Alex Zoltan on X - "HAPPENING NOW: More from the 2026 NDP leadership convention. A young woman wearing an oversized keffiyeh makes an impassioned speech against involvement in the Iran conflict, but is quickly rebuked and reprimanded for misgendering the chair who self-identifies as "non-binary.""
Élie Cantin-Nantel on X - "The NDP is cooked. They will never win back the working class. No blue collar person will watch this charade and think that it is normal yet alone think that they belong in it. This is all a bunch of leftist academic gobbledygook."
Collin Rugg on X - "NEW: Far-left Canadians start arguing over "Equity Cards" at the 2026 NDP Leadership Convention.
Woman 1: I was standing here with my gender equity card before you called on the previous speaker. That's my point of privilege...
Woman 2: I want everyone to be mindful that these cards for individuals like myself who identify as a black woman have no value outside of this space.
Good to see Canada arguing over the issues that matter.
Video: @AmazingZoltan"
The NDP’s past, present, and future: renewal challenged as even past voters are unfamiliar with leadership field - "New data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute examines the views of more than 1,100 Canadians who voted for the NDP at least once in any of the past four federal elections, finding 44 per cent of them say they don’t know any of the leadership candidates, and another one-in-five are uncertain who would make the best leader... Fully one-quarter of these past New Democrat voters say the party is irrelevant (24%). More say its best days are in the past (40%). Whomever is tasked with the job of rebuilding will likely be focused on returning to the party’s roots as the federal avatar for the working class, something it spent decades building through cooperation with organized labour. One-quarter of past New Democrats in this survey disagree that the NDP is the party of the working class (23%)... While he had garnered some good will, Singh’s leadership marked a clear shift away from the class-first, labour-oriented politics that had long defined the party. While traditional economic priorities such as affordability and pharmacare remained, the party increasingly framed its agenda through lenses of identity, representation, and systemic inequality, with a growing focus on urban, diverse, and younger voters. That evolution broadened its appeal in some metropolitan areas but came at a cost. The party lost support in resource regions and among parts of its traditional working-class base... While 25 per cent of current Canadian voters have supported the party in one of the past four federal elections, just 13 per cent of say they are likely to give them a look in the next one"
Amy Hamm: Avi Lewis claims NDP leadership in front of waving Palestinian flag - "Lewis identifies himself as a proud anti-capitalist and eco-socialist. He has never held elected office... Standing behind Lewis during his speech were at least three people in keffiyehs, symbolic of Canada’s disturbing and growing antisemitism problem. As broadcast on CPAC, one person began to wave a large Palestinian flag behind Lewis about two minutes into his address. Another waved a “renters over landlords” protest placard — held upside down. There was not a single Canadian flag in sight on stage. Lewis’ promise about building a new foundation for the party is at odds with his leadership campaign slogan, which was “return the party to its roots… for the many, not the money.” This weekend’s convention made it clear that the party has little to do with its trade unionist roots: it’s now a party of far-left grievance culture and niche political obsessions. From the “equity cards” handed out to convention delegates, which allowed for persons with various “oppressed” or “equity-seeking” identities to jump to the front of the line and speak before other, lesser-oppressed delegates, to the wild screams of the audience, appearing rapturous after leadership-hopeful Rob Ashton shouted “Eat the damn rich!” in the volume and tone of a 1990s WWE fighter — this weekend revealed that the NDP is comprised of the dregs former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh left behind after consuming the party to support Justin Trudeau . Despite any talk about nationalized grocery stores, electoral reform, expanding (or at least maintaining) the public service sector, and unionizing every single employee in the country, petty squabbles between convention delegates made it clear that party principles will always take a back seat to identity politics and virtue signalling. On day two, a transgender-identified male insisted on speaking after a policy vote (on rescinding the Charter’s notwithstanding clause) had already passed. The delegate complained that a “cisgender woman” spoke first , despite this delegate having held out an equity card based on their gender identity. “Hey, this pertains to multiple intersecting parts of my lived experience. I’d like to speak, I was rejected,” said the delegate. The chair, lawyer and trans activist Adrienne Smith , responded apologetically before smirking about a request to have delegates form a “straight” line, so equity cards were more visible from the stage. Similarly, on day three, the convention chair and a delegate, both of whom identify as non-binary, got into a tiff over the delegate using the term “madame chair.” After a keffiyeh-adorned delegate ranted about how there should be “no debate” over Canada’s non-involvement in the current Iran conflict, Smith, appearing on the verge of tears, replied with: “I’ll thank delegates not to call me ‘madame chair,’ I’m a non-binary person, my pronouns are they, them, and their.” Watching the convention felt like watching sketch comedy from 15 years ago. But this is real life. This is the federal NDP. What isn’t clear just yet is how many Canadians are paying attention to how outrageous the NDP has become. It’s possible that there are disillusioned (with Carney) Liberal voters who will be willing to move — or move back to — the NDP as they perceive Carney’s government shifting ever more to the right. But I suspect that number will be insignificant. Unless and until the NDP purges its ranks of ideological extremism, it won’t regain relevance. And with Avi Lewis at the helm, this is unlikely to happen."
