🇨🇦 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
🇨🇦 Quebec Poised to Introduce New Bill Expanding Secularism Measures
The Quebec government is preparing to table another major piece of secularism legislation, continuing François Legault’s years-long effort to limit religious practices in public institutions. The new bill, expected Thursday, follows a series of laws that have reshaped the province’s approach to laïcité since the CAQ took office in 2018.
Secularism debates in Quebec predate Legault, with past governments grappling with how to balance religious accommodation and state neutrality. The 2007 Bouchard-Taylor Commission recommended an “open secularism” model that limited religious symbols in positions of authority, while the Parti Québécois’ 2013 Charter of Values and the Liberals’ 2017 Bill 62 sought to regulate religious symbols and face coverings. Both efforts were either watered down or failed to pass.
Legault’s CAQ cemented a new era of secularism with Bill 21 in 2019, banning religious symbols for teachers, judges, police and other state agents, and shielding the law from Charter challenges through the notwithstanding clause. This year, the government expanded those rules with Bill 94, extending the ban to anyone who interacts with students and emphasizing adherence to “Quebec values” in education.
The upcoming legislation is expected to go further by banning prayer rooms in universities and CEGEPs, phasing out public funding for private schools that select students based on religion, and prohibiting public institutions from exclusively offering religious-based diets. It will also broaden face-uncovering requirements across public and subsidized daycare systems.
The bill has already drawn criticism from civil liberties organizations and religious groups. The National Council of Canadian Muslims called the move “political opportunism,” warning it distracts from issues like health-care disputes and housing shortages, while polls show the CAQ’s support declining ahead of next year’s election.
Some legal experts question the need for new restrictions, noting that multiple layers of secularism law already exist. Quebec’s minister responsible for secularism, Jean-François Roberge, says the province’s laïcité framework must evolve with society, describing the proposal as “Secularism 2.0.”
#Quebec
🍁 Maple Chronicles
The Quebec government is preparing to table another major piece of secularism legislation, continuing François Legault’s years-long effort to limit religious practices in public institutions. The new bill, expected Thursday, follows a series of laws that have reshaped the province’s approach to laïcité since the CAQ took office in 2018.
Secularism debates in Quebec predate Legault, with past governments grappling with how to balance religious accommodation and state neutrality. The 2007 Bouchard-Taylor Commission recommended an “open secularism” model that limited religious symbols in positions of authority, while the Parti Québécois’ 2013 Charter of Values and the Liberals’ 2017 Bill 62 sought to regulate religious symbols and face coverings. Both efforts were either watered down or failed to pass.
Legault’s CAQ cemented a new era of secularism with Bill 21 in 2019, banning religious symbols for teachers, judges, police and other state agents, and shielding the law from Charter challenges through the notwithstanding clause. This year, the government expanded those rules with Bill 94, extending the ban to anyone who interacts with students and emphasizing adherence to “Quebec values” in education.
The upcoming legislation is expected to go further by banning prayer rooms in universities and CEGEPs, phasing out public funding for private schools that select students based on religion, and prohibiting public institutions from exclusively offering religious-based diets. It will also broaden face-uncovering requirements across public and subsidized daycare systems.
The bill has already drawn criticism from civil liberties organizations and religious groups. The National Council of Canadian Muslims called the move “political opportunism,” warning it distracts from issues like health-care disputes and housing shortages, while polls show the CAQ’s support declining ahead of next year’s election.
Some legal experts question the need for new restrictions, noting that multiple layers of secularism law already exist. Quebec’s minister responsible for secularism, Jean-François Roberge, says the province’s laïcité framework must evolve with society, describing the proposal as “Secularism 2.0.”
#Quebec
🍁 Maple Chronicles
👍9🤡4❤2👎1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇨🇦🛢️Carney & Smith Sign Pipeline MOU
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have signed a new memorandum of understanding that lays out a path for a major oil pipeline to the B.C. coast — a politically explosive move after years of federal-provincial gridlock.
The agreement signals a rare moment of alignment between Ottawa and Edmonton, with both sides committing to “nation-building projects” and special carve-outs that could finally revive west-coast export capacity.
