🇨🇦 IDF Soldiers Touring Canada Spark Calls for War-Crimes Scrutiny After Toronto Clash
A Toronto event featuring Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers has ignited a national debate over whether Israeli military personnel should be allowed into Canada without investigation — especially as international bodies probe Israel for genocide and war crimes in Gaza.
The incident occurred earlier this month at a Toronto Metropolitan University–affiliated event hosted by Students Supporting Israel (SSI). Police arrested six protesters, while video shows chaotic scenes at the venue — including protesters pounding on doors and an IDF soldier grabbing and shoving demonstrators.
The soldiers are part of the Triggered: From Combat to Campus speaking tour now traveling across Canada.
NDP MP Heather McPherson said she was “outraged” that IDF soldiers are touring Canadian campuses and argued that every IDF member entering Canada should be investigated under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
Advocacy groups — including Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, Independent Jewish Voices, and the National Council of Canadian Muslims — echoed the call, citing ongoing investigations into alleged Israeli war crimes by the UN, International Criminal Court (ICC), and International Court of Justice (ICJ).
A UN investigative commission reported in September that Israel’s conduct in Gaza amounts to genocide, citing mass civilian deaths, attacks on medical infrastructure, widespread targeting of aid workers, and allegations of torture and sexualized violence against detainees.
Canadian legal experts say Ottawa does have a responsibility under international law to screen, investigate, or bar individuals suspected of involvement in atrocities.
Toronto lawyer James Yap says that Canada’s obligations under the Genocide Convention and ICC rulings mean it should investigate any IDF member suspected of violations — and that mere membership in the IDF could be legally relevant for admissibility decisions.
Yap noted that Canada has previously barred foreign nationals for participating in other state militaries implicated in atrocities.
The ICC, meanwhile, has already issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
SSI defended the tour, accusing protesters of violently disrupting the event. The organization argues the soldiers came “to share their first-hand experiences” and accused critics of “catering to extremists.”
Other experts caution that investigations must be evidence-based. University of the Fraser Valley criminologist Mark Kersten said Canada should apply the same standards it uses for individuals arriving from other war zones: interviewing those who served in armed forces involved in alleged atrocities.
“This is not about singling out the IDF,” Kersten said. “This should apply in any conflict where mass atrocities are suspected.”
The RCMP previously announced a structural investigation into potential war crimes under the Israel–Hamas war, but CBC News reports no sign that IDF soldiers arriving in Canada are being questioned.
Meanwhile, some Israelis — including Canadians who serve in the IDF — have told Israeli media they fear returning to Canada due to the rising likelihood of detentions or legal scrutiny abroad.
#Canada #Israel
🍁 Maple Chronicles
A Toronto event featuring Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers has ignited a national debate over whether Israeli military personnel should be allowed into Canada without investigation — especially as international bodies probe Israel for genocide and war crimes in Gaza.
The incident occurred earlier this month at a Toronto Metropolitan University–affiliated event hosted by Students Supporting Israel (SSI). Police arrested six protesters, while video shows chaotic scenes at the venue — including protesters pounding on doors and an IDF soldier grabbing and shoving demonstrators.
The soldiers are part of the Triggered: From Combat to Campus speaking tour now traveling across Canada.
NDP MP Heather McPherson said she was “outraged” that IDF soldiers are touring Canadian campuses and argued that every IDF member entering Canada should be investigated under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
Advocacy groups — including Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, Independent Jewish Voices, and the National Council of Canadian Muslims — echoed the call, citing ongoing investigations into alleged Israeli war crimes by the UN, International Criminal Court (ICC), and International Court of Justice (ICJ).
A UN investigative commission reported in September that Israel’s conduct in Gaza amounts to genocide, citing mass civilian deaths, attacks on medical infrastructure, widespread targeting of aid workers, and allegations of torture and sexualized violence against detainees.
Canadian legal experts say Ottawa does have a responsibility under international law to screen, investigate, or bar individuals suspected of involvement in atrocities.
Toronto lawyer James Yap says that Canada’s obligations under the Genocide Convention and ICC rulings mean it should investigate any IDF member suspected of violations — and that mere membership in the IDF could be legally relevant for admissibility decisions.
Yap noted that Canada has previously barred foreign nationals for participating in other state militaries implicated in atrocities.
The ICC, meanwhile, has already issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
SSI defended the tour, accusing protesters of violently disrupting the event. The organization argues the soldiers came “to share their first-hand experiences” and accused critics of “catering to extremists.”
Other experts caution that investigations must be evidence-based. University of the Fraser Valley criminologist Mark Kersten said Canada should apply the same standards it uses for individuals arriving from other war zones: interviewing those who served in armed forces involved in alleged atrocities.
“This is not about singling out the IDF,” Kersten said. “This should apply in any conflict where mass atrocities are suspected.”
The RCMP previously announced a structural investigation into potential war crimes under the Israel–Hamas war, but CBC News reports no sign that IDF soldiers arriving in Canada are being questioned.
Meanwhile, some Israelis — including Canadians who serve in the IDF — have told Israeli media they fear returning to Canada due to the rising likelihood of detentions or legal scrutiny abroad.
#Canada #Israel
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤬10❤8🤮4🤡1
🇨🇦 Investigation Reopens Debate Over Canada’s Lack of Abortion Limits
Canada is the only Western democracy with no legal gestational limit on abortion, and new undercover videos are now forcing a national conversation Ottawa has avoided for decades.
A series of secretly recorded clips — filmed in 2023 across clinics in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver — show staff telling an undercover patient that no medical reason is required for a late-term abortion, including procedures well beyond 24 weeks. In one recording, a Toronto provider allegedly says hospitals “sometimes go up to 32 weeks,” and that “there does not have to be a specific medical concern named.” Another staff member in Vancouver allegedly tells the patient: “There doesn’t have to be a reason… it could just be ‘I don’t want to be pregnant.’”
These revelations directly contradict long-standing political claims — including a 2013 letter by former Liberal MP Dr. Carolyn Bennett asserting that no doctor in Canada would terminate a pregnancy past 24 weeks without serious risk to the mother or fetus.
Abortion Care Canada, however, now acknowledges openly that there is no legal boundary and that late-term procedures do not require a medical justification under Canadian law. Canada’s regulatory framework — or lack thereof — leaves limits entirely to individual providers, hospitals, or clinics.
The footage has triggered fresh scrutiny because:
• There is no legislation at all governing gestational age in Canada.
• Canadian hospitals have referred patients for late-third-trimester procedures in the U.S. at public expense.
• Polling consistently shows strong public discomfort: 70% of Canadians say abortions in the final trimester should be generally illegal.
• Clinics acknowledge they may perform or refer for abortions past 24 weeks without requiring medical documentation.
Pro-choice organizations argue the videos are selectively edited and risk “demonizing” providers. But they also concede that Canada’s system relies entirely on clinical discretion — not statutory limits.
Data remains opaque. CIHI no longer publishes gestational-age tables due to low reporting coverage. The most recent numbers (2020) show at least 652 abortions after 21 weeks — though officials admit the real national count is unknown.
The timing has political consequences: Alberta’s governing party votes this month on whether to stop public funding for third-trimester abortions “except to protect the mother’s physical health.” Federal officials, meanwhile, maintain that abortion is solely a health-care matter and that Ottawa will not consider legal limits of any kind.
The core issue is no longer theoretical. The undercover footage, the clinic statements, and the absence of statutory guardrails have collided — reopening a debate Canada has not meaningfully confronted since 1988.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Canada is the only Western democracy with no legal gestational limit on abortion, and new undercover videos are now forcing a national conversation Ottawa has avoided for decades.
A series of secretly recorded clips — filmed in 2023 across clinics in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver — show staff telling an undercover patient that no medical reason is required for a late-term abortion, including procedures well beyond 24 weeks. In one recording, a Toronto provider allegedly says hospitals “sometimes go up to 32 weeks,” and that “there does not have to be a specific medical concern named.” Another staff member in Vancouver allegedly tells the patient: “There doesn’t have to be a reason… it could just be ‘I don’t want to be pregnant.’”
These revelations directly contradict long-standing political claims — including a 2013 letter by former Liberal MP Dr. Carolyn Bennett asserting that no doctor in Canada would terminate a pregnancy past 24 weeks without serious risk to the mother or fetus.
Abortion Care Canada, however, now acknowledges openly that there is no legal boundary and that late-term procedures do not require a medical justification under Canadian law. Canada’s regulatory framework — or lack thereof — leaves limits entirely to individual providers, hospitals, or clinics.
The footage has triggered fresh scrutiny because:
• There is no legislation at all governing gestational age in Canada.
• Canadian hospitals have referred patients for late-third-trimester procedures in the U.S. at public expense.
• Polling consistently shows strong public discomfort: 70% of Canadians say abortions in the final trimester should be generally illegal.
• Clinics acknowledge they may perform or refer for abortions past 24 weeks without requiring medical documentation.
Pro-choice organizations argue the videos are selectively edited and risk “demonizing” providers. But they also concede that Canada’s system relies entirely on clinical discretion — not statutory limits.
Data remains opaque. CIHI no longer publishes gestational-age tables due to low reporting coverage. The most recent numbers (2020) show at least 652 abortions after 21 weeks — though officials admit the real national count is unknown.
The timing has political consequences: Alberta’s governing party votes this month on whether to stop public funding for third-trimester abortions “except to protect the mother’s physical health.” Federal officials, meanwhile, maintain that abortion is solely a health-care matter and that Ottawa will not consider legal limits of any kind.
The core issue is no longer theoretical. The undercover footage, the clinic statements, and the absence of statutory guardrails have collided — reopening a debate Canada has not meaningfully confronted since 1988.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤬9🤯4😱3🙏2❤1💩1😈1
🇨🇦🇺🇸 PM Mark Carney has ‘no burning’ desire ‘to speak with’ Trump — Reuters
Says he’ll resume trade talks with the US ‘when it's appropriate’
‘When America wants to come back and have discussions, we’ll have those discussions’.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Says he’ll resume trade talks with the US ‘when it's appropriate’
‘When America wants to come back and have discussions, we’ll have those discussions’.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡10👍7💩4🤔1
🇨🇦 Carney Ends Trudeau’s “Feminist Foreign Policy,” Signals Major Shift in Canada’s Global Posture
Prime Minister Mark Carney formally closed the door on Canada’s so-called “feminist foreign policy” on Sunday, marking a clear break from the Trudeau-era doctrine that dominated Ottawa’s international branding for nearly a decade.
Speaking at the G20 summit in Johannesburg, Carney was pressed on whether Canada still applies a feminist lens when pursuing economic partnerships with countries whose laws restrict women and LGBTQ citizens. His answer was unequivocal: the terminology is gone.
“We have that aspect to our foreign policy, but I wouldn’t describe our foreign policy as feminist foreign policy,” he said, adding that gender equality remains a priority — but not the framework through which Canada engages the world.
Carney pointed to South Africa’s focus on combating gender-based violence and said Canada must also do more. But he drew a firm line on how the issue fits into Canada’s foreign agenda.