Ben Woodfinden: Dear Supreme Court, you don't have to do this - "If the Supreme Court of Canada uses this case to limit or defang Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the notwithstanding clause), as the federal Liberals and progressive activists groups are asking, it will be doing something extraordinarily dangerous and anti-democratic, judicially rewriting a foundational provision of our constitutional order and reading things into the Charter that simply don’t exist. And it will be detonating a political earthquake whose aftershocks could rip the country apart... If the Court decides to invent substantive limits on Section 33, it would be a judicial amendment to the Constitution. The text is clear, it imposes only one requirement: that a legislature expressly declare that a law shall operate notwithstanding specified Charter provisions, and that it has to be renewed every five years. There is no requirement that the invocation come after a court ruling. There is no cap on renewals. There is no proportionality test. As the court itself unanimously wrote in 1988 in Ford v Quebec, “the essential requirement of form laid down by s. 33 is that the override declaration must be an express declaration that an Act or a provision of an Act shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in s. 2 or ss. 7 to 15 of the Charter.” For the court to now discover additional requirements would be judicial invention, not interpretation. If various groups and governments want to change this, make the democratic case and use the amending formula. But the argument for Section 33 goes deeper than textual fidelity. The notwithstanding clause was the condition upon which the provinces agreed to the Charter. Alberta’s Peter Lougheed and Saskatchewan’s Allan Blakeney championed it during the patriation negotiations of 1981 because they understood that entrenching a bill of rights without some sort of legislative tool for democratic officials to have a say would hand the final word on the most contested questions of public policy to an unelected judiciary. Without Section 33, there would have been no Charter at all. It was a distinctively Canadian solution: neither the American model of judicial supremacy nor the British model of unfettered parliamentary sovereignty, but something in between. But more basically, judges are not infallible, especially on contested topics like rights. A democratic society needs a mechanism to step in when a court makes an egregious decision. And the track record of our courts proves the point... there is Cycle Toronto, in which an Ontario judge struck down the Ford government’s legislation to remove three Toronto bike lanes as a violation of Section 7 of the Charter, effectively constitutionalizing a right to bike lane infrastructure. The judge denied this is what he was doing, but by essentially using the Charter to weigh in on a public policy question he made himself a legislator and not a judge. These are matters for legislators and the voters who ultimately elect them, and hold them accountable through elections, not matters for judges to decide. These are not aberrations. They are the pattern, and precisely why Section 33 is so important. Quebec goes to the polls in October with the Parti Québécois leading and Paul St-Pierre Plamondon promising a sovereignty referendum within his first term. For the Supreme Court to hollow out the notwithstanding clause in this context would be a massive gift to the separatist cause. Quebec has understood the clause as a guarantee of parliamentary sovereignty, and its ability to defend and assert its distinct values since 1982. To defang it from the bench would confirm every argument the PQ has ever made about the possibility of Quebec protecting its values and culture within Canada’s constitutional framework. Nor would the reaction be confined to Quebec. Saskatchewan and Alberta have both invoked and vigorously defended the notwithstanding clause in recent years, and neither province’s government would accept a judicial narrowing of it quietly. A ruling that weakens the override would unite sovereigntists in Quebec and provincial autonomists in the West in common cause against Ottawa and the court, an unlikely and dangerous coalition that would exist only because the Bench created the conditions for it to arise. A ruling may not come for months, but the justices should be under no illusions. They are being asked to claim a power for themselves that the Constitution does not give them, to rewrite a provision whose plain text admits of no ambiguity, over the objections of the provinces whose agreement made the Charter possible. Please don’t do anything stupid, leave Section 33 alone."
