The New Canada

Sadly:

On Sunday, cops arrested the boy and a woman named Estela Quintanilla after a brutal assault inside the Mandarin restaurant at The Centre on Barton mall in the city’s east end. The object of their attack was a 59-year-old Canadian Armed Forces member who was supervising air cadets as part of the annual poppy drive.

Cops say the victim was left with life-altering injuries. For what?

What triggered the incident was the feral behaviour of two youths — aged 11 and 12 — who, cops said, blew a loud air horn directly into the cadets’ ears. The cadets’ supervisor followed the pair into the Mandarin to confront them.

A struggle broke out and that’s when Quintanilla allegedly knocked the feet out from under the man, jumping in the fray to take her pound of flesh. Cops say she battered the man and when he was on the ground, the 12-year-old began kicking him.

Result? Life-altering injuries.

 

What is sickening is that nothing of any substance will be done to punish this sack of crap.

 

 

 

 

Let the Legal Class Weigh In

They know how to rule:

Parliament should let the courts define what “national interest” would justify quashing a lawful strike, an Air Canada executive yesterday told MPs. Unions have cautioned the ambiguous phrase does not appear elsewhere in labour legislation: “‘National interest’ is fairly vague.”

It will be even more vague when the government's friends in court get done with you.

 

Oh, unions ... you girl-bossed too close to the sun ...

 

 

 

Behold, Lysenkoism!

To wit:

Trofim Lysenko (born 1898, Karlovka, Ukraine, Russian Empire—died November 20, 1976, Kiev, Ukrainian S.S.R.) was a Soviet biologist and agronomist, the controversial “dictator” of Communistic biology during Joseph Stalin’s regime. He rejected orthodox genetics in favor of “Michurinism” (named for the Russian horticulturist I.V. Michurin), which was begun by an uneducated plant breeder fashioning explanations for his hybrid creations. After Michurin’s death in 1935, Lysenko led the movement and transformed it into an assault on orthodox genetics.

** 

Despite the fact that Lamarck's theory of evolution by acquired characteristics had been widely discarded as a scientific hypothesis, a remarkable set of circumstances allowed Lysenko the opportunity to sweep aside more than 100 years of scientific investigation to advocate a "politically correct" way to enhance agricultural production. When Lysenko promised greater crop yields, a Soviet Central Committee—desperate after the famine in the early 1930s—listened with an attentive ear. The very spirit of Marxist theory, Lysenko claimed, called for a theory of species formation which would entail "revolutionary leaps." Lysenko attacked Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution as a theory of "gradualism." ...

Despite the near medieval conditions in which the majority of the population of Czarist Russia lived, the achievements of pre-Revolutionary Russia in science rivaled those of Europe and America. In fact, achievement in science had been one of the few avenues to the aristocracy open to the non-nobility. The Revolution had sought to maintain this tradition, and win over the leaders of Russian science. From the earliest days Lenin and Trotsky, in particular, fought, even in the midst of famine and civil war, to make available considerable resources to scientific research.

In the political storms that ravaged the Soviet Union following the rise of Stalin, Lysenko's idea that all organisms, given the proper conditions, have the capacity to be or do anything had certain attractive parallels with the social philosophies of Karl Marx (and the twentieth-century French philosopher Henri Bergson) that promoted the idea that man was largely a product of his own will. Enamored with the political correctness and with the "scientific merit" of Lysenko's ideas, Stalin took matters one step further by personally attacking modern genetics as counter-revolutionary or bourgeois science. While the rest of the scientific world could not conceive of understanding evolution without genetics, Stalin's Soviet Union used its political power to suppress rational scientific inquiry. Under Stalin, science was made to serve political ideology.

The victory of the Stalin faction within the ruling party changed the previously nurturing relationship between the Soviet State and science. Important developments in science (including what we would term today as social sciences) were terminated by state terror. During the 1930s and 1940s, scientists were routinely executed, imprisoned, or exiled. Soviet science was largely carried forward in specially built labor camps, where scientists denounced as "saboteurs" continued their work in total isolation from the outside world.