“It is an issue of justice… not an economic one,” he said, directly contradicting the Trudeau government’s long-standing argument that gender-focused policy is a driver of economic growth.
The move represents a significant departure from the Trudeau doctrine, which wove feminism into nearly every international file — from foreign aid to trade negotiations. While Trudeau pledged gender parity, launched the MMIWG inquiry, and rolled out the Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), Ottawa never actually published a formal “feminist foreign policy” document. Despite that, ministers routinely touted the label as a centrepiece of Canadian identity abroad.
Carney’s comments also undercut remarks made just weeks ago by his own secretary of state for international development, Randeep Sarai, who insisted Canada still applies a feminist lens because it “makes economic sense.”
Former foreign ministers Mélanie Joly and François-Philippe Champagne repeatedly framed the feminist approach as core to Canada’s global reputation, arguing it produced “tangible and measurable results.” Carney’s public shift suggests that era — at least in name and framing — is over.
With the Liberal government now navigating a trade war with Washington, global instability, and declining domestic approval, Carney appears intent on refocusing Canada’s foreign policy around geopolitical and economic priorities rather than ideological branding.
#Canada #Israel
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Prime Minister Mark Carney formally closed the door on Canada’s so-called “feminist foreign policy” on Sunday, marking a clear break from the Trudeau-era doctrine that dominated Ottawa’s international branding for nearly a decade.
Speaking at the G20 summit in Johannesburg, Carney was pressed on whether Canada still applies a feminist lens when pursuing economic partnerships with countries whose laws restrict women and LGBTQ citizens. His answer was unequivocal: the terminology is gone.
“We have that aspect to our foreign policy, but I wouldn’t describe our foreign policy as feminist foreign policy,” he said, adding that gender equality remains a priority — but not the framework through which Canada engages the world.
Carney pointed to South Africa’s focus on combating gender-based violence and said Canada must also do more. But he drew a firm line on how the issue fits into Canada’s foreign agenda.
“It is an issue of justice… not an economic one,” he said, directly contradicting the Trudeau government’s long-standing argument that gender-focused policy is a driver of economic growth.
The move represents a significant departure from the Trudeau doctrine, which wove feminism into nearly every international file — from foreign aid to trade negotiations. While Trudeau pledged gender parity, launched the MMIWG inquiry, and rolled out the Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), Ottawa never actually published a formal “feminist foreign policy” document. Despite that, ministers routinely touted the label as a centrepiece of Canadian identity abroad.
Carney’s comments also undercut remarks made just weeks ago by his own secretary of state for international development, Randeep Sarai, who insisted Canada still applies a feminist lens because it “makes economic sense.”
Former foreign ministers Mélanie Joly and François-Philippe Champagne repeatedly framed the feminist approach as core to Canada’s global reputation, arguing it produced “tangible and measurable results.” Carney’s public shift suggests that era — at least in name and framing — is over.
With the Liberal government now navigating a trade war with Washington, global instability, and declining domestic approval, Carney appears intent on refocusing Canada’s foreign policy around geopolitical and economic priorities rather than ideological branding.
#Canada #Israel
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡6🔥5👏3
🇨🇦🇺🇸 U.S. Senators Warn of a “Cultural Break” With Canada — and Accidentally Reveal the Real Problem
At the Halifax International Security Forum, four U.S. lawmakers tried to diagnose why Canada-U.S. relations feel colder than they have in decades. Tariffs? Trade disputes? Border headaches?
According to Maine’s Sen. Angus King, it’s something deeper: “a cultural break.”
Canadians, he complained, increasingly see Americans not as friendly neighbours, but as adversaries.
He’s not wrong — but what he and his colleagues offered next made it painfully clear why the break exists.
Because instead of asking what Washington’s policies have done to erode public trust — weaponized tariffs, ICE detainments, Trump calling Canada the 51st state, and the aggressive new border posture — the senators pivoted to the usual noscript: NATO nagging. Blame-shifting. Demanding Canadians pay “arrears” to an alliance most Canadians no longer trust.
North Carolina’s Thom Tillis went straight for the old talking point: Canada “owes” NATO more than $300 billion and has coasted for 20 years. When reminded that Canada is increasing spending, he scoffed: “That’s lovely… but could we do a makeup for the shortfall?”
This is the “family” rhetoric Washington loves — the kind where one sibling does the lecturing, and the other is expected to nod, smile, and keep paying the bill.
Meanwhile, the senators admitted what Washington quietly fears: Canadian tourism to the U.S. has collapsed, mall traffic in border states has tanked, and political resentment is rising. North Dakota’s Kevin Cramer said it outright: fewer Canadians are crossing the border because “people are angry.”
Even Sen. Jeanne Shaheen — who struck a softer tone — couldn’t avoid the obvious: Trump’s tariffs have driven up living costs for American families too.
The border pain is now mutual.
But notice what none of the senators confronted:
That their own policies lit the fuse.
Arbitrary tariffs. Blunt-force border enforcement. Treating allies like vassals, not partners. Dressing coercion up as “family squabbles.”
And assuming, always, that Canadians would simply absorb it.
Instead, Canada drifted — not toward hostility, but toward distance.
A quiet, growing refusal to play the role Washington noscripted.
Sen. King calls it a “cultural break.”
But really, it’s something simpler:
Canada stopped pretending the relationship was equal. And Washington doesn’t know what to do when someone else finally stops pretending.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
At the Halifax International Security Forum, four U.S. lawmakers tried to diagnose why Canada-U.S. relations feel colder than they have in decades. Tariffs? Trade disputes? Border headaches?
According to Maine’s Sen. Angus King, it’s something deeper: “a cultural break.”
Canadians, he complained, increasingly see Americans not as friendly neighbours, but as adversaries.
He’s not wrong — but what he and his colleagues offered next made it painfully clear why the break exists.
Because instead of asking what Washington’s policies have done to erode public trust — weaponized tariffs, ICE detainments, Trump calling Canada the 51st state, and the aggressive new border posture — the senators pivoted to the usual noscript: NATO nagging. Blame-shifting. Demanding Canadians pay “arrears” to an alliance most Canadians no longer trust.
North Carolina’s Thom Tillis went straight for the old talking point: Canada “owes” NATO more than $300 billion and has coasted for 20 years. When reminded that Canada is increasing spending, he scoffed: “That’s lovely… but could we do a makeup for the shortfall?”
This is the “family” rhetoric Washington loves — the kind where one sibling does the lecturing, and the other is expected to nod, smile, and keep paying the bill.
Meanwhile, the senators admitted what Washington quietly fears: Canadian tourism to the U.S. has collapsed, mall traffic in border states has tanked, and political resentment is rising. North Dakota’s Kevin Cramer said it outright: fewer Canadians are crossing the border because “people are angry.”
Even Sen. Jeanne Shaheen — who struck a softer tone — couldn’t avoid the obvious: Trump’s tariffs have driven up living costs for American families too.
The border pain is now mutual.
But notice what none of the senators confronted:
That their own policies lit the fuse.
Arbitrary tariffs. Blunt-force border enforcement. Treating allies like vassals, not partners. Dressing coercion up as “family squabbles.”
And assuming, always, that Canadians would simply absorb it.
Instead, Canada drifted — not toward hostility, but toward distance.
A quiet, growing refusal to play the role Washington noscripted.
Sen. King calls it a “cultural break.”
But really, it’s something simpler:
Canada stopped pretending the relationship was equal. And Washington doesn’t know what to do when someone else finally stops pretending.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡11❤4👎3🔥3👍2🥱1
🇨🇦 Black Friday Turns Into a Month-Long Survival Strategy as Canadians Pull Back Hard
Black Friday isn’t a day anymore — it’s a defensive maneuver.
With Canadians bracing for a lean holiday season, retailers across the country are stretching “deal season” from Halloween straight through to Christmas just to keep customers walking through the doors.
The Retail Council of Canada says price has become the only filter that matters. Surveys back it up: Canadians are holding back, trading down, and waiting for the steepest markdowns in years. Even the Bank of Canada admits consumer confidence has been hammered by tariffs, uncertainty, and the broader trade war climate.
Small businesses are feeling the squeeze most. Shops like Wolf & Rebel in Windsor are offering Black Friday deals for the first time in seven years, not because it helps the bottom line — but because customers now expect it. Higher import costs, weak foot traffic, and groceries outrunning paycheques have turned home-goods shopping into a luxury.
Even well-positioned boutiques report a “tighter budget” mood everywhere. Retailers are discounting early, discounting often, and still watching customers hesitate.
Big box giants, meanwhile, are leaning into retail trench warfare.
Best Buy started its sales on Nov. 3. Walmart rolled out steeper discounts than last year. The traditional one-day rush is long gone — replaced by weeks of rolling promotions aimed at spreading out crowds and capturing shoppers before their wallets slam shut.
Best Buy’s deepest cuts run until Nov. 28, but the markdowns stretch to New Year’s. Walmart is pushing up to 35% off, hoping volume compensates for the tight consumer landscape.
As for the “Buy Canadian” movement? It’s fading. The RCC says price sensitivity has overwhelmed patriotism; Canadians aren’t willing to pay more than about 10% for domestic products. Even supportive shoppers admit they’re choosing bargains over branding this year.
Behind the numbers is a deeper story: A country where wages are stagnant, grocery bills keep rising, and trade-war uncertainty is pushing families into defensive mode. Retailers are adapting — stretching the calendar, slashing margins, and hoping a longer Black Friday season offsets a more cautious consumer.
This is shaping up to be the most price-driven holiday season in a decade — and a clear sign of where Canadians really feel the economy, no matter what Ottawa claims.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Black Friday isn’t a day anymore — it’s a defensive maneuver.
With Canadians bracing for a lean holiday season, retailers across the country are stretching “deal season” from Halloween straight through to Christmas just to keep customers walking through the doors.
The Retail Council of Canada says price has become the only filter that matters. Surveys back it up: Canadians are holding back, trading down, and waiting for the steepest markdowns in years. Even the Bank of Canada admits consumer confidence has been hammered by tariffs, uncertainty, and the broader trade war climate.
Small businesses are feeling the squeeze most. Shops like Wolf & Rebel in Windsor are offering Black Friday deals for the first time in seven years, not because it helps the bottom line — but because customers now expect it. Higher import costs, weak foot traffic, and groceries outrunning paycheques have turned home-goods shopping into a luxury.
Even well-positioned boutiques report a “tighter budget” mood everywhere. Retailers are discounting early, discounting often, and still watching customers hesitate.
Big box giants, meanwhile, are leaning into retail trench warfare.
Best Buy started its sales on Nov. 3. Walmart rolled out steeper discounts than last year. The traditional one-day rush is long gone — replaced by weeks of rolling promotions aimed at spreading out crowds and capturing shoppers before their wallets slam shut.
Best Buy’s deepest cuts run until Nov. 28, but the markdowns stretch to New Year’s. Walmart is pushing up to 35% off, hoping volume compensates for the tight consumer landscape.
As for the “Buy Canadian” movement? It’s fading. The RCC says price sensitivity has overwhelmed patriotism; Canadians aren’t willing to pay more than about 10% for domestic products. Even supportive shoppers admit they’re choosing bargains over branding this year.