The activists clamouring for us to be ruled by a woke juristocracy - "The Supreme Court held hearings last week regarding Bill 21 — Quebec’s secularism law, which prohibits religious dress and symbols from the province’s public-sector workplaces. The ban flouts the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but Quebec, so far, has gotten around that by invoking Section 33, the constitutional override known as the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 was Quebec’s last secure line of defence against cultural annihilation. Indeed, it’s a release valve for any province where the morality of the courts has become detached from that of the people. If you take it away, judges become the highest authority in Canada — which is why legal activists intervening in the case have been trying to convince the Supreme Court to do that all week. In its submissions, the Ontario Human Rights Commission said that Section 33 should not be invoked in a way that “fundamentally undermines the multicultural heritage of Canadians,” which, effectively, would prevent any province from asserting its own identity. The Public Interest Litigation Institute, in conjunction with an omnicause activist, argued that Section 33 can only be invoked in response to court judgments with which a legislature disagrees. The Canadian Labour Congress took that same position — and ended on an even more radical argument: that a legislature’s decision to invoke Section 33 must have a “rational basis” and should be reviewable by the courts, and should not stand where the court finds a “bad faith or animus towards a particular group.” This would defang the notwithstanding clause, potentially allowing judges to bar its use whenever they felt a government didn’t justify their choices with enough evidence. Remember when Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas ruled that removing bike lanes from a road without evidence was a violation of cyclists’ Charter rights? You could expect the same logic to stand in the way of any provincial government that doesn’t adopt the progressive politics now held by most judges in the country. The South Asian Legal Clinics of B.C. and Ontario, joint with the South Asian Women’s Community Centre, told the Supreme Court that the use of the notwithstanding clause should have to follow international law — such as the prohibition on racial discrimination. This should even include “laws with discriminatory effects of which the state was aware before enacting them but did nothing to address,” they argued. This would apply to practically every law on the books, because just about every rule in existence affects different racial groups to different degrees. Chinese and Indian taxpayers are some of the highest earners in Canada, for example, and are thus most affected by taxation. Asylum seekers are largely non-white, and thus, any benefit for Canadians that isn’t offered to asylum seekers ends up having a discriminatory effect. Submissions by the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights encouraged the court to subject the notwithstanding clause to international law — another direct request that the court undermine the sovereignty of the country. We could see courts barring democratic legislatures that don’t totally submit to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) for Charter challenges involving Indigenous individuals, and whatever else comes down the pipe. Considering how the UN is now talking about ordering western countries to pay reparations for slavery to Africa (but of course not the African and Arab nations that also participated in slave trading), this could go very poorly for us. If some enterprising Black advocacy group used the Charter to try to extract benefits from the state on the grounds that a few slaves existed in Canada in the 18th century, and if a court was sympathetic, the public could find itself without the tool to say “no.” Meanwhile, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) argued for a complete Section 33 bypass. The notwithstanding clause, you see, can be used to “override” rights that are set out in Section 15 of the Charter: race, sex, gender, religion, etc. But it cannot be used to override Section 28, which, confusingly, also protects gender equality. Because Bill 21 disproportionately affects women — not all women, but Muslim women — it should be struck down because it violates Section 28. LEAF was making an argument about intersectionality: any gender protection should apply not just to preserving the balance between men and women, but specific racial and religious subgroups, as well as those who identify as transgender and non-binary. This would be the end of Alberta’s sex-based protections for female sport and female-only spaces, because laws that preserve these discriminate against other gender identities, particularly men who identify as women. LEAF also said that Section 28 should guarantee what’s called substantive equality — that is, equal outcomes between groups. As an example of this, the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, a legal service for minority women, and a group called Women in Canadian Criminal Defence pointed to niqab- and hijab-wearing Muslim lawyers: Bill 21 would infringe on their equality by barring them from working in legal aid. That violation would trickle down to their clients, who might be “women who face intersectional and systemic barriers,” and would be disproportionately harmed by not being able to use their services. It’s a very bad sign that the Supreme Court decided to run a legal appeal like a committee in the House of Commons, giving the illusion of fairness when it was really anything but. This could be the case that ends parliamentary supremacy — the thing that makes Canada a democratic country — and it’s been spammed by interest groups snapping like piranhas for even more race-based law."