Under Stalin and Lysenko, scientific truth became both incompatible and inappropriate to political truth. Information on genetics was eliminated from Soviet biology textbooks, and Lysenko attempted to reduce his conflict with classical geneticists to political contradictions. Lysenko stated that there existed two class-based biologies: "bourgeois" vs. "socialist, dialectical materialist." The entire agricultural research infrastructure of the Soviet Union—a country with millions whose lives teetered on starvation—was devoted to a disproved scientific hypothesis, and inventive methods were used to falsely "prove" that there was no famine and that crop yields were actually on the rise.

** 

Certain agronomists failed to put into effect the profound instructions of Lysenko — and in one such wave, in 1931, Lorkh, the so-called “king” of the potato, was sent to Kazakhstan. Others carried out the Lysenko directives too precisely and thus exposed their absurdity. (In 1934 Pskov agronomists sowed flax on the snow — exactly as Lysenko had ordered. The seeds swelled up, grew moldy, and died. The big fields lay empty for a year. Lysenko could not say that the snow was a kulak or that he himself was an ass. He accused the agronomists of being kulaks and of distorting his technology. And the agronomists went off to Siberia.) Beyond all this, in almost every Machine and Tractor Station wrecking in the repairing of tractors was discovered — and that is how the failures of the first collective farm years were explained!

 

Now here we are:

Members of the Commons science committee yesterday expressed disbelief after senior Public Health Agency staff could not explain their use of terminology like “pregnant people” to identify expectant mothers. “You can’t answer a simple question about biological reality?” asked Conservative MP Vincent Ho (Richmond Hill South, Ont.): “Should we stop using the term ‘mother’?” 

 

I believe that is the idea.

 

Also - it's not about possible ties to eugenics.

(Sidebar: like a country prepared to kill off a woman who lost her culinary mojo should talk.) 

It's about disgracing a normie who changed the world:

The eminent scientist’s designation as a National Historic Person in his adopted homeland of Canada has been reviewed and edited while a commemorative plaque at the Alexander Graham Bell National Historic Site in Baddeck, Nova Scotia will have its wording changed.

The move has angered surviving members of the family, who argue Mr Bell was in no way opposed to sign language and even used a version of it with his deaf wife.

Edinburgh-born Bell, who patented the first telephone in 1876, emigrated to Canada with his family in his early twenties and died aged 75 at his home in Nova Scotia in 1922. He was designated as a National Historic Person in 1977.

Canada’s Historic Sites and Monuments Board found that Mr Bell sought to teach deaf people to communicate through speech and lip-reading rather than signing.

They also determined Mr Bell was part of the eugenics movement in the late 19th century, which believed selective breeding could improve the human race, and ‘argued against the intermarriage of congenitally deaf people’, suggesting it could contribute to the hereditary transmission of deafness.

The board’s report stated: ‘Reviews are undertaken on an ongoing basis to ensure that designations reflect current scholarship, shifts in historical understandings and a range of voices, perspectives and experiences in Canadian society.’

However the decision has outraged his descendants, who say the views attributed to Mr Bell in the new designation are based on internet inaccuracies.

Mr Bell’s great-granddaughter Sara Grosvenor, president of the Alexander and Mabel Bell Legacy Foundation, said: ‘Bell said deaf members of society should choose whatever mode of communication worked for them and was not against signing.

‘Bell absolutely was not a eugenicist. As a scientist of his day, however, he studied genetics, and, in particular, to consider improvements in animal husbandry to create twin-bearing sheep to help Nova Scotia farmers.

‘He said members of the deaf community should marry whomever they choose.

‘Information on the internet and in recent re-evaluations about Bell often is cherry-picked to support certain arguments and theories.’

 

Oh, lies.

Quelle surprise. 

 

 

Questions and Transparency Are For Little People

The consequences of an unaccountable government:

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem yesterday expressed irritation when asked why he reversed three years’ worth of interest rate cuts. “There’s no immediate benefit of raising interest rates,” Macklem told the Commons finance committee after Conservative and Liberal MPs alike opposed the October 28 increase: ‘Explain to small business owners why the decision was made because I’m having a hard time explaining it to them, okay?’

