Since Bill C-4 became law in 2022, it has been a criminal offence in Canada for counsellors, doctors, pastors, priests, or even parents to help a consenting adult who wants to feel more comfortable with their biological sex, reduce unwanted same-sex attractions, or align their “gender identity” with their biological reality. Bill C-4 passed with unanimous support from the Conservative Opposition and all parties in the House. This legislation was sold to Canadians as a ban on “conversion therapy,” a term associated with inhumane practices such as forcing people to undergo electric shock during the presentation of same-sex erotic images, something that has not been practiced for many decades. In a clever but deceitful fashion, Bill C-4 purported to prohibit what was already illegal, namely, force and abuse.
Canadian parents can now be jailed for the “crime” of helping their own gender-confused children to feel comfortable in the body they were born with. Counsellors, too, are exposed to criminal liability if they help someone who previously identified as transgender and now wants to “detransition,” or if they help someone who wants to stop having same-sex attraction. Instead of proposing ways to overcome unwanted gender confusion, the only legally safe option for professionals and parents is to “affirm” it.
In March 2026, in Chiles v. Salazar, the US Supreme Court struck down a Colorado law similar to Canada’s Bill C-4. Kaley Chiles is a licenced counsellor in Colorado with a master’s degree in clinical mental health. She does not impose any predetermined goals on her clients. Instead, she listens to what they want to achieve and helps them pursue those goals through ordinary talk therapy. Some of her clients wish to reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions, change certain behaviours, or feel more at home in the body they were born with. Colorado’s law made the latter objectives illegal, while permitting (and in effect requiring) counsellors to support only a person’s transition to the opposite sex. ...
In today’s political and cultural climate, it’s easy to dismiss Dr. Nicolosi as a pseudo-scientist, a dangerous fraudster, or worse. However, there are many men and women who speak publicly about their own experiences of a change in sexual orientation. One could argue that these people are deluding themselves or lying, but modern research confirms that sexual orientation is fluid and can change with time.
Why, then, should the state be allowed to criminalize the personal counselling choices that consenting adults wish to make? Why should parents risk jail for trying to help their own gender-confused children feel comfortable in their bodies, rather than steering them toward medical transition and “affirming” said confusions?
Most Canadians believe, as the US Supreme Court affirmed last month, that the state has no place in the therapy offices and counselling centres of the nation. If Canada’s laws truly reflected the majority public opinion, and if our laws respected the personal freedom and choice of consenting adults, Bill C-4 would never have been approved by Parliament. Without Bill C-4, Canadians would still enjoy the basic liberty to seek the psychological help that best aligns with their own values and goals, and parents would be free to help their gender-confused children without fearing criminal charges.
Heritage Minister Marc Miller was approached after his party—thanks to winning three byelections to hold seats it had previously won in last year’s election and gaining five floor-crossing MPs—had turned a minority government into a majority with unfettered legislative power. …
Bill C-36, the Liberals’ first attempt to regulate speech on the internet, was actually a scaled back version of a draft bill that then-Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s staff had circulated for feedback in the year previous. It set off alarm bells across the board concerning the infringement of Charter rights.
Still, as I described it at the time, when it came to even the improved version, Guilbeault and his team “have succeeded in scanning the globe, identifying the most invasive and inefficient regulatory practices in place and bundling them all into a single piece of legislation that very likely has no hope of surviving Charter challenges.”
That one died on the order paper when Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of the day, called the 2021 election.
The next effort, Bill C-63, was too clever by half. In an effort to make sure it wouldn’t be tossed out swiftly by the courts, the Department of Justice, under its then-Minister Arif Virani, was put in charge of its composition. It had some positive aspects (most people agree the protection of children from harm is a laudable goal) that provided the sheep’s clothing for its more wolfish aspects. Those included empowering the Human Rights Commission to take complaints from people interpreting online comments as racist or otherwise offensive and the power to fine those who posted comments it deemed to be problematic up to $20,000. Hate speech laws were to be reinforced, with life sentences possible. Also envisioned was a new bureaucratic structure called a Digital Safety Commission with the power to order takedowns and punish platforms for failure to exercise their duty of care.
That bill also died on the order paper in early 2025 when Trudeau prorogued Parliament in order to ensure his successor could control the timing of an election.
Now, with little chance of an election, the government is likely going to finally get an Online Harms Act passed. It has put a panel in place to help it do so and has suggested it will include a ban on children under 14, or maybe 16, from accessing social media. Either way, that means age verification will be required.
So get ready. There is no shortage of people asking for the government to, on their behalf, silence people online whose words they feel harmed by.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims has backed the concept in all its forms from the beginning and can be expected to continue its support.