Smith framed the deal as a long overdue step toward unlocking Alberta’s economic potential. Carney, under pressure over tariffs, investment flight, and Western alienation, is betting that cooperation with Alberta will ease tensions and stabilize a fractured national landscape.
Whether this MOU becomes steel in the ground — or stalls under B.C. opposition and environmental pushback — is now the fight to watch.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have signed a new memorandum of understanding that lays out a path for a major oil pipeline to the B.C. coast — a politically explosive move after years of federal-provincial gridlock.
The agreement signals a rare moment of alignment between Ottawa and Edmonton, with both sides committing to “nation-building projects” and special carve-outs that could finally revive west-coast export capacity.
Smith framed the deal as a long overdue step toward unlocking Alberta’s economic potential. Carney, under pressure over tariffs, investment flight, and Western alienation, is betting that cooperation with Alberta will ease tensions and stabilize a fractured national landscape.
Whether this MOU becomes steel in the ground — or stalls under B.C. opposition and environmental pushback — is now the fight to watch.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
❤9🔥1🤮1👌1
Guilbeault Resigns from Cabinet Over Carney’s Pipeline Deal
Canada’s climate crusader-in-chief just walked.
Steven Guilbeault has resigned from cabinet in protest after Prime Minister Mark Carney inked a memorandum of understanding with Alberta to advance a new oil pipeline to the West Coast — a move that detonated the fragile Liberal coalition between climate absolutists and economic pragmatists.
Guilbeault is quitting all his portfolios — Canadian Identity & Culture, Official Languages, Nature, Parks, and Carney’s Quebec lieutenant — but will remain a Liberal MP so he can speak freely.
His statement made it clear: this pipeline deal crossed his ideological red line.
He blasted the agreement for failing to consult B.C. First Nations, for “major environmental impacts,” for adjusting the tanker ban, and for exempting Alberta from clean electricity regulations — which he labeled “a serious mistake.”
It’s a dramatic rupture inside a government already under pressure from Trump tariffs, Western alienation, and a stalled climate agenda. Guilbeault backed Carney’s leadership bid. He defended the carbon tax until Carney scrapped it. He stood beside him as Ottawa promised a green transition. Now he says key climate pillars are being dismantled.
The symbolism is heavy:
A lifelong activist — arrested scaling the CN Tower, founder of Quebec’s largest environmental group — now publicly breaking with a prime minister he once championed.
Carney, in his statement, emphasized “cooperative federalism,” Indigenous partnerships, and a more flexible climate strategy built around investment rather than prohibition. The political translation: he’s not backing down.
The question now:
Does Guilbeault’s resignation signal a deeper revolt building inside the Liberal caucus — or is this the necessary price of cutting deals to keep the country stitched together?
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Canada’s climate crusader-in-chief just walked.
Steven Guilbeault has resigned from cabinet in protest after Prime Minister Mark Carney inked a memorandum of understanding with Alberta to advance a new oil pipeline to the West Coast — a move that detonated the fragile Liberal coalition between climate absolutists and economic pragmatists.
Guilbeault is quitting all his portfolios — Canadian Identity & Culture, Official Languages, Nature, Parks, and Carney’s Quebec lieutenant — but will remain a Liberal MP so he can speak freely.
His statement made it clear: this pipeline deal crossed his ideological red line.
He blasted the agreement for failing to consult B.C. First Nations, for “major environmental impacts,” for adjusting the tanker ban, and for exempting Alberta from clean electricity regulations — which he labeled “a serious mistake.”
It’s a dramatic rupture inside a government already under pressure from Trump tariffs, Western alienation, and a stalled climate agenda. Guilbeault backed Carney’s leadership bid. He defended the carbon tax until Carney scrapped it. He stood beside him as Ottawa promised a green transition. Now he says key climate pillars are being dismantled.
The symbolism is heavy:
A lifelong activist — arrested scaling the CN Tower, founder of Quebec’s largest environmental group — now publicly breaking with a prime minister he once championed.