Behind the numbers is a deeper story: A country where wages are stagnant, grocery bills keep rising, and trade-war uncertainty is pushing families into defensive mode. Retailers are adapting — stretching the calendar, slashing margins, and hoping a longer Black Friday season offsets a more cautious consumer.
This is shaping up to be the most price-driven holiday season in a decade — and a clear sign of where Canadians really feel the economy, no matter what Ottawa claims.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
💯7👍3❤1
🇨🇦 Liberal “Nationalism” Fizzles as Canada’s New Right Searches for a Real Identity
A growing share of young Canadians — especially younger conservatives — say they feel increasingly alienated in their own country. Priced out of housing, told their heritage is illegitimate, and lectured that Canada itself is a fiction, they’re confronting an identity vacuum that politics hasn’t addressed.
Analysts say the issue isn’t just economics. It’s cultural groundwork that’s been eroded for half a century. Canada’s Conservatives haven’t won a majority since 2011, despite assembling a working-class coalition that could dominate for a generation — if it had a coherent national project behind it.
Many on the emerging right argue that project must include a renewed nationalism: not ethnic or exclusionary, but rooted in Canada’s actual foundations — the Anglo-French partnership that built Confederation. While Quebec has always maintained its nationalism, Anglo-Canada largely abandoned its own, replacing it with a shape-shifting multiculturalism where anything and everything is “Canadian,” which ultimately means nothing is.
That vacuum was compounded by federal leaders across the 20th century who quietly removed the country’s old symbols — Dominion Day, the Red Ensign, and the bicultural framework — replacing them with a Charter-centric identity that cast the founding culture as outdated or suspect. The assumption was that newcomers would join a mainstream cultural core; instead, the core itself dissolved.
Critics say the result is a paradox: progressives denounce Confederation as a colonial relic, while the online far right glorifies it as an ethnic artifact. Both treat Canada’s origins as untouchable museum pieces, rather than a living inheritance that needs upkeep, meaning, and continuity.
Despite demographic shifts, many new Canadians still seek a clear national story to belong to — something older political leaders have failed to articulate. Commentators note that a coalition rooted in loyalty, shared memory, and civic culture could include immigrants and long-established Canadians alike, so long as the goal is a coherent Canadian identity rather than a floating lifestyle space.
Young conservatives aren’t looking to be sold on GDP charts or libertarian slogans. They’re searching for meaning, structure, and belonging — “flags worth saluting,” as one observer put it — after an era that stripped away all three. The question for the Canadian right is whether it will fully embrace a national vision, or remain just another managerial faction in a country increasingly unsure of what it is.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
A growing share of young Canadians — especially younger conservatives — say they feel increasingly alienated in their own country. Priced out of housing, told their heritage is illegitimate, and lectured that Canada itself is a fiction, they’re confronting an identity vacuum that politics hasn’t addressed.
Analysts say the issue isn’t just economics. It’s cultural groundwork that’s been eroded for half a century. Canada’s Conservatives haven’t won a majority since 2011, despite assembling a working-class coalition that could dominate for a generation — if it had a coherent national project behind it.
Many on the emerging right argue that project must include a renewed nationalism: not ethnic or exclusionary, but rooted in Canada’s actual foundations — the Anglo-French partnership that built Confederation. While Quebec has always maintained its nationalism, Anglo-Canada largely abandoned its own, replacing it with a shape-shifting multiculturalism where anything and everything is “Canadian,” which ultimately means nothing is.
That vacuum was compounded by federal leaders across the 20th century who quietly removed the country’s old symbols — Dominion Day, the Red Ensign, and the bicultural framework — replacing them with a Charter-centric identity that cast the founding culture as outdated or suspect. The assumption was that newcomers would join a mainstream cultural core; instead, the core itself dissolved.
Critics say the result is a paradox: progressives denounce Confederation as a colonial relic, while the online far right glorifies it as an ethnic artifact. Both treat Canada’s origins as untouchable museum pieces, rather than a living inheritance that needs upkeep, meaning, and continuity.
Despite demographic shifts, many new Canadians still seek a clear national story to belong to — something older political leaders have failed to articulate. Commentators note that a coalition rooted in loyalty, shared memory, and civic culture could include immigrants and long-established Canadians alike, so long as the goal is a coherent Canadian identity rather than a floating lifestyle space.
Young conservatives aren’t looking to be sold on GDP charts or libertarian slogans. They’re searching for meaning, structure, and belonging — “flags worth saluting,” as one observer put it — after an era that stripped away all three. The question for the Canadian right is whether it will fully embrace a national vision, or remain just another managerial faction in a country increasingly unsure of what it is.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
👍10⚡6❤3😁1💩1
🇨🇦 Brookfield Executive Grilled in Ottawa Over Carney’s Hidden Pay, Tax Havens, and Conflicts
Brookfield COO Justin Beber (no not the pop star) endured two hours of sustained cross-examination on Parliament Hill Monday as MPs probed Prime Minister Mark Carney’s financial ties to the global investment giant — including his undisclosed performance pay, his carried-interest bonuses, and Brookfield’s extensive use of tax-haven structures.
Beber confirmed that Carney cut formal ties with Brookfield the day he launched his Liberal leadership bid in January. But he also acknowledged meeting Carney in October inside the PM’s office to discuss antisemitism — a small but notable admission given the government’s insistence that no conversations involving Brookfield business have taken place.
Conservative MPs pressed Beber on the tens of millions in carried interest Carney stands to collect from the Brookfield Global Transition Fund (BGTF I), the clean-energy megafund he helped assemble before entering politics. That fund matures between 2032 and 2034 — long after Carney leaves office — meaning its payouts remain tied to Brookfield’s long-term performance today.
Beber insisted Carney is not ennoscriptd to similar payouts from two other transition funds that were still being set up when he departed, though he stopped short of disputing that Carney stands to make “millions.”
Carney placed his assets in a blind trust after becoming Liberal leader, but Brookfield’s transition funds — registered in Bermuda, one of the world’s premier tax havens — remain a central focus for opposition parties. MPs argued that Carney’s financial architecture creates a direct conflict of interest as Ottawa rolls out new policy frameworks in sectors where Brookfield is aggressively expanding: housing, clean energy, AI, infrastructure, and climate-transition financing.
Bloc MP Luc Thériault pressed Beber on Brookfield’s tax-avoidance strategies, noting that many Brookfield vehicles are domiciled in ultra-low-tax jurisdictions. Beber refused to address whether Brookfield engages in tax avoidance at all — leading Thériault to quip: “Après l’évitement fiscal, voilà l’évitement des questions.”
Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher was blunt: Carney’s long-tail payouts constitute “an ongoing, direct and significant financial conflict of interest,” arguing the prime minister will personally profit from any policy that boosts Brookfield’s global portfolio. Conacher says the only real safeguard is for Carney to sell the investments outright — a move the Liberals have resisted.
Opposition MPs say the issue goes beyond ethics screens. They argue it strikes at the credibility of a government whose leader spent years embedded at one of the world’s most powerful investment conglomerates — a firm now poised to benefit from policy decisions he oversees.
Brookfield, for its part, maintains strict compliance with tax laws and insists no conversations about its business have taken place with Carney since he assumed office.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Brookfield COO Justin Beber (no not the pop star) endured two hours of sustained cross-examination on Parliament Hill Monday as MPs probed Prime Minister Mark Carney’s financial ties to the global investment giant — including his undisclosed performance pay, his carried-interest bonuses, and Brookfield’s extensive use of tax-haven structures.
Beber confirmed that Carney cut formal ties with Brookfield the day he launched his Liberal leadership bid in January. But he also acknowledged meeting Carney in October inside the PM’s office to discuss antisemitism — a small but notable admission given the government’s insistence that no conversations involving Brookfield business have taken place.
Conservative MPs pressed Beber on the tens of millions in carried interest Carney stands to collect from the Brookfield Global Transition Fund (BGTF I), the clean-energy megafund he helped assemble before entering politics. That fund matures between 2032 and 2034 — long after Carney leaves office — meaning its payouts remain tied to Brookfield’s long-term performance today.
Beber insisted Carney is not ennoscriptd to similar payouts from two other transition funds that were still being set up when he departed, though he stopped short of disputing that Carney stands to make “millions.”
Carney placed his assets in a blind trust after becoming Liberal leader, but Brookfield’s transition funds — registered in Bermuda, one of the world’s premier tax havens — remain a central focus for opposition parties. MPs argued that Carney’s financial architecture creates a direct conflict of interest as Ottawa rolls out new policy frameworks in sectors where Brookfield is aggressively expanding: housing, clean energy, AI, infrastructure, and climate-transition financing.
Bloc MP Luc Thériault pressed Beber on Brookfield’s tax-avoidance strategies, noting that many Brookfield vehicles are domiciled in ultra-low-tax jurisdictions. Beber refused to address whether Brookfield engages in tax avoidance at all — leading Thériault to quip: “Après l’évitement fiscal, voilà l’évitement des questions.”
Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher was blunt: Carney’s long-tail payouts constitute “an ongoing, direct and significant financial conflict of interest,” arguing the prime minister will personally profit from any policy that boosts Brookfield’s global portfolio. Conacher says the only real safeguard is for Carney to sell the investments outright — a move the Liberals have resisted.
Opposition MPs say the issue goes beyond ethics screens. They argue it strikes at the credibility of a government whose leader spent years embedded at one of the world’s most powerful investment conglomerates — a firm now poised to benefit from policy decisions he oversees.
Brookfield, for its part, maintains strict compliance with tax laws and insists no conversations about its business have taken place with Carney since he assumed office.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
❤3😁2🤯2💯1
🇨🇦 CRTC Quietly Drops Canadian-Content Quotas for Pornography
The CRTC has quietly confirmed that adult content will no longer be subject to Canadian-content (CanCon) requirements, ending one of the most unusual regulatory expectations in the country’s broadcasting framework.
Buried in a recently updated CRTC protocol, the regulator stated that adult programming will no longer require “certification,” meaning explicit content will no longer need to prove a minimum quota of Canadian performers, producers, or financing to qualify as Canadian.
The move effectively scraps a long-standing rule that forced adult broadcasters — and potentially adult streaming platforms under the Online Streaming Act — to meet the same CanCon standards as mainstream television. Under the old rules, even a pornographic film shot in Canada, featuring Canadian performers and a Canadian director, could fail to qualify if less than 75% of its financing was demonstrably Canadian.
In 2014, several Canadian porn channels nearly lost their licences because they couldn’t meet the requirement to air 8.5 hours of Canadian erotica per day, highlighting what industry figures openly described as a chronic shortage of domestic content capable of meeting the CRTC’s rigid point-system.
The new bulletin says broadcasters were broadly supportive of removing porn from CanCon rules — but the CRTC also highlighted pushback from Winnipeg filmmaker Kate Sinclaire, who argued the exemption could harm Canadian creators, weaken protections for sex workers, and give large foreign platforms an even stronger foothold in the market.