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, similarly, continues to advocate for stronger policing of online speech.
Even media unions are throwing their support behind it. While journalists have traditionally been staunch defenders of free speech, particularly as it forms the foundation upon which modern, liberal democracies are based, that is no longer the case for some.
“For many journalists, especially women, minorities, and LGBTQ members, the toxicity we face online and in person while doing our jobs is becoming overwhelming,” Jane Robertson, president of the Canadian Media Guild, which represents CBC journalists, told the House of Commons Heritage Committee on April 16.
“We urge the government to support stronger protection though the upcoming Online Harms Act particularly with journalists’ safety and mental health as explicit priorities.”
There will, of course, be other groups such as the Free Speech Union and Canadian Constitution Foundation taking issue with whatever the authors of Online Harms 3.0 come up with. They will have their voices heard during the legislative process and, likely, in the courts once the bill is passed.
But this time, the power of a majority in their pocket, Miller, Carney, and others will most certainly get what they want.
And when they are done, Canadians will speak less freely. The only question remaining involves whether they do so by a little or a lot.
Canada’s military housing shortage has grown to as many as 10,000 units, with new testimony revealing many existing homes are in poor condition and unsuitable for families.
Canadian Forces Housing Agency CEO Paula Zurro told the Commons public accounts committee the gap between available housing and demand now ranges from 7,000 to 10,000 units, with the agency aiming to meet the higher end of that estimate through future construction.
The figures follow a scathing audit by Karen Hogan, which found long waitlists and widespread deficiencies in military housing across the country.
Hogan’s report identified 3,706 service members waiting for just 205 available units and noted many existing quarters failed to meet basic standards for space and livability.
Testifying before MPs, Hogan described visiting bases in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario, where most inspected buildings required at least one major repair, including issues as serious as unsafe drinking water.
“I know I would want my family to have safe drinking water and a functioning toilet,” she said.
Conservative MP James Bezan warned the situation is worsening, noting previous estimates already showed a shortfall of 6,700 homes in 2024.
(Sidebar: this douche-tool.)
Federal officials say a construction program is underway to deliver 7,500 new housing units, while also expanding supply through purchasing homes on the private market.
But critics argue those purchases are putting additional pressure on already tight local housing markets.
Bezan said some military members are being forced into precarious living situations, including couch surfing, living in vehicles or even staying in tent encampments due to a lack of available housing.
He also raised concerns that buying existing homes in competitive markets like Halifax and Esquimalt may worsen affordability challenges for civilians.
“When are we going to get the new builds?” Bezan asked.
Defence Minister David McGuinty has acknowledged the state of military housing, saying after touring units himself that improvements are urgently needed.
“We have work to do,” McGuinty said.
A 33-year-old Indigenous B.C. man who choked and kicked his girlfriend’s “vulnerable and defenceless” two-year-old son last summer has been sentenced to six months in prison for two separate assaults, both of which were captured by a nanny cam in the child’s room.The Crown had asked for just one year behind bars, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community.
In her recently published sentencing decision, Provincial Court of B.C. judge Temara Golinsky said that while the man “was not raised with a traditional upbringing,” doesn’t have status and neither he “nor his “immediate family were impacted by state actions such as residential schools, even the dissociation with one’s past and cultural heritage is a negative consequence of colonization.”
As such, his Indigeneity was given some weight as a mitigating factor when she gave him concurrent six-month sentences on charges of choking and assault earlier this month.
The man, referred to only as K.J.M. due to a publication ban to protect the child’s identity, pleaded guilty to both charges and expressed remorse during a two-day sentencing hearing in an unnamed provincial courtroom earlier this year.
According to The Crown, the now four-year-old boy escaped “serious long-term” consequences from the assaults, which Golinksky said was “due to good fortune, not K.J.M.’s actions.”
At the same time, she said, “violence against the toddler, when he was so young, will have an inevitable and long-term impact.”
“Violence is a known adverse childhood experience,” she explained. “The extent of the impact is unknown, but I have no trouble finding that there will have been an impact.”
At the time of the June 2025 assaults, K.J.M. had been living with the mother of the toddler, then 28 months old, and her daughter for about a year.
“He helped to care for the children when the mother was unavailable or even, as it appears from time to time, unwilling,” Golinsky wrote, noting he told pre-sentence report writers that their relationship was “awful,” largely due to her alleged infidelity, and that he felt she was using him for money and childcare.
The man also complained to the two authors that the child “was difficult to parent,” would beat his sister and “smear his s— on the wall”, often with no behavioural correction from his mother.
