Tag: canada

Trump terminates trade talks with Canada over Ontario’s ‘fake’ anti-tariff ad featuring Ronald Reagan

President Trump abruptly called off trade negotiations with Canada on Thursday after the Ontario government funded an anti-tariff ad campaign featuring the voice of President Ronald Reagan.

“The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs,” Trump wrote in a late-night Truth Social post.

The president said the $75 million ad was made “to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts” in cases challenging Trump’s authority to issue tariffs.

“TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A,” Trump argued.

“Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED,” he declared. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Keep reading

Carney urges Canadians to ‘make sacrifices’ ahead of record deficit

Prime Minister Mark Carney forewarned future challenges to Canada’s economy, which he suggested was performing “reasonably well” in a pre-budget address to the nation.

Carney warned on October 22 at the University of Ottawa that economic transformation would require “some sacrifices” and time, a message tied to the November 4 budget.

“Our government will work relentlessly to cut waste and drive efficiencies,” he claimed, “and when we have to make difficult choices.”

“We will be thoughtful, we will be transparent, we’ll be fair, we will work collaboratively with our colleagues across the aisle to build, protect, and empower Canadians.”

The upcoming budget is projected to include a “substantial” deficit, according to Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon. While specific program cuts haven’t been announced, the Liberal government states key support programs like national dental and childcare will continue.

Carney’s government plans to balance the “operating deficit” in three years by reducing “wasteful government spending,” such as initiatives to reduce red tape. He noted that federal spending has grown over 7% year-over-year for the past decade, exceeding economic growth, a trend that must change.

The Liberal government plans to separate daily spending from capital investment in future budgets. While they claim this provides a clearer picture and prioritizes major projects, the Conservatives accuse them of attempting to “bury the deficit.”

On May 18, the former central banker delayed the spring budget, promising a “comprehensive, effective, ambitious, prudent budget”, to address the impact of U.S. tariffs.

Keep reading

Disabled Canadians increasingly under pressure to opt for euthanasia during routine doctor visits

Inclusion Canada CEO Krista Carr revealed that many disabled Canadians are being pressured to end their lives with euthanasia during routine medical appointments.

During an October 8 session of the Parliamentary Finance Committee, Carr, an advocate against Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), explained that Canada’s expansion of MAiD to the non-terminally ill has led to people with disabilities being pressured to end their lives during unrelated medical visits.

“Since the bill was brought in around Track 2 MAID … that has certainly changed people’s interactions with the healthcare system,” she explained, referring to the 2021 expansion that allowed those who are chronically ill but not terminally ill to be euthanized.

“People with disabilities are now very much afraid in many circumstances to show up in the health care system with regular health concerns, because often MAID is suggested as a solution to what is considered to be intolerable suffering,” she revealed.

Overall, 116 of Ontario’s 4,528 euthanasia deaths in 2023 involved non-terminal patients, with many of those killed from impoverished communities.

Data from Ontario’s chief coroner for 2023 revealed that over three-quarters of those euthanized when death wasn’t imminent required disability support before their death.

Similarly, nearly 29% of those killed when they were not terminally ill lived in the poorest parts of Ontario, and only 20% of the province’s general population lives in those areas.

Keep reading

Canada surrenders control of future health crises to WHO with ‘pandemic agreement’: report

Canada’s top constitutional freedom group warned that government officials have “relinquished” control over “future health crises” by accepting the terms of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) revised International Health Regulations (IHR).

The warning came in a report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). The group said that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s acceptance earlier this year of the WHO’s globalist-minded “pandemic agreement” has “placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“By accepting the WHO’s revised IHR, the report explains, Canada has relinquished its own control over future health crises and instead has agreed to let the WHO determine when a ‘pandemic emergency’ exists and what Canada must do to respond to it, after which Canada must report back to the WHO,” the JCCF noted.