Sam Cooper on X - "REPOST: Indicators of Corruption in RCMP, CBSA, and Canadian Government Preceded Toronto Police Narco-Corruption Scandal @CBCNews @globeandmail @csiscanada @Nat_Div_RCMP"
cbcwatcher on X - ""Our sources revealed that American agencies, including Homeland Security and the DEA, had effectively sidelined Canadian law enforcement from sensitive investigations due to suspected infiltration and corruption. They described intelligence-sharing cutoffs, blocked investigations into Asian organized crime networks, and concerns that reached into the Prime Minister’s office itself. Most significantly, they warned that the Cameron Ortis case—Canada’s convicted intelligence leaker—was not an isolated incident but evidence of systemic compromise.""
Damn Trump blowing up the bilateral relationship!
Charestiste🇨🇦🍁 on X - "53% of Canadians who feel very financially stressed vote for Conservatives while 55% of those who feel very financially comfortable vote for Liberals"
Daniel Foch on X - "Canada has observed the largest decline in happiness in the world (along with the UK)"
John Carter on X - "The collapse in the happiness of Britain and Canada has been particularly rapid, and both countries have moved almost in lockstep. That isn't accidental. Canada is culturally joined at the hip to the UK. We're formally politically independent, but the Canadian political elite takes a lot of its cues from Britain. Both countries are under the thumbs of a constipated managerial class religiously dedicated to third world replacement migration, Net Zero sabotage, and social engineering in service of the great goddess Safety, and whose idea of economic growth is inflating real estate assets with money laundering and global favela biopressure."
Mike Lake on X - "Today in Question Period, a member of the Liberal leadership team accused me of misinformation... after I quoted from the 2025 Liberal election platform! Bottom line: the Liberals promised the "strongest economy in the G7." Today, we found out that Canada's economy is actually shrinking - the only G7 economy in that position. The Liberals, apparently, don't appreciate that being pointed out."
John Robson: In Mark Carney's Canada, nothing matters - "our record non-pandemic deficit of $78.3 billion piled onto a runaway national debt will be even higher due to blithe fiscal incontinence that sees a parade of press releases cross my screen about subsidizing every possible applicant as an “investment,” as if not even words matter. (A real example from last week: “$797,557 for Eviance (Canadian Centre on Disability Studies Incorporated) for their project, Spotlight on Women Entrepreneurs with Disabilities in Canada. With this federal investment…”) The police also treat policing hate crime as a part-time job while the politicians treat boasting of compassion as a full-time one. And we act as if prosperity didn’t matter. The prime minister may promise to sweep aside internal trade barriers, and build things at speeds thought impossible. But when he doesn’t actually do it nobody cares. Not even that he’s spent over $300,000 on in-flight catering alone since taking office, plus nearly half a million on hotels. We don’t even care about his attitude of detached entitlement or his carbon hypocrisy, let alone that instead of going to the office to battle a stack of tricky files, he basically spends all his time gallivanting about internationally and exchanging clichés with Keir Starmer. (Of course one could argue that given what he achieves while at his desk he might as well be abroad.) Or take housing policy… please. It blights lives and menaces social cohesion if the dream of home ownership becomes a nightmare. But we get endless windy press releases and speeches about the government “supercharging” it using its magic powers we all secretly know it hasn’t got, then housing starts go down, and nobody cares. It doesn’t dent the popularity of the politicians who promised it. It doesn’t prompt policy changes. It doesn’t even stop the press releases. To be fair, as I recently cast onto X about the PCO flubbing access to information, “when rank incompetence meets raw partisan advantage, it’s hard to know which is leading the dance.” But either way, they promise openness by default, then hide everything, and we reelect them so it doesn’t matter. Also, journalists are hyperventilating about a built-in-Canada mega-defence spend-fest. But I also know defence procurement has been a hopeless mess for decades (DND even spends hundreds of millions renting transport services because it lacks basic logistics) yet nobody is punished and nothing changes because we think planes and ships don’t matter. Or national security. Hence given firm evidence that Chinese Communists are subverting our elections, penetrating our institutions and intimidating our citizens, we do nothing whatsoever. The police don’t swoop. The promised foreign agent registry never materializes. Politicians don’t stop flying to Beijing. Exactly as if being conquered doesn’t matter. It might seem mild by comparison. But note also that no matter how much evidence accumulates that our health-care system, far from being the envy of the world, is unreasonably expensive while condemning large numbers of Canadians to pain, suffering and even death while on waiting lists, there is absolutely no discussion of repealing the Canada Health Act, as if all that suffering didn’t matter. By the same token, it doesn’t matter how badly our school system underperforms, or how much emphasis politicians and pundits place rhetorically on preparing the youth of today for the world of tomorrow, nobody is seriously interested in vouchers, charter schools or anything else that might actually improve outcomes. Instead it’s all DEI, which rather obviously makes things worse. Speaking of woke over worthwhile, what Selley thought might actually jolt us out of Neverland in December was a guy charged with stalking Jewish women being denied refugee status over seven years ago but not deported. And nobody cared. Not about security, not about the rule of law, nothing."