On occasion, however, “the child would be locked in a bedroom as a punishment for their behaviour and at night,” so he wouldn’t interrupt them.
K.J.M. “did not express any concern with locking a toddler in a room for extended periods of time while unsupervised by an adult,” they wrote.
So it was on the evening of June 13 that K.J.M. said he had put the child in a time-out while the mother was away.
In the video evidence, the child, wearing only a diaper, is seated on the floor near his bedroom door when it opens, striking him on the shoulder and “rolling him back and away from the door.”
“K.J.M. stepped into the room and used his foot to kick and move the child away from the door, rolling him into the centre of the room,” the judge described.
“He then bent down and pushed his hand on the front of the child’s neck, pressing him into the carpet. He squeezed the child’s neck for a moment while the child was screaming. K.J.M. yelled, ‘Get away from the f—ing door,’ and then released his grip and left the room, closing the door behind him. The child can be heard crying while crawling back to sit at the closed door.”
A video captured two days later showed the second vicious assault on the innocent child.
In it, the boy, again dressed only in a diaper, is seated on his bed crying quietly to himself and flinches as K.J.M. opens the door and strides into the room to stand next to the bed.
“He immediately squared his stance and then kicked the child once in the face or forehead with his bare foot, causing the child to fall onto his back,” Golinksy wrote. “He yelled something at the child, then stormed out of the room and closed the door behind him. The child continued to lie there on his back and can be heard crying until the video ends a few seconds later.”
It wasn’t until the mother noticed a scrape on her son and reviewed the nanny cam footage that she learned of the assaults and alerted authorities.
K.J.M. acknowledged his wrongdoing in both instances, but told the pre-sentence report authors that the child had been “screaming or freaking out” because he’d been punished. Golinsky, however, said the audio from the videos makes it clear the toddler “was doing neither in the seconds leading up to either of the assaults.”
Furthermore, “there is no evidence or suggestion by K.J.M. that he returned on either occasion to check on the well-being of the child or to try to comfort the child,” the judge wrote.
Because his offences were “of such gravity and his moral culpability” was so high, Golinsky dismissed the suggestion of a conditional sentence and ordered jail time.
In weighing the sentence duration, she considered the violent nature of the assaults by a caregiver and the child’s vulnerability, particularly in his own home and bedroom, as aggravating factors. The judge also noted the “assaults cannot be characterized as momentary lapses of judgment” because K.J.M. came from elsewhere in the house and “had at least a fraction of time to measure or consider his response.”
“If he didn’t have the time or wherewithal to measure his response the first time, there is no doubt he would have had that opportunity to do so before the second assault,” the decision reads.
“If he had known the first assault was a mistake, as he stated to the report writers, then it is aggravating that he assaulted the toddler again.”
In addition to K.J.M.’s Indigenous ancestry, the judge said other mitigating factors that supported a shorter sentence than requested by the Crown included his guilty plea, his lack of criminal record, his remorse and the long-term effects of a traumatic brain injury from a 2013 ATV accident.
“With that in mind, I do not find that his traumatic brain injury alone could be determined to be a driving or primary factor in his violent behaviour,” Golinsky said. “As the doctor concluded, it is reasonable for the Court to find that it was the toxic combination of several factors, including the brain injury, that brought K.J.M. to assault the child.”
With no credit for time served, he’ll spend the entire six months incarcerated, after which he’ll face 18 months of probation upon release under various conditions.
We need to elect our judges.
Also:
British Columbia Premier David Eby has backed down again on the pausing of key parts of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, scrapping plans to table a suspension bill this legislative session.
The premier’s office says in a brief statement that it "can confirm that the government will not be introducing legislation on DRIPA during this session."
Instead, it says Eby will hold a press conference Monday to outline next steps.
A draft document provided by a First Nations source says the government now hopes to work with First Nations to come up with a joint approach to DRIPA, under a framework for negotiations.
Eby met with First Nations leaders late Sunday afternoon, one of whom says the suspension law was withdrawn as a result of planned protests.
The premier has said a recent court decision on B.C.'s mineral claims regime that cited DRIPA put the province at serious litigation risk, while First Nations have said the law should not be changed.
The draft government document says the goal now is to "arrive at a set of recommendations, supported by First Nations in B.C. and the Province of B.C." on how to implement DRIPA.
The document provided to The Canadian Press says there is "no commitment to either a) make amendments, or b) not make amendments to DRIPA."
It is labelled as being subject to an NDA, or non-disclosure agreement.