The timing is notable. The CRTC is still finalizing how it will enforce the Online Streaming Act, which extends Canada’s broadcasting regulations to platforms like YouTube, Netflix, and — at least in theory — adult platforms. Pornhub, headquartered in Montreal, remains the most-visited Canadian website in the world and would have been directly affected by CanCon quotas, Indigenous-language mandates, closed-captioning rules, and ethnic-representation requirements.
By exempting adult content, the CRTC sidesteps the politically explosive optics of imposing identity-based quotas and federal content rules on pornography — even as it tightens regulatory control over nearly every other part of the online ecosystem.
Priorities eh Canada?
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
The CRTC has quietly confirmed that adult content will no longer be subject to Canadian-content (CanCon) requirements, ending one of the most unusual regulatory expectations in the country’s broadcasting framework.
Buried in a recently updated CRTC protocol, the regulator stated that adult programming will no longer require “certification,” meaning explicit content will no longer need to prove a minimum quota of Canadian performers, producers, or financing to qualify as Canadian.
The move effectively scraps a long-standing rule that forced adult broadcasters — and potentially adult streaming platforms under the Online Streaming Act — to meet the same CanCon standards as mainstream television. Under the old rules, even a pornographic film shot in Canada, featuring Canadian performers and a Canadian director, could fail to qualify if less than 75% of its financing was demonstrably Canadian.
In 2014, several Canadian porn channels nearly lost their licences because they couldn’t meet the requirement to air 8.5 hours of Canadian erotica per day, highlighting what industry figures openly described as a chronic shortage of domestic content capable of meeting the CRTC’s rigid point-system.
The new bulletin says broadcasters were broadly supportive of removing porn from CanCon rules — but the CRTC also highlighted pushback from Winnipeg filmmaker Kate Sinclaire, who argued the exemption could harm Canadian creators, weaken protections for sex workers, and give large foreign platforms an even stronger foothold in the market.
The timing is notable. The CRTC is still finalizing how it will enforce the Online Streaming Act, which extends Canada’s broadcasting regulations to platforms like YouTube, Netflix, and — at least in theory — adult platforms. Pornhub, headquartered in Montreal, remains the most-visited Canadian website in the world and would have been directly affected by CanCon quotas, Indigenous-language mandates, closed-captioning rules, and ethnic-representation requirements.
By exempting adult content, the CRTC sidesteps the politically explosive optics of imposing identity-based quotas and federal content rules on pornography — even as it tightens regulatory control over nearly every other part of the online ecosystem.
Priorities eh Canada?
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
😁5👍4❤2
🇨🇦 Ottawa & Alberta Strike Breakthrough Pipeline Deal — Announcement Expected Thursday
Ottawa and Alberta have reached a milestone agreement to back a new oil pipeline to Canada’s West Coast, according to reporting citing federal and provincial sources. Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith are expected to unveil the framework in Calgary this Thursday.
The deal reportedly includes special federal exemptions and political support for a new export pipeline — a major shift given the regulatory barriers that currently discourage investment. Among them: the longstanding ban on oil tankers along northern B.C.’s coast, which industry groups have long argued makes new projects commercially impossible.
In exchange, Alberta’s energy sector — led by the Pathways Alliance — would commit to stricter carbon pricing measures and a multi-billion-dollar investment in carbon-capture infrastructure, according to the
report.
If confirmed, this would represent the most significant détente between Ottawa and Alberta in years. Relations have been strained since the Trudeau era introduced tougher federal environmental rules that Alberta argued were suffocating its economic potential.
The push for a new export route has intensified amid rising tensions with the U.S., especially after President Donald Trump’s tariffs and repeated suggestions about making Canada a U.S. state. With almost all Canadian oil flowing south, both Ottawa and Edmonton have been eyeing access to Asian markets as a strategic necessity.
B.C. Premier David Eby remains firmly opposed, citing both environmental concerns and objections from Indigenous leaders. However, B.C. has no legal veto, as confirmed by earlier failed court challenges to the Trans Mountain expansion, now capable of moving 890,000 barrels per day to the Vancouver area.
A spokesperson for Premier Smith said only that they “hope to have more to share in the coming days.” The Prime Minister’s Office declined comment.
More details are expected at Thursday’s joint announcement.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Ottawa and Alberta have reached a milestone agreement to back a new oil pipeline to Canada’s West Coast, according to reporting citing federal and provincial sources. Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith are expected to unveil the framework in Calgary this Thursday.
The deal reportedly includes special federal exemptions and political support for a new export pipeline — a major shift given the regulatory barriers that currently discourage investment. Among them: the longstanding ban on oil tankers along northern B.C.’s coast, which industry groups have long argued makes new projects commercially impossible.
In exchange, Alberta’s energy sector — led by the Pathways Alliance — would commit to stricter carbon pricing measures and a multi-billion-dollar investment in carbon-capture infrastructure, according to the
report.
If confirmed, this would represent the most significant détente between Ottawa and Alberta in years. Relations have been strained since the Trudeau era introduced tougher federal environmental rules that Alberta argued were suffocating its economic potential.
The push for a new export route has intensified amid rising tensions with the U.S., especially after President Donald Trump’s tariffs and repeated suggestions about making Canada a U.S. state. With almost all Canadian oil flowing south, both Ottawa and Edmonton have been eyeing access to Asian markets as a strategic necessity.
B.C. Premier David Eby remains firmly opposed, citing both environmental concerns and objections from Indigenous leaders. However, B.C. has no legal veto, as confirmed by earlier failed court challenges to the Trans Mountain expansion, now capable of moving 890,000 barrels per day to the Vancouver area.
A spokesperson for Premier Smith said only that they “hope to have more to share in the coming days.” The Prime Minister’s Office declined comment.
More details are expected at Thursday’s joint announcement.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡4👏2❤1🤬1
🇨🇦 Ontario Lab Under Review After Importing Beagles From U.S. Breeder Accused of Severe Animal Cruelty
Canada’s largest private research facility, Scarborough-based Nucro-Technics, is now under formal review after revelations it imported beagles for experimentation from a Wisconsin dog-breeding operation accused of horrifying abuse — including surgeries performed without anesthesia, and the routine severing of vocal cords.
The supplier, Ridglan Farms, recently agreed to surrender its dog-breeding licence amid a criminal probe in Wisconsin. Former employees testified that beagles were held down while eye-gland surgeries were carried out with no pain control, leaving animals “yelping, thrashing, bleeding on the floor.” Others described 30–40 dogs a month having their vocal cords cut to mute barking — a procedure illegal in Ontario and forbidden under Canadian research standards.
Despite years of allegations, hidden-camera video obtained by the Investigative Journalism Bureau shows dogs arriving at Nucro-Technics as recently as 2023 on trucks marked “Ridglan Farms.” Whistleblower footage shows beagles stacked in cages, visibly stressed, and in one case a dog being euthanized in front of another — a breach of Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines.
The CCAC has now confirmed it does not consider Ridglan a reputable supplier and is reviewing Nucro-Technics’ practices, though it cannot levy fines — the harshest penalty available is revoking a facility’s certification, which affects access to federal research funding.
Ontario’s Animals for Research Act explicitly requires anesthesia for any procedure likely to cause pain. Experts say the alleged practices not only violate welfare standards but undermine scientific validity: stressed or injured animals produce “biological noise,” contaminating research results.
Nucro-Technics did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Ridglan denies wrongdoing but settled its case in Wisconsin by giving up its licence; the operation has until July 2026 to dispose of its remaining dogs.
Premier Doug Ford previously pledged legislation to end the use of dogs and cats in scientific research after an earlier IJB investigation. Whether this new report accelerates that timeline remains to be seen.
For now, Ontario’s largest research lab keeps its “Good Animal Practice” certification — even as investigators prepare to interview staff, review procedures, and examine the whistleblower’s footage frame by frame.
#Ontario
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Canada’s largest private research facility, Scarborough-based Nucro-Technics, is now under formal review after revelations it imported beagles for experimentation from a Wisconsin dog-breeding operation accused of horrifying abuse — including surgeries performed without anesthesia, and the routine severing of vocal cords.
The supplier, Ridglan Farms, recently agreed to surrender its dog-breeding licence amid a criminal probe in Wisconsin. Former employees testified that beagles were held down while eye-gland surgeries were carried out with no pain control, leaving animals “yelping, thrashing, bleeding on the floor.” Others described 30–40 dogs a month having their vocal cords cut to mute barking — a procedure illegal in Ontario and forbidden under Canadian research standards.
Despite years of allegations, hidden-camera video obtained by the Investigative Journalism Bureau shows dogs arriving at Nucro-Technics as recently as 2023 on trucks marked “Ridglan Farms.” Whistleblower footage shows beagles stacked in cages, visibly stressed, and in one case a dog being euthanized in front of another — a breach of Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines.
The CCAC has now confirmed it does not consider Ridglan a reputable supplier and is reviewing Nucro-Technics’ practices, though it cannot levy fines — the harshest penalty available is revoking a facility’s certification, which affects access to federal research funding.
Ontario’s Animals for Research Act explicitly requires anesthesia for any procedure likely to cause pain. Experts say the alleged practices not only violate welfare standards but undermine scientific validity: stressed or injured animals produce “biological noise,” contaminating research results.
Nucro-Technics did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Ridglan denies wrongdoing but settled its case in Wisconsin by giving up its licence; the operation has until July 2026 to dispose of its remaining dogs.
Premier Doug Ford previously pledged legislation to end the use of dogs and cats in scientific research after an earlier IJB investigation. Whether this new report accelerates that timeline remains to be seen.
For now, Ontario’s largest research lab keeps its “Good Animal Practice” certification — even as investigators prepare to interview staff, review procedures, and examine the whistleblower’s footage frame by frame.
#Ontario
🍁 Maple Chronicles
😱5❤4🙏2🔥1🤬1
🇨🇦 New Legal Analysis: Large Sections of Canada Could Face Aboriginal Title Claims After Cowichan Decision
A new First Reading report outlines how the Cowichan Tribes ruling in British Columbia has opened the door to similar Aboriginal noscript claims across Canada — including regions with major cities, public parks, and privately owned homes.
The B.C. Supreme Court’s decision recognized Cowichan noscript over parts of Richmond, including more than 100 private properties. Although Cowichan leaders say they do not intend to evict residents, the ruling states clearly that Aboriginal noscript supersedes private property rights, creating legal uncertainty for homeowners and municipalities.
B.C. Premier David Eby has warned the same legal precedent could apply nationwide wherever land was never formally ceded to the Crown.
🗺️ Where similar risks exist
Millions of hectares across the country remain untreatied or covered by historical agreements that did not extinguish Indigenous noscript. Key regions now drawing renewed legal scrutiny include:
• Metro Vancouver (Coquitlam & Port Coquitlam):
Kwikwetlem First Nation has a decade-old noscript claim covering ƛ̓éxətəm Regional Park, Colony Farm Forensic Hospital, and Gates Park. The current claim targets government-owned land, but earlier versions extended into the urban core, including private property.
• Kamloops, B.C.:
A 12,543-square-km claim first filed in 2015 seeks Aboriginal noscript over both public and private lands. Local officials say residents are increasingly concerned that a Cowichan-style decision could shift jurisdiction over entire neighbourhoods.