The report, titled Canada’s Surrender of Sovereignty: New WHO health regulations undermine Canadian democracy and Charter freedoms, was authored by Nigel Hannaford, a veteran journalist and researcher.

The WHO’s IHR amendments, which took effect on September 19, are “binding,” according to the organization. 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canada’s government under Carney signed onto them in May.

Hannaford warned in his report that “(t)he WHO has no legal authority to impose orders on any country, nor does the WHO possess an army, police, or courts to enforce its orders or regulations.”

“Nevertheless, the WHO regards its own regulations as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally binding on 196 countries, including Canada” he wrote. 

Hannaford noted that “Surrendering Canada’s sovereignty” to the IHR bodies is itself “contrary to the constitutional principle of democratic accountability, also found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“Canada’s health policies must reflect the needs, desires, and freedoms of Canadians – not the mandates of distant bureaucrats in Geneva or global elites in Davos. A free and democratic Canada requires vigilance and action on the part of Canadians. The time to act is now” he wrote. 

Keep reading

Toronto airport requests approval of ‘digital IDs’ for domestic airport travel

Canadian airport officials asked the federal government to implement a digital ID for domestic travelers as an option in the name of “modernization.”

Currently, domestic travelers are only required to use physical identification for air travel, including a driver’s license, passport, or government-issued ID card.

However, Toronto’s Pearson International Airport recently recommended that Canada’s Secure Air Travel Regulations be amended to allow for “digital ID to be recognized.”

“To modernize and support enhanced passenger experience, we ask that the government endorse system-wide border and screening modernization including immediate regulatory changes,” Pearson representatives told Canada’s House of Commons finance committee in a recent submission.

Airport managers wrote that “Canada should proactively embrace both emerging and proven technologies that have the potential to enhance the passenger experience and improve operational efficiency and promote productivity across the sector.” 

“Key initiatives should include accelerating the adoption of a common digital ID for both domestic and international travel.”

The Canadian Airports Council also told Parliament that a national digital ID program should start with airport travelers, including the introduction of “biometrics.”

The Council asked to “enable digital ID and biometrics in air travel” to allow it to “enable more efficient use of space, reduce pressure on infrastructure and enhance security.”

“At present, Canada is behind our international peers in ensuring travel process security screening, Customs and border procedures and boarding are modern, efficient, simple and biometrically based,” it wrote.

Only non-Canadians are currently mandated to undergo biometric screening as well as fingerprint scans when they enter Canada.

subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic

To date, Parliamentary committees have shot down requests for a domestic national identification system.

Some nations, such as the United Kingdom, have recently said they will mandate digital ID using the pretext of illegal immigration as the catalyst.

Keep reading

The Left’s ‘stolen-land’ rhetoric threatens private property

Left-wing “land acknowlegements” could be having real-world consequences for property owners in Canada. And the United States may be next.

It began as a polite ritual. Before meetings or ceremonies, institutions began acknowledging that their buildings sit on land once inhabited by Indigenous peoples: “We recognize this is the unceded territory of the [tribe name].” The practice, with roots in Australia as far back as the 1970s, was picked up in Canada following the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission report and moved quickly from Canada to left-leaning universities, city councils and churches in the 2020s. Many saw it as a mere courtesy. But beneath the symbolism lies deeper political movement that could erode the very foundation of private property.

In Canada, that shift is already underway. A British Columbia Supreme Court ruling this year suggested that even privately owned, fee-simple land might rest on “defective and invalid” title if an Aboriginal title still exists. For a nation built on English common-law property rights, that’s quite a statement. As columnist Kevin Klein warns in the Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa’s silence on the issue is turning Crown land — once considered secure — into “conditional land.” If the Crown’s title is conditional, how long before yours is?

Land acknowledgements may sound harmless, but they prepare the rhetorical ground for these legal arguments. Once governments, universities, and corporations declare publicly that their property sits on “stolen land,” they’ve already accepted the premise that they don’t actually own it. Activists then insist that recognition demands restitution — and suddenly the issue moves from ceremony to court.