Carney definition of 'capital' recognized by nobody else on earth: PBO - " B.C. Premier David Eby was just about to sit down with his fellow premiers on Thursday when he declared that Alberta separatists are “traitors.” He might have been able to dismiss it as an intemperate aside, but he soon reiterated the comment on social media, writing “there is an old word to describe going to a foreign power and asking for their assistance in breaking up a sovereign country — it’s treason.” The word “treason” has been getting a lot of play in Canadian politics of late. But the crime is a very high bar under Canadian law. As per the Criminal Code, “high treason” applies only to those who “levy war against Canada,” or assist someone else who does. And even the crime of regular treason requires some element of violence. It’s defined as using “force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province.” Or, failing that, you can be convicted of treason for giving secrets to a hostile power that are “prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada.” All of this is why the only convicted traitors in Canadian history (and there’s only been a handful) are people who participated in armed rebellions against state authority. Métis leader Louis Riel being the most famous. Eby was responding to reports that members of the Alberta Prosperity Project, one of the main proponents for Alberta independence, had been meeting with officials from the Trump White House. However, the discussions don’t appear to have veered past the treason threshold of plotting a foreign-backed armed insurrection. APP co-founder Jeffrey Rath said they’d primarily been sussing out the idea of securing a $500 billion line of credit from the U.S. government if secession is successful."
Erskine-Smith says he’ll resign as MP when Ford calls provincial by-election - The Globe and Mail - "Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith says he’ll resign his federal seat as soon as a provincial by-election is called in the Toronto riding of Scarborough Southwest, although Ontario Premier Doug Ford hasn’t yet set a date for the race. Mr. Erskine-Smith’s leap into provincial politics sets the stage for his presumptive run to lead the Ontario Liberal Party – a move that will have reverberations at Queen’s Park, where Mr. Ford hopes to win a fourth term. The provincial vacancy in Scarborough Southwest was triggered by the surprise resignation of Doly Begum, who was the Ontario NDP’s deputy leader. Ms. Begum was named on Tuesday as the Liberal candidate in the federal riding of the same name, which was vacated this week by ex-minister Bill Blair, who resigned to become Canada’s next high commissioner to the United Kingdom."
Ottawa travel warning puts workers, travellers in Mexico on high alert - "Cartel violence, kidnappings and tougher federal advisory turning business trips and mine rotations into high‑risk assignments for workers in Mexico "
Notalia on X - "The fact that I see Liberal signs on lawns is astonishing. It advertises that you think the state of Canada is not only acceptable but preferable. It means you accept out of control immigration from countries that hate women, you accept endless Liberal scandals, you want housing costs to remain out of reach for anyone born after about 2000, you think giving the government money will fix the climate scam you've been sold, you want food prices through the roof, you think tampons should be in men's washrooms, you think men should be in women's sports. You're advertising you're a fucking moron. That's astounding."
Patriotism isn't always good
Misinformation is whatever left wingers don't like
Canadian Complacency means the only thing that matters is spiting the US
Damn Poilievre wasting money on an unnecessary by-election, money that could be used for healthcare!
Meme - "Just a reminder that the media told Canadians over & over again to avoid traveling to the US & to choose Mexico instead."
"Better golf! Better weather! Why Canadians should go to Mexico instead of Florida"
"More Canadians head to Mexico for winter getaways"
Left wingers are still deluded that they are in more danger from ICE than the cartels
Plus no GDP per capita growth