Carney, in his statement, emphasized “cooperative federalism,” Indigenous partnerships, and a more flexible climate strategy built around investment rather than prohibition. The political translation: he’s not backing down.
The question now:
Does Guilbeault’s resignation signal a deeper revolt building inside the Liberal caucus — or is this the necessary price of cutting deals to keep the country stitched together?
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🎉12😁4💩4👍3
🇨🇦🐶 ONTARIO MOVES TO BAN INVASIVE DOG & CAT EXPERIMENTS — A FIRST IN CANADA
Ontario has tabled legislation that could rewrite the ethics of medical research in this country, proposing strict limits on invasive experimentation involving dogs and cats — a direct response to revelations that puppies in a London hospital were subjected to hours-long induced heart attacks for cardiac studies.
Bill 75, introduced Nov. 25, would ban invasive procedures on dogs and cats unless explicitly authorized (such as for veterinary research), and prohibit breeding animals in Ontario for research altogether. It would also outlaw “medically unnecessary” surgeries like declawing or vocal-cord removal.
Animal-welfare advocates are calling it one of the most consequential ethics reforms in modern Canadian science.
“If passed intact, this will be one of the most meaningful scientific and ethical shifts in Canada’s modern history,”
— Charu Chandrasekera, Canadian Institute for Animal-Free Science
But the praise isn’t universal.
Bioethicists warn the bill is arbitrary — protecting only dogs and cats, not other species capable of comparable pain. Others argue medical innovation will simply move out of Ontario, weakening research without stopping the practice.
There’s also a loophole:
The legislation bans breeding research animals in Ontario — but not importing them. Without closing that door, facilities could simply bring in dogs and cats from the U.S., where mass-breeders have long supplied Canadian labs. One such Wisconsin breeder, recently stripped of its licence amid cruelty allegations, has been supplying dogs to a Scarborough research facility.
For now, the proposal marks a rare bipartisan move on animal welfare — but the battle over where ethics, science, and compassion meet is far from settled.
#Ontario
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Ontario has tabled legislation that could rewrite the ethics of medical research in this country, proposing strict limits on invasive experimentation involving dogs and cats — a direct response to revelations that puppies in a London hospital were subjected to hours-long induced heart attacks for cardiac studies.
Bill 75, introduced Nov. 25, would ban invasive procedures on dogs and cats unless explicitly authorized (such as for veterinary research), and prohibit breeding animals in Ontario for research altogether. It would also outlaw “medically unnecessary” surgeries like declawing or vocal-cord removal.
Animal-welfare advocates are calling it one of the most consequential ethics reforms in modern Canadian science.
“If passed intact, this will be one of the most meaningful scientific and ethical shifts in Canada’s modern history,”
— Charu Chandrasekera, Canadian Institute for Animal-Free Science
But the praise isn’t universal.
Bioethicists warn the bill is arbitrary — protecting only dogs and cats, not other species capable of comparable pain. Others argue medical innovation will simply move out of Ontario, weakening research without stopping the practice.
There’s also a loophole:
The legislation bans breeding research animals in Ontario — but not importing them. Without closing that door, facilities could simply bring in dogs and cats from the U.S., where mass-breeders have long supplied Canadian labs. One such Wisconsin breeder, recently stripped of its licence amid cruelty allegations, has been supplying dogs to a Scarborough research facility.
For now, the proposal marks a rare bipartisan move on animal welfare — but the battle over where ethics, science, and compassion meet is far from settled.
#Ontario
🍁 Maple Chronicles
👍10❤1
🇨🇦 Canada’s Economy “Beats Expectations” — But the Fine Print Tells a Very Different Story
Canada’s headline GDP number for Q3 looked explosive: 2.6% annualized growth, far above the 0.5% most analysts projected.
But the moment you look under the hood, the shine wears off fast.
The bulk of the “surprise” comes from an 8.6% collapse in imports, the sharpest drop since 2022 — not from a confident, expanding economy. Exports rose only 0.7%, a tiny rebound after the massive 25% contraction last quarter. And even those export numbers rely on U.S. data still distorted by federal shutdown disruptions, meaning revisions are almost certain.
Economists called it what it is: “a very noisy report.” Growth that comes from importing less rather than producing more is hardly the sign of a healthy engine.
Outputs tell the same story. Manufacturing picked up modestly in September, goods-producing industries nudged higher, but the advance estimate for October already points to a 0.3% contraction.
Beneath the headlines, the fundamentals remain fragile:
• Household spending is soft.
• Business investment is weak.
• Tariffs from Washington continue to suppress trade flows.
• Interest rates sit just below neutral — not enough to ignite real momentum.
Economists warn that tariffs and broader uncertainty are likely to restrain growth for “a few quarters yet.” No more rate cuts are expected, but there’s no pressure to hike either — a sign of an economy drifting sideways rather than accelerating.
Yes, the top-line number beats forecasts.
No, it does not mean Canada has turned a corner.
It means Canada had a quarter where imports collapsed and the math produced a positive number.
And with October already flashing contraction, the turbulence isn’t over.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Canada’s headline GDP number for Q3 looked explosive: 2.6% annualized growth, far above the 0.5% most analysts projected.
But the moment you look under the hood, the shine wears off fast.
The bulk of the “surprise” comes from an 8.6% collapse in imports, the sharpest drop since 2022 — not from a confident, expanding economy. Exports rose only 0.7%, a tiny rebound after the massive 25% contraction last quarter. And even those export numbers rely on U.S. data still distorted by federal shutdown disruptions, meaning revisions are almost certain.
Economists called it what it is: “a very noisy report.” Growth that comes from importing less rather than producing more is hardly the sign of a healthy engine.
Outputs tell the same story. Manufacturing picked up modestly in September, goods-producing industries nudged higher, but the advance estimate for October already points to a 0.3% contraction.
Beneath the headlines, the fundamentals remain fragile:
• Household spending is soft.
• Business investment is weak.
• Tariffs from Washington continue to suppress trade flows.
• Interest rates sit just below neutral — not enough to ignite real momentum.
Economists warn that tariffs and broader uncertainty are likely to restrain growth for “a few quarters yet.” No more rate cuts are expected, but there’s no pressure to hike either — a sign of an economy drifting sideways rather than accelerating.
Yes, the top-line number beats forecasts.
No, it does not mean Canada has turned a corner.
It means Canada had a quarter where imports collapsed and the math produced a positive number.
And with October already flashing contraction, the turbulence isn’t over.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🔥3💩2🤡2
🇨🇦🛢️ Danielle Smith’s Pipeline Clears Another Major Hurdle — Now Comes the Hard Part: Who Will Actually Build It?
Alberta’s long-dreamed West Coast pipeline just took a major step forward after Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a memorandum of understanding that cracks open federal environmental roadblocks, softens tanker restrictions, and creates a path — finally — to a new export route for Alberta crude.
But there’s one giant missing piece:
No company has stepped forward to build it.
Carney himself joked to a room full of executives that if anyone was ready to commit billions to a new line, they should “come see us afterwards.” Behind the humour is a blunt truth: Ottawa delivered its side of the bargain, and now the spotlight shifts entirely to Alberta to see if Smith can turn political momentum into concrete steel in the ground.
The MOU marks a dramatic political reversal. A year ago, no one would have bet that a federal government — any federal government — would loosen key environmental constraints to help Alberta move oil to tidewater. Yet here we are: exemptions to the tanker ban, easing of emissions caps, cooperation on nuclear and AI development, and a federal promise to help push the project through Canada’s notoriously suffocating regulatory maze.
Energy executives responded with standing ovations.
And yes — the room that once bristled at Ottawa’s environmental agenda is suddenly treating Carney like a returning hero.
But applause doesn’t build pipelines.
Right now, the proposed project has no proponent, no route, and no name. Alberta has assembled a technical advisory group, bringing in major players like Enbridge, South Bow, and Trans Mountain — but none have committed to being the builder. And given the Trans Mountain expansion’s cost explosion from $7.3 billion to more than $34 billion, no company is eager to sign up for another “blank cheque” megaproject.