• Gatineau, Quebec:
In October, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg filed a wide-ranging noscript claim over eight areas surrounding the city. Their legal team confirms they are seeking an outcome similar to Cowichan — full recognition of Aboriginal noscript, not just consultation rights.
• New Brunswick (Wolastoqey Nation):
A 2021 claim covers more than half the province, including private and industrial properties. A court ruling last year shielded private owners from compensation demands but still allows an Aboriginal noscript ruling. The court acknowledged Ottawa or Fredericton could eventually be ordered to expropriate private land as a remedy.
• Provinces with major untreatied regions:
Much of B.C. and Quebec, all of Prince Edward Island, and significant parts of Newfoundland and Labrador fit the definition of “unceded.” New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are governed by “peace and friendship” treaties that do not extinguish noscript.
⚖️ Why this matters
If courts apply the Cowichan logic elsewhere, private landowners in affected regions could see:
• loss of clear noscript
• inability to sell or finance property
• new Indigenous jurisdictions over existing municipal areas
• uncertainty for industry, public infrastructure, and resource development
While most First Nations involved in ongoing claims say they do not plan to force evictions, the legal framework now established makes such outcomes possible.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
A new First Reading report outlines how the Cowichan Tribes ruling in British Columbia has opened the door to similar Aboriginal noscript claims across Canada — including regions with major cities, public parks, and privately owned homes.
The B.C. Supreme Court’s decision recognized Cowichan noscript over parts of Richmond, including more than 100 private properties. Although Cowichan leaders say they do not intend to evict residents, the ruling states clearly that Aboriginal noscript supersedes private property rights, creating legal uncertainty for homeowners and municipalities.
B.C. Premier David Eby has warned the same legal precedent could apply nationwide wherever land was never formally ceded to the Crown.
🗺️ Where similar risks exist
Millions of hectares across the country remain untreatied or covered by historical agreements that did not extinguish Indigenous noscript. Key regions now drawing renewed legal scrutiny include:
• Metro Vancouver (Coquitlam & Port Coquitlam):
Kwikwetlem First Nation has a decade-old noscript claim covering ƛ̓éxətəm Regional Park, Colony Farm Forensic Hospital, and Gates Park. The current claim targets government-owned land, but earlier versions extended into the urban core, including private property.
• Kamloops, B.C.:
A 12,543-square-km claim first filed in 2015 seeks Aboriginal noscript over both public and private lands. Local officials say residents are increasingly concerned that a Cowichan-style decision could shift jurisdiction over entire neighbourhoods.
• Gatineau, Quebec:
In October, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg filed a wide-ranging noscript claim over eight areas surrounding the city. Their legal team confirms they are seeking an outcome similar to Cowichan — full recognition of Aboriginal noscript, not just consultation rights.
• New Brunswick (Wolastoqey Nation):
A 2021 claim covers more than half the province, including private and industrial properties. A court ruling last year shielded private owners from compensation demands but still allows an Aboriginal noscript ruling. The court acknowledged Ottawa or Fredericton could eventually be ordered to expropriate private land as a remedy.
• Provinces with major untreatied regions:
Much of B.C. and Quebec, all of Prince Edward Island, and significant parts of Newfoundland and Labrador fit the definition of “unceded.” New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are governed by “peace and friendship” treaties that do not extinguish noscript.
⚖️ Why this matters
If courts apply the Cowichan logic elsewhere, private landowners in affected regions could see:
• loss of clear noscript
• inability to sell or finance property
• new Indigenous jurisdictions over existing municipal areas
• uncertainty for industry, public infrastructure, and resource development
While most First Nations involved in ongoing claims say they do not plan to force evictions, the legal framework now established makes such outcomes possible.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡7❤2👍1🍌1
🇨🇦🇺🇸 Canadian Businessman Ordered to Pay US$50M to Marvel Billionaire Isaac Perlmutter and Wife After Decade-Long Feud
A Florida jury has ordered Toronto businessman Harold Peerenboom, 78, to pay more than US$50 million to former Marvel Entertainment CEO Isaac “Ike” Perlmutter, 82, and his wife, Laura, following a decade-long legal battle that spiralled from a neighbourhood tennis dispute into allegations of hate-mail campaigns, defamation, and an international DNA plot.
The Palm Beach County jury deliberated less than four hours before siding decisively with the Perlmutters, awarding US$16,011 to Ike and US$50,016,011 to Laura Perlmutter. The case revolved around counterclaims of civil conspiracy, abuse of process, and defamation — not the original tennis disagreement that sparked the feud.
The feud began in 2010 at Sloan’s Curve, a luxury Palm Beach oceanfront community where both men owned homes. The initial conflict centred on disagreements over the gated community’s tennis professional and quickly escalated into litigation.
Soon after, more than 2,000 anonymous hate-mail letters began circulating in the neighbourhood, making graphic and false allegations about Peerenboom. Though Perlmutter denied involvement, Peerenboom suspected the billionaire couple due to their ongoing dispute — a belief that would fuel years of additional legal action.
Court testimony revealed that Peerenboom’s legal team arranged for a crime scene technician to collect the Perlmutters’ DNA in 2013 during depositions in the tennis case.
Paper, water bottles, and other items touched by the Perlmutters were secretly gathered and sent for forensic testing in an attempt to link them to the hate mail.
The DNA analysis excluded the Perlmutters entirely, but Peerenboom continued to publicly imply they were responsible — including in media interviews with The New York Times and The Globe and Mail.
This would become a major factor in the defamation and conspiracy verdict against him.
Who are the key players?
Isaac Perlmutter
• Former CEO of Marvel Entertainment
• Sold Marvel to Disney for US$4B in 2009
• Close associate of Donald Trump, occasionally photographed at Mar-a-Lago and the White House
• Reclusive to the point of once attending the Iron Man premiere in disguise
Harold Peerenboom
• Thunder Bay–born, Toronto-based millionaire
• Built Canadian executive search firm Mandrake
• Known for aggressive, principle-driven public battles in his business and political life
• Nicknamed “Scary Harry Perry” in earlier years
• Became private in recent decades
The jury accepted that Peerenboom and an associated lawyer engaged in a civil conspiracy to obtain the Perlmutters’ DNA without consent and then used the results as part of a defamation effort.
Jurors asked for a calculator just 90 minutes into deliberations — a sign that they were already calculating damages rather than debating the facts.
Perlmutter lawyer Joshua Dubin said the verdict restores the Perlmutters’ reputation after years of accusations.
Peerenboom’s lawyer, Jordan Cohen, said they “take issue” with parts of the verdict, particularly the ruling on defamation, and signalled a likely appeal.
Despite more than a decade of lawsuits, accusations, media attention, and a US$50 million judgment, both Peerenboom and the Perlmutters still own neighbouring homes at Sloan’s Curve.
#Florida #Ontario
🍁 Maple Chronicles
A Florida jury has ordered Toronto businessman Harold Peerenboom, 78, to pay more than US$50 million to former Marvel Entertainment CEO Isaac “Ike” Perlmutter, 82, and his wife, Laura, following a decade-long legal battle that spiralled from a neighbourhood tennis dispute into allegations of hate-mail campaigns, defamation, and an international DNA plot.
The Palm Beach County jury deliberated less than four hours before siding decisively with the Perlmutters, awarding US$16,011 to Ike and US$50,016,011 to Laura Perlmutter. The case revolved around counterclaims of civil conspiracy, abuse of process, and defamation — not the original tennis disagreement that sparked the feud.
The feud began in 2010 at Sloan’s Curve, a luxury Palm Beach oceanfront community where both men owned homes. The initial conflict centred on disagreements over the gated community’s tennis professional and quickly escalated into litigation.
Soon after, more than 2,000 anonymous hate-mail letters began circulating in the neighbourhood, making graphic and false allegations about Peerenboom. Though Perlmutter denied involvement, Peerenboom suspected the billionaire couple due to their ongoing dispute — a belief that would fuel years of additional legal action.
Court testimony revealed that Peerenboom’s legal team arranged for a crime scene technician to collect the Perlmutters’ DNA in 2013 during depositions in the tennis case.
Paper, water bottles, and other items touched by the Perlmutters were secretly gathered and sent for forensic testing in an attempt to link them to the hate mail.
The DNA analysis excluded the Perlmutters entirely, but Peerenboom continued to publicly imply they were responsible — including in media interviews with The New York Times and The Globe and Mail.
This would become a major factor in the defamation and conspiracy verdict against him.
Who are the key players?
Isaac Perlmutter
• Former CEO of Marvel Entertainment
• Sold Marvel to Disney for US$4B in 2009
• Close associate of Donald Trump, occasionally photographed at Mar-a-Lago and the White House
• Reclusive to the point of once attending the Iron Man premiere in disguise
Harold Peerenboom
• Thunder Bay–born, Toronto-based millionaire
• Built Canadian executive search firm Mandrake
• Known for aggressive, principle-driven public battles in his business and political life
• Nicknamed “Scary Harry Perry” in earlier years
• Became private in recent decades
The jury accepted that Peerenboom and an associated lawyer engaged in a civil conspiracy to obtain the Perlmutters’ DNA without consent and then used the results as part of a defamation effort.
Jurors asked for a calculator just 90 minutes into deliberations — a sign that they were already calculating damages rather than debating the facts.
Perlmutter lawyer Joshua Dubin said the verdict restores the Perlmutters’ reputation after years of accusations.
Peerenboom’s lawyer, Jordan Cohen, said they “take issue” with parts of the verdict, particularly the ruling on defamation, and signalled a likely appeal.
Despite more than a decade of lawsuits, accusations, media attention, and a US$50 million judgment, both Peerenboom and the Perlmutters still own neighbouring homes at Sloan’s Curve.
#Florida #Ontario
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡8😁2❤1🍌1
🇨🇦 Canada Still Spending Hundreds of Millions on “Gendered” Foreign Aid Despite Carney’s Policy Shift
Prime Minister Mark Carney said at the G20 in Johannesburg that Canada will no longer pursue a “feminist foreign policy,” marking a formal departure from the Trudeau-era doctrine that made gender equity the overarching priority of Canadian diplomacy.
But despite the shift in messaging, federal spending tells a different story: Canada is already locked into 1.73 billion dollars’ worth of multi-year foreign aid programs explicitly tied to gender frameworks — commitments that will run well into the 2030s.
According to Global Affairs Canada, 177 ongoing projects currently include gender-based criteria in their mandates. Many were approved this year and include multi-year disbursements lasting through 2033.
Below are some of the programs cited:
“Gender-just” rice in Vietnam — $8.2 million
A four-year Oxfam initiative aimed at integrating “gender equity” and “low carbon value chains” into rice production for roughly 20,500 rice farmers in the Mekong Delta. The project’s stated goal is to ensure rice farming is guided by “gender responsive practices.”
Feminist public planning in Nepal & Bangladesh — $4.5 million
A St. Francis Xavier University project promising “intersectional democratic spaces” through workshops, dialogues, and training “duty bearers” in “feminist leadership.” The goal is to prepare 950 women for roles in “gender-responsive public planning” by 2028.
Gender-responsive, climate-smart agriculture in Ghana — $7.7 million
Administered by Opportunity International Canada, this program combines farm tools, microfinance, and climate adaptation, with a focus on promoting “gender-responsive climate-smart agriculture practices.”
Empowering women peacebuilders — $5 million
A KAIROS/United Church of Canada initiative operating in the DRC, South Sudan, Colombia, and the West Bank. The program trains activists to work on the “triple nexus” of climate change, conflict, and gender inequality. It follows a previous, nearly identical $4.5 million program from 2018–2023.
Promoting ‘positive masculinities’ in Morocco — $9.5 million
A microfinance-heavy Desjardins program aiming to organize women’s collectives, expand financial access, encourage climate adaptation measures, and promote “positive masculinities” to address barriers to women’s paid economic activity.
Gender perspectives in arms control — $480,000
A UN Institute for Disarmament Research project exploring how to integrate feminist analysis into conventional arms control frameworks. The program includes research into how women may benefit from disarmament policies.
While Carney has signalled a strategic pivot away from branding foreign policy as feminist, the financial commitments made under the previous government remain intact, with millions still being disbursed monthly under gender-driven mandates.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Prime Minister Mark Carney said at the G20 in Johannesburg that Canada will no longer pursue a “feminist foreign policy,” marking a formal departure from the Trudeau-era doctrine that made gender equity the overarching priority of Canadian diplomacy.
But despite the shift in messaging, federal spending tells a different story: Canada is already locked into 1.73 billion dollars’ worth of multi-year foreign aid programs explicitly tied to gender frameworks — commitments that will run well into the 2030s.
According to Global Affairs Canada, 177 ongoing projects currently include gender-based criteria in their mandates. Many were approved this year and include multi-year disbursements lasting through 2033.
Below are some of the programs cited:
“Gender-just” rice in Vietnam — $8.2 million
A four-year Oxfam initiative aimed at integrating “gender equity” and “low carbon value chains” into rice production for roughly 20,500 rice farmers in the Mekong Delta. The project’s stated goal is to ensure rice farming is guided by “gender responsive practices.”
Feminist public planning in Nepal & Bangladesh — $4.5 million
A St. Francis Xavier University project promising “intersectional democratic spaces” through workshops, dialogues, and training “duty bearers” in “feminist leadership.” The goal is to prepare 950 women for roles in “gender-responsive public planning” by 2028.
Gender-responsive, climate-smart agriculture in Ghana — $7.7 million
Administered by Opportunity International Canada, this program combines farm tools, microfinance, and climate adaptation, with a focus on promoting “gender-responsive climate-smart agriculture practices.”
Empowering women peacebuilders — $5 million
A KAIROS/United Church of Canada initiative operating in the DRC, South Sudan, Colombia, and the West Bank. The program trains activists to work on the “triple nexus” of climate change, conflict, and gender inequality. It follows a previous, nearly identical $4.5 million program from 2018–2023.
Promoting ‘positive masculinities’ in Morocco — $9.5 million
A microfinance-heavy Desjardins program aiming to organize women’s collectives, expand financial access, encourage climate adaptation measures, and promote “positive masculinities” to address barriers to women’s paid economic activity.
Gender perspectives in arms control — $480,000
A UN Institute for Disarmament Research project exploring how to integrate feminist analysis into conventional arms control frameworks. The program includes research into how women may benefit from disarmament policies.
While Carney has signalled a strategic pivot away from branding foreign policy as feminist, the financial commitments made under the previous government remain intact, with millions still being disbursed monthly under gender-driven mandates.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤯5🤬3❤2💯1
🇨🇦 Ottawa to Table New Bill After Supreme Court Strikes Down Child Pornography Mandatory Minimums
Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the federal government will introduce legislation before the end of the year to restore mandatory minimum sentences for possession and access of child pornography, following a controversial Supreme Court ruling that struck them down.
Fraser said he supports mandatory minimums for “heinous” crimes involving children, but acknowledged that earlier laws were drafted too broadly, leaving them vulnerable to constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court’s October decision found that the one-year minimum sentence for possession was unconstitutional because it could be grossly disproportionate in unusual, hypothetical scenarios — including an 18-year-old who is sent explicit images by a 17-year-old without soliciting them.
The ruling came despite both offenders in the case having pleaded guilty to owning hundreds of images of children as young as three being severely abused. The decision provoked widespread criticism from conservative leaders across the country, including premiers Doug Ford and Danielle Smith, and federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who all urged Ottawa to invoke the notwithstanding clause to restore minimum penalties.
Fraser rejected that approach, arguing that the clause is a temporary measure that expires every five years and would not provide a lasting solution. Instead, he says the government intends to make the mandatory minimums constitutional by tightening the law so that they apply only to serious cases, while allowing limited judicial discretion in rare situations where applying the minimum would result in a cruel and unusual punishment.
The minister confirmed the upcoming bill will address not only child pornography offences but also several other mandatory minimum penalties struck down by the courts since 2015. Previous Supreme Court rulings — including the 2023 Hills and Bertrand Marchand decisions — found minimum sentences for offences such as discharging a firearm into a home and child luring to be unconstitutional because they captured outlier scenarios.
Fraser said the goal is to design mandatory minimums that withstand Charter scrutiny while ensuring the most serious offenders still face significant penalties. He would not say which additional offences will be included in the bill or what specific model the government will use, but noted that the Supreme Court itself suggested options such as limiting mandatory minimums to specific conduct or creating a narrowly tailored judicial “safety valve” to exempt rare cases from the floor of the sentence.
The legislation is expected to be tabled in the coming weeks.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the federal government will introduce legislation before the end of the year to restore mandatory minimum sentences for possession and access of child pornography, following a controversial Supreme Court ruling that struck them down.
Fraser said he supports mandatory minimums for “heinous” crimes involving children, but acknowledged that earlier laws were drafted too broadly, leaving them vulnerable to constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court’s October decision found that the one-year minimum sentence for possession was unconstitutional because it could be grossly disproportionate in unusual, hypothetical scenarios — including an 18-year-old who is sent explicit images by a 17-year-old without soliciting them.
The ruling came despite both offenders in the case having pleaded guilty to owning hundreds of images of children as young as three being severely abused. The decision provoked widespread criticism from conservative leaders across the country, including premiers Doug Ford and Danielle Smith, and federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who all urged Ottawa to invoke the notwithstanding clause to restore minimum penalties.
Fraser rejected that approach, arguing that the clause is a temporary measure that expires every five years and would not provide a lasting solution. Instead, he says the government intends to make the mandatory minimums constitutional by tightening the law so that they apply only to serious cases, while allowing limited judicial discretion in rare situations where applying the minimum would result in a cruel and unusual punishment.
The minister confirmed the upcoming bill will address not only child pornography offences but also several other mandatory minimum penalties struck down by the courts since 2015. Previous Supreme Court rulings — including the 2023 Hills and Bertrand Marchand decisions — found minimum sentences for offences such as discharging a firearm into a home and child luring to be unconstitutional because they captured outlier scenarios.
Fraser said the goal is to design mandatory minimums that withstand Charter scrutiny while ensuring the most serious offenders still face significant penalties. He would not say which additional offences will be included in the bill or what specific model the government will use, but noted that the Supreme Court itself suggested options such as limiting mandatory minimums to specific conduct or creating a narrowly tailored judicial “safety valve” to exempt rare cases from the floor of the sentence.
The legislation is expected to be tabled in the coming weeks.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡7❤1😁1
🇨🇦 Carney Walks Back “Who Cares?” Remark After Days of Political Blowback
Prime Minister Mark Carney moved to contain political damage Tuesday, admitting he made “a poor choice of words” after dismissing repeated questions about when he last spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump — a tense file as Canada faces escalating American tariffs.
The backlash began Sunday in Johannesburg, when Carney, pressed by reporters after the G20 summit, brushed off inquiries about stalled Canada–U.S. talks with: “Who cares? … I spoke to him. I’ll speak to him again when it matters.” The remark quickly drew criticism from Conservatives, who accused Carney of minimizing a crisis affecting workers in sectors hit by Trump’s protectionist surge.
Carney addressed the controversy directly in the House of Commons after a question from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. “When I make a mistake, I’ll admit it,” he said, before describing his earlier comments as inappropriate for “a serious issue.” He then pointed to Canada’s broader progress on trade diversification, emphasizing that overall U.S. tariff exposure remains historically low.
Trade negotiations with Washington collapsed abruptly last month after Trump lashed out over Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s anti-tariff ad campaign, which invoked Ronald Reagan. Since then, Ottawa has struggled to re-establish high-level contact. Carney’s office confirmed he is now considering a trip to Washington next week to attend the FIFA World Cup draw at the Kennedy Centre — a venue Trump personally controls — which could provide an opening for renewed dialogue.
Poilievre seized on the incident to accuse Carney of losing his “elbows up” posture with Washington, telling Parliament that “workers on the line care, Canadians care — why doesn’t the prime minister care?” He also claimed tariff levels are worse now than when Carney entered office, asserting that the prime minister’s foreign tours have delivered few tangible results.
Carney rejected that characterization, saying Poilievre should “check his numbers.” He highlighted Indonesia’s decision to eliminate 95 per cent of its tariffs on Canadian exports under a new trade agreement, and he touted a recently signed foreign investment pact with the United Arab Emirates that Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand called “the largest foreign investment in Canadian history” — an estimated $70-billion commitment.
Still, the immediate political pressure stems from the U.S. file. American tariffs on Canadian steel, autos and forestry products have climbed sharply, with duties in the lumber sector exceeding 40 per cent and triggering closures in multiple communities. Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson said additional relief for affected industries is expected later this week.
Carney reiterated that Canada’s tariff burden under CUSMA remains the lowest in the world, but acknowledged that tensions with Washington require “serious structural progress” — a point made more urgent by his need to clarify comments that were interpreted as dismissing the issue entirely.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Prime Minister Mark Carney moved to contain political damage Tuesday, admitting he made “a poor choice of words” after dismissing repeated questions about when he last spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump — a tense file as Canada faces escalating American tariffs.
The backlash began Sunday in Johannesburg, when Carney, pressed by reporters after the G20 summit, brushed off inquiries about stalled Canada–U.S. talks with: “Who cares? … I spoke to him. I’ll speak to him again when it matters.” The remark quickly drew criticism from Conservatives, who accused Carney of minimizing a crisis affecting workers in sectors hit by Trump’s protectionist surge.
Carney addressed the controversy directly in the House of Commons after a question from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. “When I make a mistake, I’ll admit it,” he said, before describing his earlier comments as inappropriate for “a serious issue.” He then pointed to Canada’s broader progress on trade diversification, emphasizing that overall U.S. tariff exposure remains historically low.
Trade negotiations with Washington collapsed abruptly last month after Trump lashed out over Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s anti-tariff ad campaign, which invoked Ronald Reagan. Since then, Ottawa has struggled to re-establish high-level contact. Carney’s office confirmed he is now considering a trip to Washington next week to attend the FIFA World Cup draw at the Kennedy Centre — a venue Trump personally controls — which could provide an opening for renewed dialogue.
Poilievre seized on the incident to accuse Carney of losing his “elbows up” posture with Washington, telling Parliament that “workers on the line care, Canadians care — why doesn’t the prime minister care?” He also claimed tariff levels are worse now than when Carney entered office, asserting that the prime minister’s foreign tours have delivered few tangible results.
Carney rejected that characterization, saying Poilievre should “check his numbers.” He highlighted Indonesia’s decision to eliminate 95 per cent of its tariffs on Canadian exports under a new trade agreement, and he touted a recently signed foreign investment pact with the United Arab Emirates that Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand called “the largest foreign investment in Canadian history” — an estimated $70-billion commitment.
Still, the immediate political pressure stems from the U.S. file. American tariffs on Canadian steel, autos and forestry products have climbed sharply, with duties in the lumber sector exceeding 40 per cent and triggering closures in multiple communities. Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson said additional relief for affected industries is expected later this week.
Carney reiterated that Canada’s tariff burden under CUSMA remains the lowest in the world, but acknowledged that tensions with Washington require “serious structural progress” — a point made more urgent by his need to clarify comments that were interpreted as dismissing the issue entirely.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤬6❤2🤡2🥱2
🇨🇦 Alberta Recall Crisis Deepens: Nearly One-Third of UCP MLAs Now Facing Petitions
Alberta’s political landscape shifted again Tuesday after Elections Alberta approved five new recall petitions targeting United Conservative Party (UCP) legislature members — pushing the total number under recall to 14 out of 47.
The newest MLAs facing recall include cabinet ministers Searle Turton and Nathan Neudorf, along with backbenchers Jason Stephan, Jackie Lovely, and Glenn van Dijken. It marks a dramatic expansion of a movement that has rapidly grown since the first round of petitions earlier this month.
Under Alberta’s Recall Act, any voter in a riding can trigger the process if they believe their MLA has failed in their duties. While each petition must ultimately gather signatures from 40 per cent of eligible voters — a high bar — the sheer scale of active recall drives is unprecedented in Alberta politics.
Many of the citizens pushing the petitions cite the same grievance: that their MLAs failed to represent local concerns and crossed a line by supporting the use of the notwithstanding clause to legislatively shut down a province-wide teachers’ strike. Critics argue the move overrode Charter rights and ignored negotiations in favour of political expediency.
The recall pressure now spans both cabinet and caucus, creating internal strain for Premier Danielle Smith’s government as it navigates a growing perception of disconnect between MLAs and their constituencies.
Elections Alberta confirmed the approvals but offered no comment on ongoing political disputes. Whether the petitioners can meet the signature thresholds remains to be seen — but the volume of recall actions alone signals rare and rising voter frustration inside the province.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Alberta’s political landscape shifted again Tuesday after Elections Alberta approved five new recall petitions targeting United Conservative Party (UCP) legislature members — pushing the total number under recall to 14 out of 47.
The newest MLAs facing recall include cabinet ministers Searle Turton and Nathan Neudorf, along with backbenchers Jason Stephan, Jackie Lovely, and Glenn van Dijken. It marks a dramatic expansion of a movement that has rapidly grown since the first round of petitions earlier this month.
Under Alberta’s Recall Act, any voter in a riding can trigger the process if they believe their MLA has failed in their duties. While each petition must ultimately gather signatures from 40 per cent of eligible voters — a high bar — the sheer scale of active recall drives is unprecedented in Alberta politics.
Many of the citizens pushing the petitions cite the same grievance: that their MLAs failed to represent local concerns and crossed a line by supporting the use of the notwithstanding clause to legislatively shut down a province-wide teachers’ strike. Critics argue the move overrode Charter rights and ignored negotiations in favour of political expediency.
The recall pressure now spans both cabinet and caucus, creating internal strain for Premier Danielle Smith’s government as it navigates a growing perception of disconnect between MLAs and their constituencies.
Elections Alberta confirmed the approvals but offered no comment on ongoing political disputes. Whether the petitioners can meet the signature thresholds remains to be seen — but the volume of recall actions alone signals rare and rising voter frustration inside the province.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡7❤2
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇨🇦🇫🇷 Mélanie Joly Denies Rumours She Plans to Leave Cabinet for Ambassador Role in France
Mélanie Joly, Canada’s federal industry minister, is denying growing rumours that she is preparing to leave Mark Carney’s cabinet to become Canada’s next ambassador to France.
The Toronto Sun, citing “multiple sources, Liberal and otherwise,” reported earlier this week that Joly was “looking to be appointed” to the Paris posting — one of Canada’s most prestigious diplomatic assignments, complete with an official residence beside the embassy in the 8th arrondissement.
A few hours later, however, Joly firmly rejected the suggestion.
“Absolutely not,” she told Global News journalist Mackenzie Gray during a video press conference from Japan. “I’m focused on my job right now, which is to be the minister of industry and to fight for every single job in this country at a time of trade tensions.”
The Paris ambassadorship is often viewed as both a reward for senior political figures and a discreet exit ramp for cabinet ministers who have outstayed their welcome. It is often considered the francophone counterpart to the High Commissioner role in London — currently held by former Liberal cabinet minister Ralph Goodale. Former defence minister Bill Blair is reportedly being considered as Goodale’s replacement.
Canada’s current ambassador to France is Stéphane Dion, a former Liberal Party leader. Previous holders of the role have included Lawrence Cannon, Quebec lieutenant under former prime minister Stephen Harper.
Joly emphasized she intends to stay put in her current portfolio amid what she described as serious economic threats facing Canadian industry.
“I have a very strong sense of duty towards my country,” she said. “My expertise in both business and geopolitics is very useful for Canada right now.”
#Canada #France
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Mélanie Joly, Canada’s federal industry minister, is denying growing rumours that she is preparing to leave Mark Carney’s cabinet to become Canada’s next ambassador to France.
The Toronto Sun, citing “multiple sources, Liberal and otherwise,” reported earlier this week that Joly was “looking to be appointed” to the Paris posting — one of Canada’s most prestigious diplomatic assignments, complete with an official residence beside the embassy in the 8th arrondissement.
A few hours later, however, Joly firmly rejected the suggestion.
“Absolutely not,” she told Global News journalist Mackenzie Gray during a video press conference from Japan. “I’m focused on my job right now, which is to be the minister of industry and to fight for every single job in this country at a time of trade tensions.”
The Paris ambassadorship is often viewed as both a reward for senior political figures and a discreet exit ramp for cabinet ministers who have outstayed their welcome. It is often considered the francophone counterpart to the High Commissioner role in London — currently held by former Liberal cabinet minister Ralph Goodale. Former defence minister Bill Blair is reportedly being considered as Goodale’s replacement.
Canada’s current ambassador to France is Stéphane Dion, a former Liberal Party leader. Previous holders of the role have included Lawrence Cannon, Quebec lieutenant under former prime minister Stephen Harper.
Joly emphasized she intends to stay put in her current portfolio amid what she described as serious economic threats facing Canadian industry.
“I have a very strong sense of duty towards my country,” she said. “My expertise in both business and geopolitics is very useful for Canada right now.”
#Canada #France
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡10
🇨🇦🇺🇸 Majority of Canadians Say ‘51st State’ Comments Are Insulting, New Poll Finds
A large majority of Canadians disagree with U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra’s claim that President Donald Trump’s suggestion for Canada to become the “51st state” should be taken as a compliment, according to a new national poll.
A survey conducted earlier this month by Narrative Research and the Logit Group found 78% of Canadians reject Hoekstra’s view, saying the “51st state” language is insulting. Only 11% agree with the ambassador’s interpretation, while another 10% were unsure.
“Just one in ten agree that suggesting Canada should become the 51st state is a compliment and a term of endearment,” the polling firms said in a statement.
Historical Context Drives Canadian Response
Asa McKercher, the Hudson Chair in Canada–U.S. Relations at St. Francis Xavier University, said the results are unsurprising.
“Canada’s very existence is due to people rejecting becoming American,” McKercher explained, pointing to Canada’s resistance to U.S. invasions during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. He noted that Canadians later chose confederation over joining the United States in the 1860s, and even in the 1948 Newfoundland referendum, residents rejected the option to pursue American statehood.
“This is something that has united Canadians throughout our entire existence on the northern half of North America,” he said.
Gen Z Stands Out
One notable finding in the poll is that 27% of Gen Z respondents (aged 18–24) view the “51st state” rhetoric as a compliment — far higher than any other age group.
McKercher believes economic pressures may play a role. Younger Canadians have faced a difficult job market and high living costs. “Per capita incomes in much of the United States are higher,” he noted, referencing a Fraser Institute study showing Nova Scotia’s per capita income below that of Mississippi.
Regional and Generational Breakdown
Agreement with Hoekstra’s comments varies widely across the country and by age:
• Ages 25–34: 13% agree
• Ages 35–54: 12%
• Ages 55+: 5%
Regionally, the Prairie provinces show the highest level of agreement at 17%, a trend McKercher links to American ancestry in Alberta and Saskatchewan and their integration with U.S. energy industries.
Other regions report lower agreement:
• British Columbia: 10%
• Ontario: 11%
• Quebec: 8%
• Atlantic Canada: 7%
Political or ideological leanings may also influence perceptions. “More conservative people tend to be a bit more pro-American,” McKercher said.
Hoekstra’s Standing With Canadians
Asked what Ambassador Hoekstra could say to win Canadian public approval, McKercher was blunt:
“I think he would have to say, ‘I’m resigning as ambassador.’”
“He’s effective at making the Trump position clear,” he added. “He’s not necessarily effective at wooing Canadians.”
About the Poll
The online survey of 1,231 Canadian adults was conducted between Nov. 12 and 14. Results were weighted by age, gender, and region in accordance with the 2021 census.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
A large majority of Canadians disagree with U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra’s claim that President Donald Trump’s suggestion for Canada to become the “51st state” should be taken as a compliment, according to a new national poll.
A survey conducted earlier this month by Narrative Research and the Logit Group found 78% of Canadians reject Hoekstra’s view, saying the “51st state” language is insulting. Only 11% agree with the ambassador’s interpretation, while another 10% were unsure.
“Just one in ten agree that suggesting Canada should become the 51st state is a compliment and a term of endearment,” the polling firms said in a statement.
Historical Context Drives Canadian Response
Asa McKercher, the Hudson Chair in Canada–U.S. Relations at St. Francis Xavier University, said the results are unsurprising.
“Canada’s very existence is due to people rejecting becoming American,” McKercher explained, pointing to Canada’s resistance to U.S. invasions during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. He noted that Canadians later chose confederation over joining the United States in the 1860s, and even in the 1948 Newfoundland referendum, residents rejected the option to pursue American statehood.
“This is something that has united Canadians throughout our entire existence on the northern half of North America,” he said.
Gen Z Stands Out
One notable finding in the poll is that 27% of Gen Z respondents (aged 18–24) view the “51st state” rhetoric as a compliment — far higher than any other age group.