That’s what’s happening in Canada, where some judges now treat Indigenous land claims as concurrent with existing titles. For investors, homeowners, and farmers alike, that’s a recipe for uncertainty — and eventually, seizure of land.

The Left insists this is “reconciliation,” not revolution. But the outcome is the same. Private property rights are fundamental to Western liberty. If property is always subject to retroactive moral judgments or undefined shared stewardship, ownership loses to temporary permission.

In the United States, land acknowledgements have also run rapid, typically in the same academic and bureaucratic circles that look askance at capitalism and private property.

None of this means ignoring history or dismissing past injustices, just refusing to let symbolic guilt erode the legal system. Reconciliation should not come at the cost of the rule of law. Governments must make clear that while we honor history, property rights remain absolute under modern law.

The growing unease north of the border is a warning to America: beware the moral language that undermines legal foundations. Today’s “land acknowledgement” may be tomorrow’s title challenge. And once you concede the premise that your land isn’t really yours, it may not be for long.

Keep reading

Canada Bill Sponsor Says Age Verification, Blocking Powers, Could Apply to Any Site, Even Social Media

A new Canadian Senate proposal on age verification has raised serious questions about the future of free expression and online access.

The bill’s sponsor has confirmed that the government would have the authority to decide which websites fall under its control, including platforms that have nothing to do with pornography.

Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, who introduced Bill S-209, told a Senate committee that enforcement would ultimately be at the discretion of the federal government. “The government will decide on the scope, so the government could decide to include social media like X in its choices,” she said.

That statement cuts to the core of the controversy. The Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act was introduced as a measure aimed at sites that make adult content available for commercial purposes.

Yet, according to its sponsor, the government could extend it to any platform where some form of explicit content can be found, even if it is incidental or user-generated.

Bill S-209 completed its second reading in the Senate on June 12, 2025, and is now under committee review, which last met on October 9.

If passed, it would empower the government to impose mandatory age ID verification requirements across a wide range of online services. Those who fail to comply could face court-ordered blocking by Canadian internet service providers.

Although the proposal is framed as protecting minors, its broad wording leaves the door open for the government to demand compliance from social media companies, search engines, or discussion forums where adult material may appear in isolated cases.

Under Section 12, the Cabinet is granted full regulatory authority to determine which sites are covered and to set the rules for verification technologies.

Keep reading

Canada’s AG Claims Anti-“Hate” Law Isn’t About Censorship

Governments around the world have a long history of introducing laws that restrict speech while insisting they are not acts of censorship.

Each new proposal is framed as a measure to promote safety, combat misinformation, or protect vulnerable communities, yet the result is often the same: expanded state authority over what citizens can say or share.

Now Canada’s Attorney General Sean Fraser is attempting to reassure Canadians that the federal government’s new hate speech legislation, Bill C-9, is not a disguised attempt to police online expression.

The proposal, already facing strong opposition from free expression advocates, introduces new “hate-related” offenses and expands police powers over what is labeled “hatred” in the Criminal Code.

Fraser told MPs that the government is not seeking to criminalize internet activity that is currently legal.

“We should recognize there are many acts we may find offensive that do not constitute hate for the purpose of the Criminal Code,” he said during his appearance before the Commons justice committee.

He insisted the bill’s purpose is not censorship, even as he confirmed that its provisions would apply equally to speech on the internet and in public spaces.

The legislation, officially titled An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Combatting Hate Act), also bans the display of Nazi and Hamas symbols that are deemed to promote hatred, makes it an offense to obstruct religious or cultural ceremonies, and rewrites how “hatred” is defined.

The bill frames it as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.”

Free speech advocates have warned that this rewording lowers the legal bar by abandoning the Supreme Court’s requirement that hatred must be “an emotion of an intense and extreme nature.”

