place, including specific symbols associated with Nazism, such as the swastika, nooses (which are associated with anti-Black racism) and symbols associated with terrorist groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah flags. Context is important; there must be an intent to promote hatred.

Banning symbols and flags does nothing to reduce hatred or terrorism. In fact, it may make it more difficult to identify members of hate and terrorist groups.

These bans also violate the free speech principle that governments should not censor speech based on its content. If the government can ban one flag or symbol, it can easily ban another.

 

The above is the swastika, a symbol of Buddhism. It is meant to symbolise the seal of Buddha's heart. 

None of this was about preventing or countering anti-semitism. It certainly won’t do anything about the churches that have been vandalised and/or burned to the ground.

It is not meant to.

The Liberals have succeeded in a coup against the Canadian public and free expression by pretending to care about the plight of Canadian Jews (who are now leaving Canada) when, in fact, all they wanted was an excuse to ban not just any book but the Bible.

Consider that in order not to hear the allegedly offensive phrases from a book not many have read, certainly not understood, nor proven to be detrimental, it is not possible to have ombudsmen or police at every house of worship or private collection. It would be easier simply to seize these books.

If one thinks that will never happen, no one thought that they would be locked in their houses for two years, either.

 

 

Also:

 

Alphabet Inc.’s Google said Canada’s changes to a proposed law that would help police obtain citizen data from private companies don’t resolve many of its concerns.

“We believe the government can support law enforcement without resorting to secret ministerial orders that put Canadians at risk,” a Google spokesperson said in an email, adding that the company would continue engaging on the issue.

In a marathon session late Wednesday, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals pushed through amendments to Bill C-22, known as the Lawful Access Act, in an effort to address heavy criticism from technology firms including Alphabet, Apple Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc.

Major changes to the bill include explicitly stating it will not require decryption of encrypted information — an industry concern — and reducing the metadata retention period to six months, instead of one year. Google had recommended that metadata not be kept at all.

Apple, Meta and Google had slammed the legislation during consultations last month, citing privacy and security issues. And in a May interview with the Globe and Mail newspaper, encrypted messaging app Signal threatened to pull out of Canada if the law forced them to compromise user privacy.

The amendments made Wednesday improve clarity and address feedback raised during the consultation process, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said in a statement.

Canadian VPN company Tailscale Inc. welcomed the changes, but said they didn’t go far enough. “C-22 can still pressure secure services to retain data they otherwise wouldn’t keep, and to build technical access systems they otherwise wouldn’t deploy,” Chief Executive Officer Avery Pennarun said in an email. “We oppose laws that make secure infrastructure harder to build.”

Apple, Meta and Signal didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Canada is the only Group of Seven country without legislation requiring electronic service providers to maintain and develop lawful access capabilities, Carney has said. The government previously rejected claims that the law would enable surveillance of Canadians through everyday devices.

The bill has been fast-tracked for Senate review in the fall.

Mid-Week Post

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?”

 

 

Read a g-d- book:

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.

 

Your parents must be so proud of you and your vapidity.

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.

 

 

It’s called grooming:

"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?

Some People Are "Special"

How would you determine this?

How would you dispute a ticket? With Ancestry.ca?:

As part of their stated commitment to “decolonization & Indigenization” in health care, the Yukon is debuting Indigenous-only parking spaces at all its three hospitals.

In a social media post last week, Yukon Hospitals announced that the territory’s hospitals would henceforth feature reserved parking spots marked “Respectfully Reserved for Elders.”

Reserved exclusively for “First Nation, Inuit, and Métis Elders,” the spaces are marked with signs featuring commissioned art from two Yukon-based Indigenous artists; one prepared a stylized image of two elders, while another prepared the accompanying text reading “respectfully reserved for elders.”

“These spaces are one way we are showing our commitment to Truth & Reconciliation, Decolonization & Indigenization,” reads a description by Yukon Hospitals.

The elder spots are set to be installed at the territory’s main hospital in Whitehorse, as well as at the Dawson City Community Hospital and the Watson Lake Community Hospital. Parking for everyone at all three hospitals is free.

They will be placed in lots whose only other designated parking is currently for staff or disabled users. Although the Whitehorse General Hospital notably has designated RV parking; a service for patients from distant communities driving in for scheduled procedures.

Yukon Hospitals, like many Canadian government and health-care authorities, has publicly embraced the notion that its facilities are shot through with “systemic racism” that can only be alleviated via differential treatment for marginalized groups.

 

Do these elders even drive?

Do they have a special sticker on their driver's licenses? 

 

A "Pause" Is Not An Elimination

It is an opportunity to try again:

A special parliamentary committee is expected to recommend the federal government halt the expansion of MAID to those whose sole condition is a mental disorder, the latest development in a drawn-out and controversial chapter in the country’s assisted-death regime.

The joint committee of senators and MPs struck to revisit Canada’s preparedness for medical assistance in dying for those with mental illness alone is expected to recommend an “indefinite pause” on the expansion, two sources told National Post. They spoke on the condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to speak on the committee’s behalf.