The document outlines how discussions between the government, First Nations and other stakeholders could take place, and says there will be a "focus on reaching a shared understanding of how legislative alignment (with DRIPA) could most effectively work, in a manner led by First Nations and government but supported by the courts."
It says the first meetings could take place within two weeks of the process being announced.
The now-scrapped plan to table the suspension bill on Monday lasted just a few hours after it emerged Sunday, and was immediately repudiated by First Nations leaders who have also opposed previous plans to amend DRIPA instead.
And:
Chief Charlene Belleau speaks about her interaction with me (and to some extent @Dallas_Brodie) @thompsonriversu: "I wish that our people could grab you [Frances Widdowson], drag you over to the Kamloops Residential School, put you into the basement, speak our language to you,… pic.twitter.com/Bc1sHBrqGc
— Frances Widdowson (@FrancesWiddows1) April 14, 2026
Your Eminence, you are only inviting Carney to cancel you:
Cardinal Frank Leo, the metropolitan archbishop of Toronto, called on Prime Minister Mark Carney and all his MPs to “choose life” and allow support to a Conservative Party private members’ bill that would stop a planned expansion of euthanasia to those with mental illness.
“I ask you to choose life and not death; to help build a civilization that cares for those suffering and does not eliminate them, but instead surrounds them with dignity, compassion, and love,” wrote Cardinal Leo in a letter released today, addressed directly to Carney and his MPs.
The prelate said Carney must allow his MPs to”choose life” and allow support behind Bill C-218, which is a proposed bill that would stop the expansion of so-called “Medical Assistance in Dying” (“MAiD”).
“As you know, our Catholic faith opposes the taking of any human life and it is with great disappointment and anguish that we have seen our country expand Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) at a rapid and alarming rate since legislation was passed in 2016, despite the commitments made and the safeguards promised,” wrote Cardinal Leo.
Bill C-218, or “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying [i.e., euthanasia]),” was introduced by Conservative Party MP Tamara Jansen and passed its first reading on June 20, 2025, as reported by LifeSiteNews. The bill would ban extending state-sponsored euthanasia to those with mental illness.
Shareholders of Allied Gold Corp. voted in favour of China’s Zijin Gold International Co. Ltd.’s proposed $5.5 billion acquisition of the company last week.Industry Minister Mélanie Joly reviews all proposed foreign takeovers of Canadian companies in case of national security vulnerabilities. The reviews include assessing how the deals will affect Canada’s defence capabilities, critical supply chains, and the potential for enabling foreign espionage.The Canadian government had a 45-day window to raise concerns about the deal, but it did not do so, meaning it was approved by default. The government would still be able to block Zijin’s acquisition of Allied if it fails to pass the ongoing net economic benefit review, which examines the deal’s impact on the Canadian economy, jobs, and supply chains.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada said in a statement to The Epoch Times that the government is aware of the transaction, but said it can’t comment on specific transactions due to confidentiality provisions in the Investment Canada Act.
Zijin, which has indirect ties to the Chinese regime through its ownership structure, struck a deal in January to acquire Allied for $44 per share in cash—an all-time high for the stock. Allied operates mines in the African countries of Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, and Mali, and produces around 375,000 ounces of gold a year.
Neither of the companies responded to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.
Under former prime minister Justin Trudeau, Ottawa tightened rules on Chinese ownership in the Canadian mining sector, citing national security concerns over China’s growing control of the global critical minerals supply chain. The Canadian government was particularly concerned about Chinese control of lithium, cobalt, and rare earths.
The Canadian government warned in 2022 that some foreign investments in Canada could be “motivated by non-commercial imperatives that are contrary to Canada’s interests.”
Canada has typically allowed Chinese investment in Canada’s gold sector in recent years, as the metal is not classified as a critical mineral. But in 2020, Ottawa blocked Shandong Gold Mining Co. Ltd.’s attempted acquisition of TMAC Resources Ltd. TMAC’s mine is located near tidewater in the Northwest Passage, which is a strategic shipping route in the Canadian Arctic.
Since Mark Carney became prime minister in early 2025, he has moved to strengthen ties between Ottawa and Beijing in a bit to diversify trade away from the United States. During a visit to China in January, Carney announced he was reducing tariffs on imports of Chinese electric cars, and said Canada was open to more investment from China.
The attendees included individuals and groups that have won praise from Chinese diplomats and agencies, echoed Beijing’s talking points on contentious issues and worked with Chinese Communist Party (CPP) organizations.
One guest’s presence evoked memories of the famous “dumpling-making” photo of then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a controversial fundraiser a decade ago.