Fraser responded that any online statement would only be subject to prosecution if it already met the threshold for hate propaganda under existing law. “The only circumstance where you could imagine some online comment attracting scrutiny under this law would attach to behavior that is criminal today but is punished less severely,” he told the committee.

Keep reading

Trans activist who sued female beauty spa for refusing to give her bikini wax is now WANTED by police

A trans woman with a penis who gained notoriety after suing beauty spas that refused to bikini wax has had a warrant issued for her arrest. 

Police in Alberta, Canada, are searching for Jessica Yaniv, also known as Jessica Simpson, in relation to a criminal harassment charge according to Western Standard.

The outlet spoke with the complainant who said they are trying to confirm if the search extends to British Columbia, where Yaniv is from.  

No court records have yet been released in relation to the case and Calgary Police have yet to comment, so further details of the harassment have not been disclosed. 

In Canada warrants can be forced across different provinces if they are filed under a national database or authorized under a interprovincial cooperation agreement. 

Yaniv first made headlines in 2018 after filing suit against a number of salons after they refused to wax her.

She claimed they had actively discriminated against her for her gender identity and male genitalia. The cases were all later dismissed. 

In 2019 she was also hit with accusations that she had engaged in sexually inappropriate communications with a minor.

One woman, Jessica Rumpel, previously told the Daily Mail that Yaniv had sent her her sexually inappropriate messages when she was just 14.

Those are said to have included questions about whether it would be ok for her to change in front of another woman, and how to go about making that happen. 

Rumpel went public with her claims after others posted about similar alleged incidents on social media. 

Yaniv went on to say that she doesn’t know Rumpel and suggested someone posing as her may have contacted her.

Rumpel however shared Twitter messages from 2014 that appear to have come from Yaniv’s current verified account. 

‘I feel [Yaniv] took advantage of me,’ Rumpel told the Daily Mai back in 2019. ‘I felt [Yaniv] kinda took my kindness for granted.’ 

She said that at the time Yaniv sent the message she was unphased and only later realized the behavior was predatory. 

In 2019 she was also charged with possession of a prohibited weapon after she waving a taser while on a livestream, she received a conditional discharge.

Keep reading

Canada’s Privacy Watchdog Not Consulted on Bill C-8, Enabling Secret Internet & Phone Shutdowns

Legislation that would allow federal ministers to secretly order telecom providers to cut off a Canadian’s phone or internet access is advancing without any input from the country’s top privacy authority.

Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne told a Commons committee that his office was never asked to review Bill C-8 before it was introduced.

The bill would authorize the cabinet to compel telecom companies to block services to individuals considered a security threat, without needing a judge’s approval or any public disclosure.

“The issue never came up,” Dufresne said during testimony before the House of Commons ethics committee. He confirmed, “We are not consulted on specific pieces of legislation before they are tabled.”

Bill C-8 would allow the federal cabinet to direct a telecom provider to deny all services to a specific person, based solely on the government’s assessment of a threat. No warrant would be required. No independent body would be tasked with reviewing the decision.

Conservative MP Michael Barrett raised an alarm over what he described as a dangerous overreach. He said the bill would allow the government to quietly seize control of individuals’ communications, with no transparency and no legal checks.

“Without meaningful limits, bills like C-8 can hand the government secret powers over Canadians’ communications,” said Barrett. “It’s a serious setback for privacy and for democracy.”

He pressed Dufresne on whether Parliament should be required to conduct privacy assessments before passing legislation with such broad surveillance potential.

“Isn’t Parliament simply being asked to grant sweeping powers of surveillance to the government without a formal review?” Barrett asked.

Dufresne responded, “It’s not a legal obligation under the Privacy Act.”

While acknowledging the importance of national security, Dufresne warned that such measures must not override core privacy protections. “We need to make sure that by protecting national security, we are not doing so at the expense of privacy,” he said.

A previous version of the idea, Bill C-26, failed in an earlier Parliament after concerns over its civil liberties implications.

Keep reading