McKercher believes economic pressures may play a role. Younger Canadians have faced a difficult job market and high living costs. “Per capita incomes in much of the United States are higher,” he noted, referencing a Fraser Institute study showing Nova Scotia’s per capita income below that of Mississippi.
Regional and Generational Breakdown
Agreement with Hoekstra’s comments varies widely across the country and by age:
• Ages 25–34: 13% agree
• Ages 35–54: 12%
• Ages 55+: 5%
Regionally, the Prairie provinces show the highest level of agreement at 17%, a trend McKercher links to American ancestry in Alberta and Saskatchewan and their integration with U.S. energy industries.
Other regions report lower agreement:
• British Columbia: 10%
• Ontario: 11%
• Quebec: 8%
• Atlantic Canada: 7%
Political or ideological leanings may also influence perceptions. “More conservative people tend to be a bit more pro-American,” McKercher said.
Hoekstra’s Standing With Canadians
Asked what Ambassador Hoekstra could say to win Canadian public approval, McKercher was blunt:
“I think he would have to say, ‘I’m resigning as ambassador.’”
“He’s effective at making the Trump position clear,” he added. “He’s not necessarily effective at wooing Canadians.”
About the Poll
The online survey of 1,231 Canadian adults was conducted between Nov. 12 and 14. Results were weighted by age, gender, and region in accordance with the 2021 census.
#Canada #USA
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡12👍7😁2🤬1🍌1
🇨🇦 If Conservatives Want to Save Canada, They Must Dismantle the Bureaucratic Machine Destroying It
Canada is long past the point where polite conservatism can fix anything. The country that Edmund Burke’s admirers dream about — a cohesive Dominion grounded in tradition, institutional memory, and inherited common sense — simply no longer exists. What we have instead is a bloated managerial state that has grown into a self-sustaining empire, one that governs against the cultural foundation of the nation it claims to serve.
For a decade, Canada’s bureaucracy has metastasized at a pace that would make Brussels blush. The federal public service has ballooned nearly 40% since 2015, devouring more than $71 billion a year, while the private sector stagnates and critical services — policing, healthcare, infrastructure — crack under the weight of their own neglect. One quarter of the country now draws a paycheque from the state. That is not governance. That is a dependency web.
And it is by design.
The Managerial State Has Replaced the Nation
Canada’s institutions — courts, cultural bodies, accreditation boards, school systems, NGOs, grant councils — have been captured by a class that sees the old Canada not as something to conserve, but something to dismantle. They do not view the nation’s story as a shared inheritance. They view it as a crime scene to police.
Just look:
• Library and Archives Canada quietly purging material on Sir John A. Macdonald
• Museums turning into ideological tribunals for “settler shame”
• Waves of church burnings since 2021 with no national reckoning, no outrage, no hearings
The establishment shrugs because the ideological project benefits from forgetting.
This is exactly the world Pierre Trudeau engineered: a modern, malleable order unmoored from its historical roots — a country where values are constantly rewritten by committees, tribunals, and bureaucratic clerics who answer to no one.
The Bureaucracy Must Be Culled — Not Managed
To restore any semblance of national cohesion, conservatives must confront the real source of Canada’s dysfunction: the unelected managerial class.
British Columbia and Ontario already show what happens when the managerial state grows unchecked: armies of managers, collapsing services, and a shrinking private sector footing the bill.
Law and Order Must Be Reclaimed
A nation that selectively enforces law ceases to be a nation at all.
Authorities tracked down hundreds over the 2011 Stanley Cup riots — yet cannot be bothered to pursue the people burning churches and toppling statues?
Why? Because the bureaucracy sympathizes with the vandals.
If the state won’t defend the nation’s symbols, citizens rightly conclude that the institutions have chosen sides — and not theirs.
Use State Power — As Canada’s Founders Once Did
Sir John A. Macdonald understood something today’s conservatives have forgotten: the state is not neutral. It is an instrument. And if you do not shape it, it will shape you.
Macdonald was a nation-builder who used patronage, alignment, and decisive action to weld a Dominion out of disparate colonies. He did not subcontract identity to NGOs or bureaucrats.
Modern conservatives must rediscover this spine.
They must appoint conservatives, restructure institutions, rewrite mandates, and take control of the cultural machinery that shapes public consciousness. Not out of vengeance — but out of responsibility.
If liberals understand that governing means shaping the soul of the country, why are conservatives pretending otherwise?
The Choice Is Stark
Conservatives can either:
• Govern timidly and become temporary caretakers of a permanent progressive state
or
• Assertively reshape Canada’s institutions so that actual conservatism has the conditions to thrive again
If they choose the first path, their governments will be nothing more than an intermission — a pause in the machinery’s forward march.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Canada is long past the point where polite conservatism can fix anything. The country that Edmund Burke’s admirers dream about — a cohesive Dominion grounded in tradition, institutional memory, and inherited common sense — simply no longer exists. What we have instead is a bloated managerial state that has grown into a self-sustaining empire, one that governs against the cultural foundation of the nation it claims to serve.
For a decade, Canada’s bureaucracy has metastasized at a pace that would make Brussels blush. The federal public service has ballooned nearly 40% since 2015, devouring more than $71 billion a year, while the private sector stagnates and critical services — policing, healthcare, infrastructure — crack under the weight of their own neglect. One quarter of the country now draws a paycheque from the state. That is not governance. That is a dependency web.
And it is by design.
The Managerial State Has Replaced the Nation
Canada’s institutions — courts, cultural bodies, accreditation boards, school systems, NGOs, grant councils — have been captured by a class that sees the old Canada not as something to conserve, but something to dismantle. They do not view the nation’s story as a shared inheritance. They view it as a crime scene to police.
Just look:
• Library and Archives Canada quietly purging material on Sir John A. Macdonald
• Museums turning into ideological tribunals for “settler shame”
• Waves of church burnings since 2021 with no national reckoning, no outrage, no hearings
The establishment shrugs because the ideological project benefits from forgetting.
This is exactly the world Pierre Trudeau engineered: a modern, malleable order unmoored from its historical roots — a country where values are constantly rewritten by committees, tribunals, and bureaucratic clerics who answer to no one.
The Bureaucracy Must Be Culled — Not Managed
To restore any semblance of national cohesion, conservatives must confront the real source of Canada’s dysfunction: the unelected managerial class.
British Columbia and Ontario already show what happens when the managerial state grows unchecked: armies of managers, collapsing services, and a shrinking private sector footing the bill.
Law and Order Must Be Reclaimed
A nation that selectively enforces law ceases to be a nation at all.
Authorities tracked down hundreds over the 2011 Stanley Cup riots — yet cannot be bothered to pursue the people burning churches and toppling statues?
Why? Because the bureaucracy sympathizes with the vandals.
If the state won’t defend the nation’s symbols, citizens rightly conclude that the institutions have chosen sides — and not theirs.
Use State Power — As Canada’s Founders Once Did
Sir John A. Macdonald understood something today’s conservatives have forgotten: the state is not neutral. It is an instrument. And if you do not shape it, it will shape you.
Macdonald was a nation-builder who used patronage, alignment, and decisive action to weld a Dominion out of disparate colonies. He did not subcontract identity to NGOs or bureaucrats.
Modern conservatives must rediscover this spine.
They must appoint conservatives, restructure institutions, rewrite mandates, and take control of the cultural machinery that shapes public consciousness. Not out of vengeance — but out of responsibility.
If liberals understand that governing means shaping the soul of the country, why are conservatives pretending otherwise?
The Choice Is Stark
Conservatives can either:
• Govern timidly and become temporary caretakers of a permanent progressive state
or
• Assertively reshape Canada’s institutions so that actual conservatism has the conditions to thrive again
If they choose the first path, their governments will be nothing more than an intermission — a pause in the machinery’s forward march.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
👍10❤1👏1💩1
🇨🇦 Carney Unveils New Measures to Support Steel and Lumber Sectors Hit by U.S. Tariffs
Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced a sweeping set of measures aimed at supporting Canada’s steel and softwood lumber sectors, both of which have been hit hard by escalating U.S. tariffs. The package includes new financial supports, tougher restrictions on foreign steel, and freight rate reductions to improve domestic competitiveness.
Under the new rules, Canada will sharply tighten tariff-rate quotas for steel imports from countries without a free trade agreement — decreasing access to lower-duty quotas from 50% to 20% of 2024 levels. Countries with free trade agreements, except the United States and Mexico, will see their quotas reduced from 100% to 75%. Officials say tightening quotas rather than imposing flat tariffs will help domestic producers transition away from foreign supply without disrupting critical inputs.
The federal government will also end the temporary remission of tariffs on specific steel imports used in manufacturing, food and beverage packaging, and agriculture. That remission will expire on Jan. 31, 2026. Carney says the shift could free up more than $850 million in domestic demand for Canadian steel.
Softwood lumber producers — facing 45% U.S. tariffs — will receive $500 million through the large enterprise tariff loan facility, plus another $500 million via the Business Development Bank of Canada’s lumber guarantee program. Ottawa will also create a single window for companies to access support programs, responding to calls from British Columbia and New Brunswick for national-level assistance.
To reduce domestic shipping costs, the government will provide funding to Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Kansas City to cut freight rates for moving Canadian steel and lumber between provinces by 50% starting this spring. Officials estimate the cost of the freight support program at $146 million for its first year.
Carney’s announcement comes amid worsening trade tensions with Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump has doubled steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and recently terminated all trade talks, citing an Ontario government anti-tariff advertisement. Carney reportedly apologized for the ad, but discussions with the United States have not resumed.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced a sweeping set of measures aimed at supporting Canada’s steel and softwood lumber sectors, both of which have been hit hard by escalating U.S. tariffs. The package includes new financial supports, tougher restrictions on foreign steel, and freight rate reductions to improve domestic competitiveness.
Under the new rules, Canada will sharply tighten tariff-rate quotas for steel imports from countries without a free trade agreement — decreasing access to lower-duty quotas from 50% to 20% of 2024 levels. Countries with free trade agreements, except the United States and Mexico, will see their quotas reduced from 100% to 75%. Officials say tightening quotas rather than imposing flat tariffs will help domestic producers transition away from foreign supply without disrupting critical inputs.
The federal government will also end the temporary remission of tariffs on specific steel imports used in manufacturing, food and beverage packaging, and agriculture. That remission will expire on Jan. 31, 2026. Carney says the shift could free up more than $850 million in domestic demand for Canadian steel.
Softwood lumber producers — facing 45% U.S. tariffs — will receive $500 million through the large enterprise tariff loan facility, plus another $500 million via the Business Development Bank of Canada’s lumber guarantee program. Ottawa will also create a single window for companies to access support programs, responding to calls from British Columbia and New Brunswick for national-level assistance.
To reduce domestic shipping costs, the government will provide funding to Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Kansas City to cut freight rates for moving Canadian steel and lumber between provinces by 50% starting this spring. Officials estimate the cost of the freight support program at $146 million for its first year.
Carney’s announcement comes amid worsening trade tensions with Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump has doubled steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and recently terminated all trade talks, citing an Ontario government anti-tariff advertisement. Carney reportedly apologized for the ad, but discussions with the United States have not resumed.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤡7❤1👍1🔥1