Co-hosted by local MP Michael Ma, the dinner attracted attention even before it began. Ma crossed the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberals in December 2025, then drew controversy last month by pointedly challenging parliamentary testimony about the well-documented phenomenon of forced labour in China.
The fact China-friendly figures paid $1,750 each to attend a gathering with Carney is a worrisome reminder of Beijing’s reach, indirectly at least, into federal politics, China critics charge.
“By paying for that expensive ticket, you get the face-to-face acquaintance with the political VIP you like to associate with,” said Gloria Fung of the group Canada-Hong Kong Link.
“There are steps — step by step — how these politicians could be lobbied and lured into the acceptance of the narrative promoted by donors,” she said. “I don’t want any of our government officials to run into this evil cycle again, because it won’t end there. It won’t end with a fundraising dinner.”
Less familiar to many Westerners, though, is the Quebec perspective on the poison pill Pierre Trudeau placed in his new constitution of 1982. That perspective is presented by Laval University political scientist Guy Laforest in his book, Trudeau and the End of a Canadian Dream. In Laforest’s view, Trudeau’s constitutional changes of 1982, especially the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ended the possibility of an accord that could keep Quebec in Canada.
The “Canadian dream” in Laforest’s book title would be a country where Quebec’s role as the national state of French Canadians would be recognized while still remaining part of Canada. According to Laforest, what many Quebec nationalists really want for their province is a form of “decentralized federalism, with a new division of powers that would make it fully able to shoulder its responsibilities as the national homeland of French Canadians and the seat of their culture.”
Pierre Trudeau was dead-set against that sort of arrangement. He wanted a more homogenous type of Canada that would substantially diminish the distinct cultures and identities of the provinces and regions, including Quebec. Trudeau saw his Charter of Rights as helping to fulfill this goal.
As Laforest explains, “One of the Charter’s objectives was to diminish the sense of regional and territorial ‘belonging’ experienced by” people in various parts of the country “and to promote among them an unmediated identification with the Canadian national community as a whole.”
Trudeau figured he could defeat Quebec nationalism and therefore also Quebec sovereignty by getting Canadians to turn away from their regional and provincial loyalties, and instead focus their loyalty on a national institution, especially the Charter of Rights.
In this sense, the Charter is “designed to create a homogenous Canadian community in which individuals and groups share the same set of fundamental values. By its very nature, the Charter is incompatible with a concept such as that of a distinct society, and with any idea of particular status for Quebec.”
In other words, the Charter would create a homogenous national community and thereby smother regional identities, particularly the strong provincial identity of the Quebecois.
As a result, “Trudeau’s project collides head-on with any project of a distinct national society and an autonomous political community in Quebec. In Mr. Trudeau’s view of things, there is no Quebec nation or people. There is a single, indivisible Canadian nation, and the people of Quebec are Canadian citizens who happen, more or less accidentally, to live in the territory of Quebec.”
By the same token, in Trudeau’s ideal, people living in Alberta should see themselves as Canadians who happen to live in Alberta, not as Albertans. The point is to eliminate provincial distinctiveness in favour of a national identity centred around the Charter itself.
Quebec nationalists could not stomach Trudeau’s Charter. Indeed, Quebec never signed onto the 1982 constitution. For this reason, Laforest views it as illegitimate, as do many other Quebecers.
In essence, Pierre Trudeau’s 1982 constitution, especially the Charter of Rights, ended the possibility of accommodation between Canada and Quebec. Therefore, if Quebec truly wants to defend its unique identity, it must become its own country.
This is the inevitable result of Trudeau imposing his vision of Canada in 1982.
In other words, Pierre Trudeau planted the seeds of Canada’s destruction. He completely changed the country with his new constitution. As Laforest aptly points out, “To change a constitution is to alter the nature, the very being, of a political body.” Therefore, it is true to say that Trudeau “is the true founder of the political system under which we have lived since 1982.”
Pierre Trudeau was not just another prime minister like the others. He is the one who founded modern Canada and established the patterns of political life that currently threaten its existence.
Laforest writes that by the time Trudeau died, he “could boast about his stature as the most important political personality of twentieth-century Canada.”
Indeed, Trudeau “could pride himself on having succeeded in what is, according to Machiavelli, the most difficult and perilous of political undertakings — the radical transformation of his country’s constitution. To this extent, we must see him essentially as the new founder of Canada.”
Yes, Pierre Trudeau is “the new founder of Canada.” His changes to this country — especially the Charter of Rights — are the source of many significant problems. His legacy is a major factor in the current efforts of people in two provinces to leave the country. The failure of Canada can be laid at the feet of Pierre Trudeau and his vision for the country.