** 

Filibuster:

Conservative MP Jamil Jivani has asked the ethics commissioner to consider the relationship between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Telesat Corporation CEO Dan Goldberg following the awarding of a $2.3-billion military satellite deal.

The letter, posted online, argues that Goldberg and Carney have a relationship dating back two decades, that has included running a marathon together in London, and more recently, Goldberg attending the swearing in of Carney's cabinet.

It says Goldberg moved to Ottawa in 2006 and soon after met Carney, who was a senior official at the Department of Finance. The two have been described as "good friends" multiple times, publicly, and neither have denied they are close personal friends.

Telesat is not listed on the prime minister's ethics screen, which includes 103 other companies.  

** 

Ontario’s colleges and universities minister said Tuesday he will not be releasing a government-commissioned audit into student financial aid usage at career colleges.

Nolan Quinn announced last month that he had engaged KPMG to audit the sector following concerns about rising usage in the Ontario Student Assistance Program. Preliminary findings from that audit alarmed the government enough to refer the matter to the Ontario Provincial Police.

But Quinn does not intend to make those findings public, he said.

“Ultimately, we want to keep ensuring that the confidentiality of that audit is taking place, but we will act accordingly with the results of that audit,” Quinn said after question period.

A spokesperson for Quinn later said that they will “consider” releasing information from the audit if it doesn’t compromise a potential police investigation, a potential future auditor general investigation, “or the ministry’s efforts to obtain evidence, recover funds and hold bad actors accountable.”

(Sidebar: so, never.) 

Quinn has previously said that the preliminary findings include concerns about “common ownership, the involvement of immigration services firms and co-location between private career colleges and immigration recruitment or immigration services firms, inadequate student validation and verification of course enrolment and outcomes, and unusually high concentrations of OSAP applications submitted from the same geographic locations.”

Career Colleges Ontario has been warning the government for years about OSAP activity at a small number of schools.

Ministry documents filed in court about two schools show the government has received tips alleging that recruiters are applying for OSAP on students’ behalf, and that thousands of applications came from a single IP address. The schools have denied allegations of wrongdoing.

 

 

 

The Aftermath

 Oh, Canadians:

Wow…. 🤯 Canadians actually believe they will no longer be living paycheck to paycheck now that Trump got squashed in the midterms.

— Marc Nixon (@MarcNixon24) November 4, 2026

 

 

 

Yes, dear:

Canadians are falling further behind on car loans, credit cards and personal loans, with arrears in all three categories hitting their highest levels in the decade-long period tracked by Benchmark Canada.

Canada’s debt strain is greatest in instalment loans, which include unsecured personal loans and point-of-sale financing. The share of those loans that are at least 90 days overdue reached 2.95 per cent, more than triple the 0.95 per cent recorded in late 2015, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute project showed.

Meanwhile, auto-loan arrears stood at 0.87 per cent, up from a pandemic low of 0.39 per cent in 2021. Credit-card arrears reached 0.80 per cent, nearly double from their 2021 low of 0.44 per cent.

Doug Hoyes, co-founder of insolvency firm Hoyes, Michalos & Associates Inc., said borrowers often tap a line of credit to make up for lost income. When that runs out, they turn to credit cards, then higher-cost instalment loans and payday lenders.

“You cannot keep layering borrowing on top of borrowing,” he said.

Hoyes said many of his clients use those loans to cover bills after exhausting cheaper sources of credit, hoping their income will recover before the payments become unmanageable.

His firm’s clients carried average unsecured debts of more than $67,000 last year, up 11 per cent from a year earlier and 37 per cent over three years, and owed money to an average of 10 creditors.

Matt Fabian, TransUnion Canada’s senior director of financial services research and consulting, said that while Canadians are having trouble paying back their loans, they’re still relatively managing their debtload. Payment deferrals, government support and reduced spending during the pandemic helped pushed overall arrears to unusually low levels from the recession of 2008-2009 before bouncing higher in the past year, he noted.