Insiders say any private sponsor will want iron-clad financial protections from cost overruns outside their control — likely from Alberta, Ottawa, or both. Without that, the financial risk is simply too high.
And even with federal support, resistance remains. Political opposition in British Columbia persists. Certain First Nations along the coast have not been consulted. Environmental groups are preparing their legal artillery. And the regulatory gauntlet itself — even with expedited support — is still a years-long slog.
Meanwhile, Ottawa’s side of the bargain includes a quiet trade:
Carney expects the oilsands sector to finally green-light the Pathways Alliance carbon capture megaproject.
That project, which proposes a 400-kilometre carbon pipeline connecting 20 oilsands facilities to a storage hub near Cold Lake, has been stalled for years. The new MOU gives companies long-term carbon pricing certainty — something experts believe puts Pathways close to a final investment decision.
But that project too comes with its own opposition. Indigenous leaders near Cold Lake say they still haven’t received adequate safety assurances. Concerns about underground storage risks remain unresolved.
In other words: the deal unlocks the door — but Alberta still has to walk through it. Smith wanted a federal government ready to make big exceptions. She got them. Now industry and province must prove the pipeline isn’t just political theatre — but actually buildable, financeable, and legally survivable.
One former oilsands executive put it bluntly: “There’s too much money at stake for this not to happen.”
Maybe. But until a major company steps up and takes ownership, this pipeline is still a high-stakes question mark dressed as a breakthrough.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
Alberta’s long-dreamed West Coast pipeline just took a major step forward after Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a memorandum of understanding that cracks open federal environmental roadblocks, softens tanker restrictions, and creates a path — finally — to a new export route for Alberta crude.
But there’s one giant missing piece:
No company has stepped forward to build it.
Carney himself joked to a room full of executives that if anyone was ready to commit billions to a new line, they should “come see us afterwards.” Behind the humour is a blunt truth: Ottawa delivered its side of the bargain, and now the spotlight shifts entirely to Alberta to see if Smith can turn political momentum into concrete steel in the ground.
The MOU marks a dramatic political reversal. A year ago, no one would have bet that a federal government — any federal government — would loosen key environmental constraints to help Alberta move oil to tidewater. Yet here we are: exemptions to the tanker ban, easing of emissions caps, cooperation on nuclear and AI development, and a federal promise to help push the project through Canada’s notoriously suffocating regulatory maze.
Energy executives responded with standing ovations.
And yes — the room that once bristled at Ottawa’s environmental agenda is suddenly treating Carney like a returning hero.
But applause doesn’t build pipelines.
Right now, the proposed project has no proponent, no route, and no name. Alberta has assembled a technical advisory group, bringing in major players like Enbridge, South Bow, and Trans Mountain — but none have committed to being the builder. And given the Trans Mountain expansion’s cost explosion from $7.3 billion to more than $34 billion, no company is eager to sign up for another “blank cheque” megaproject.
Insiders say any private sponsor will want iron-clad financial protections from cost overruns outside their control — likely from Alberta, Ottawa, or both. Without that, the financial risk is simply too high.
And even with federal support, resistance remains. Political opposition in British Columbia persists. Certain First Nations along the coast have not been consulted. Environmental groups are preparing their legal artillery. And the regulatory gauntlet itself — even with expedited support — is still a years-long slog.
Meanwhile, Ottawa’s side of the bargain includes a quiet trade:
Carney expects the oilsands sector to finally green-light the Pathways Alliance carbon capture megaproject.
That project, which proposes a 400-kilometre carbon pipeline connecting 20 oilsands facilities to a storage hub near Cold Lake, has been stalled for years. The new MOU gives companies long-term carbon pricing certainty — something experts believe puts Pathways close to a final investment decision.
But that project too comes with its own opposition. Indigenous leaders near Cold Lake say they still haven’t received adequate safety assurances. Concerns about underground storage risks remain unresolved.
In other words: the deal unlocks the door — but Alberta still has to walk through it. Smith wanted a federal government ready to make big exceptions. She got them. Now industry and province must prove the pipeline isn’t just political theatre — but actually buildable, financeable, and legally survivable.
One former oilsands executive put it bluntly: “There’s too much money at stake for this not to happen.”
Maybe. But until a major company steps up and takes ownership, this pipeline is still a high-stakes question mark dressed as a breakthrough.
#Alberta
🍁 Maple Chronicles
🤔3👍1👎1💩1🤡1
🇨🇦📮 CANADIANS ASK: CAN WE STILL TRUST CANADA POST FOR THE HOLIDAYS?
With less than a month until Christmas, the country’s most stressed institution isn’t Santa — it’s Canada Post.
After two years of bitter bargaining, rotating strikes, and a Crown corporation openly signalling job cuts and service cuts, Canadians are facing the most basic question: Will packages actually arrive?
Yes, there’s a “deal in principle.” But that phrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Nothing is signed. Nothing is ratified. And the union still retains the legal right to walk out again if negotiations collapse. In other words: a holiday strike is still on the table.
Businesses have already voted with their feet. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:
• 13% of SMEs stopped using Canada Post entirely after the 2024 strike.
• 55% now use it less often.
Retailers describe service as “spotty,” “unreliable,” and “too risky” for the Christmas crunch — many shifting to private couriers just to keep customers from revolting.
And ordinary Canadians aren’t feeling reassured either.
The Canada Post subreddit — now over 100,000 members — reads like a support group for frustrated workers and burned customers. Even with rotating strikes paused, trust hasn’t recovered.
So is it safe to mail cards and gifts?
For now, yes — mail is moving. But with tentative deals still being parsed “line by line,” nothing stops a breakdown from triggering renewed walkouts.
Shipping timelines — based on industry trackers — look roughly like this:
• Dec. 10 — National regular parcel cutoff
• Dec. 16 — Regional
• Dec. 19 — Local
• Dec. 19–23 — Cards & lettermail (approx.)
But even these estimates come with the same asterisk that now defines Canada Post: no guarantees.
Add to that the irony that many remote and Indigenous communities still rely exclusively on Canada Post — and even private couriers often hand the “last mile” back to the same struggling Crown corporation.
Canada Post warns delays can be caused by “acts of God,” volume surges, or labour disruptions.
This season, Canadians are quietly wondering if the real act of God will be just getting their parcels delivered on time.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
With less than a month until Christmas, the country’s most stressed institution isn’t Santa — it’s Canada Post.
After two years of bitter bargaining, rotating strikes, and a Crown corporation openly signalling job cuts and service cuts, Canadians are facing the most basic question: Will packages actually arrive?
Yes, there’s a “deal in principle.” But that phrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Nothing is signed. Nothing is ratified. And the union still retains the legal right to walk out again if negotiations collapse. In other words: a holiday strike is still on the table.
Businesses have already voted with their feet. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:
• 13% of SMEs stopped using Canada Post entirely after the 2024 strike.
• 55% now use it less often.
Retailers describe service as “spotty,” “unreliable,” and “too risky” for the Christmas crunch — many shifting to private couriers just to keep customers from revolting.
And ordinary Canadians aren’t feeling reassured either.
The Canada Post subreddit — now over 100,000 members — reads like a support group for frustrated workers and burned customers. Even with rotating strikes paused, trust hasn’t recovered.
So is it safe to mail cards and gifts?
For now, yes — mail is moving. But with tentative deals still being parsed “line by line,” nothing stops a breakdown from triggering renewed walkouts.
Shipping timelines — based on industry trackers — look roughly like this:
• Dec. 10 — National regular parcel cutoff
• Dec. 16 — Regional
• Dec. 19 — Local
• Dec. 19–23 — Cards & lettermail (approx.)
But even these estimates come with the same asterisk that now defines Canada Post: no guarantees.
Add to that the irony that many remote and Indigenous communities still rely exclusively on Canada Post — and even private couriers often hand the “last mile” back to the same struggling Crown corporation.
Canada Post warns delays can be caused by “acts of God,” volume surges, or labour disruptions.
This season, Canadians are quietly wondering if the real act of God will be just getting their parcels delivered on time.
#Canada
🍁 Maple Chronicles
💯2👎1