“For some products, in some segments, it’s higher than it was pre-COVID. For some, it’s just returning,” he said.

 **

In December 2015, Canada’s new Liberal government introduced changes to Canada’s

personal income tax system. Among the changes for the 2016 tax year, the federal govern-

ment added a new income tax bracket, raising the top tax rate from 29 to 33 percent on

incomes over $200,000. This increase in the federal tax rate is layered on top of numerous

recent provincial increases. Starting with Nova Scotia in 2010, through 2023 at least one

Canadian government has increased the top personal income tax rate in every year except

2011, 2019, and 2023. Over this period, seven out of 10 provincial governments increased

tax rates on upper-income earners. As a result, the combined federal and provincial top

personal income tax rate has increased in every province since 2009.

The largest tax hike has been in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the combined

top rate increased by 10.3 percentage points (or 23.1 percent). This raised the province

from one of the lowest combined top rates in Canada in 2009, up to the highest rate in the

country in 2023. In Ontario, the combined top rate increased by 7.1 percentage points (or

15.3 percent); in Quebec it increased by 5.1 percentage points (or 10.6 percent).

These increases have important consequences for Canada’s economy. In particular,

high and increasing marginal tax rates—that is, the tax rate on the next dollar earned—

discourage people from engaging in productive economic activity, ultimately hindering

economic growth and prosperity. This occurs because marginal tax rates reduce the reward

of earning more income and, in the case of personal income taxes, more labour income.

There is general agreement in the economic literature on this point; the debate is about

the magnitude of the effect.

The federal and provincial increases to Canada’s marginal income tax rates from 2009

to 2023 have put the country at a greater competitive disadvantage for attracting and

retaining skilled labour and, less directly, investment and entrepreneurs. Even before the

changes, the country’s combined federal and provincial top marginal tax rates compared

unfavourably to those in the United States and other industrialized countries.

Out of 61 Canadian and US jurisdictions (including the provinces, states, and Washing-

ton, DC), Newfoundland and Labrador currently has the highest combined top statutory

marginal rate (54.80 percent), followed by Nova Scotia (54.00 percent) and Ontario (53.53

percent). Nine Canadian provinces occupy the list of 10 jurisdictions with the highest top

combined marginal income tax rates and all provinces are in the top 15. There is a total of

46 US jurisdictions with combined top tax rates that are lower than all Canadian provinces.

The fact that Canada’s top tax rates are often applied to lower levels of income than is

the case in other countries further erodes our tax competitiveness. To adjust for differences

in income thresholds, we compare the combined statutory marginal tax rates at various

income levels in Canadian dollars for each Canadian and US jurisdiction. At an income of

CA$300,000, the highest threshold (with the exception of Alberta and Newfoundland and

Labrador) in which a Canadian combined top rate is applied, Canadians in every province

face a higher marginal income tax rate than Americans in any US state. Results are the

same at an income of CA$150,000 and Canada’s marginal tax rates are also uncompetitive

at incomes of CA$75,000 and CA$50,000.

Taken together, Canada’s personal income tax rates are decidedly uncompetitive com-

pared to those in the United States. And, Canada also competes with other industrialized

countries for highly skilled workers and investment.

 

 

 

Mid-Week Post

Your middle-of-the-week swath of leaves ...

The US went full Canada and declawed Trump.

It goes to show that culture shapes politics, and not the other way around.

The lure of socialism, free and easy things and inveterate Jew-hating has some sway, unfortunately.

Where does this leave Canada?

Now that Trump will be preoccupied with duct-taping the US back together, nothing will stand in the way of the petty, horrible, greedy, dictatorial failed banker and his life's mission to ruin what remains of Canada:

‼️MAJOR BREAKING: Carney has sent 2,000 Canadian troops to the Russian border in Latvia! -Full Canadian-led NATO brigade mobilizing east from Ādaži base -This is first time EVER the entire formation moves to the eastern flank......~2,000 Canadian soldiers + 1,000 from 14 NATO nations -Troops have been ordered to build defensive positions near Rēzekne, ~35 km from Russia -Tanks, infantry, and engineers now fortifying NATO’s front line -Canada’s largest overseas deployment under Op REASSURANCE -He's digging in on sending us to war!

— Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@Tablesalt13) November 3, 2026

**

In the same week that the Bank of Canada raised interest rates citing the rise in energy costs, Canada’s economy disappointed, showing anemic growth for the month of August. Statistics Canada reported that real GDP was essentially unchanged for a second straight month, and its own early estimate already shows a 0.1 per cent decline in September. Analysts fear October will see the outlook turn negative too.

While some will quickly conclude our weakening economy is the product of a recent trade standoff between Canada and the U.S., affordability and productivity concerns have less to do with trade policy and everything to do with the policy direction the government has pursued over the last 11 years, and in particular, the pursuit of net zero.

To achieve this questionable objective, an energy-intensive nation began to impose restrictions and conditions on itself for the production and use of all carbon-emitting forms of energy, in the firm belief this would mitigate the effects of global variances in weather patterns. Caps on emissions, carbon taxes, tanker bans and rigorous permitting for pipeline and takeaway capacity, including a stringent impact assessment with no global equivalent, much less in a producing nation with some of the planet’s greatest proven reserves, effectively chased away critical capital and escalated energy prices to intolerable heights. They now threaten the purchasing power of every Canadian.

In the midst of an energy crisis marked by conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, Canadians can no longer rely on the more than 40-year protection of the “Petro Loonie” to offset rising energy costs, which are priced in U.S. dollars.

The evidence is hard to miss. Benchmark Canada, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute project that measures Canada against its peers, tracked the loonie through the five most recent oil-supply shocks, from the 2019 attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq facility to this year’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A month after each one, the dollar had moved somewhere between a 1.8 per cent loss and a 1.6 per cent gain. When Hormuz closed, disrupting about a fifth of the world’s oil, the loonie gained 0.4 per cent for a moment, then slid 3.6 per cent. Since January 2015 it has lost 13.2 per cent against the U.S. dollar. In September it averaged about 72 U.S. cents, a third below its 2007 peak of US$1.09.

Currency markets price what a country can deliver to world markets, not what it has in the ground. A producer that cannot get its oil to tidewater captures less of every price spike, and investors price its dollar accordingly. As a result, Canadians pay 38 cents a litre more for gasoline and 52 cents more on the fuel that is our economic workhorse, diesel and distillates.

Diesel moves the trucks that stock grocery shelves and runs the equipment in our mines, farms and forests. You do not need to own a car to pay for it. Statistics Canada’s September figures show where it ends up. Consumer prices rose 3.1 per cent from a year earlier, gasoline 27.8 per cent, and fuel oil and other fuels 57.8 per cent. Strip out gasoline and inflation was 2.2 per cent. The Bank of Canada now expects it to reach about 3.5 per cent by year-end.

And while Ottawa contents itself with having removed the consumer carbon tax, it holds fast to its second carbon tax, the Clean Fuel Regulations, which now add 15 cents to every litre of gasoline and 19 cents to every litre of diesel. All the while it makes a windfall in GST and HST revenue, which compounds the direct increase in fuel prices and its knock-on effect on the cost of everything else.

The Bank of Canada cannot build a pipeline. It has one main tool, and last week it used it, passing the cost of failed energy policy on to anyone carrying debt. Many households were already falling behind. Bank of Canada figures, built on TransUnion data, show that arrears of 90 days or more on auto loans, credit cards and instalment loans all hit series highs in the second quarter of this year. Instalment-loan arrears reached 2.95 per cent, more than three times their level at the end of 2015. Every one of those figures predates the rate hike.

**

After all the hubbub about it, the EU has backed away from giving Canada “associate membership.” Several governments balked at the phrase, and the draft Montreal summit statement now promises an “ever closer association” instead.

That must be embarrassing for the europhile Prime Minister Mark Carney, though he says the label doesn’t matter. And, really, he’s right. The words might be different, but the goal hasn’t changed. He wants to bring Canada into a much closer political and regulatory relationship with Brussels.

Defenders of the prime minister might say he has little choice. Canada is in rough economic shape. Statistics Canada reports we lost 68,000 jobs in September, following 42,000 in August. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has cut its 2026 growth forecast to 0.9%.

High energy prices are driving up the cost of everything. We pay more to fill our cars and heat our homes, but also for groceries, since energy is essential to growing, processing, and transporting food.

But why is it the prime minister’s priority to bind ourselves to a political body in even worse economic shape than we’re in? Germany, the EU’s largest economy, has lost nearly 500,000 industrial jobs since 2019. And across Europe, high energy costs have contributed to a prolonged struggle to maintain industrial competitiveness.

The cause isn’t mysterious. Europe has spent years pursuing a net-zero agenda familiar to Canadians: carbon tax, EV mandates, restrictions on conventional energy production, and a forced transition away from dependable, affordable energy. Energy-intensive industries are moving elsewhere, investment is fleeing, and households are paying the price.

Meanwhile, European politicians lecture citizens about their energy consumption — remember the freakout over air-conditioning use during the heat wave in France this past summer — even as households struggle to keep their homes livable. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni recently warned fellow EU leaders that if they don’t fix energy costs, “the citizens will chase us with pitchforks.”

Yet this is precisely the path Carney has spent much of his career promoting. He served as the UN’s Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and launched the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), helping advance a financial system that redirects capital away from natural resource projects and toward “green” energy. It’s almost designed to make energy more expensive.

And look where that leads. Europe’s green agenda has made it more dependent on China, which dominates solar panel and electric vehicle supply chains while building new coal-fired power plants at home every year.

A Canada remade in Europe’s image would risk the same outcome. It could also weaken our relationship with the United States, our largest customer, while putting further pressure on Canada’s oil and gas industry, the golden goose that pays for so much of what Canadians take for granted.

Why we need to avoid the EU at all costs:

Forty-five years later, Prime Minister Donald Tusk addressed the nation in a manner recalling General Wojciech Jaruzelski’s infamous 1981 martial-law speech and told his audience, “I would very much like us never to have to witness such scenes in Poland again.”

He was referring to Friday’s dramatic raid on the Constitutional Tribunal, an object of much political wrangling over the last decade. On Friday evening, an unconfirmed Tusk-appointed judge asserted for herself powers of “substitute” to the sitting Tribunal president and proclaimed a “suspension” of sitting judges. Police were deployed around the building and barred the sitting Tribunal president, vice president, Tribunal Guard, and staff from entering. Opposition figures have called it a coup.

President Karol Nawrocki, a conservative elected separately from Tusk’s liberal-leftist-centrist coalition, was en route to Senegal for a state visit but returned to Warsaw. Journalist Stanisław Janecki reported that the army personnel responsible for the military wing of Warsaw’s Okęcie Airport ignored instructions to refuse landing to the presidential plane and divert it to another Polish airport. Readers should note that this is unconfirmed at the time of writing, and various officials have denied this reporting. 

Nawrocki rushed to the Tribunal building and forced his way through a police cordon, an image that circulated worldwide via social media. He attempted to broker a compromise throughout the weekend, but these efforts were, at least initially, unsuccessful.

“Last night, the constitutional order of the Republic of Poland was violated and a constitutional state body was taken over by force,” wrote President Nawrocki on Saturday. “In view of the threat to the internal security of the Republic of Poland, I am convening urgent consultations today with representatives of the parliamentary groupings, aimed at stabilising the political situation and restoring the constitutional order.”

Also:

Ford is increasing the budget "deficit" from $13.8 billion to $16.9 billion. But the headline deficit number hides how much the government is truly borrowing because it only includes the government's operating budget and doesn't include the government's infrastructure budget. 

The Ford government now plans to borrow $28.8 billion this year, driving total government debt to $483.8 billion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Sir Patrick Stewart: