Even completely innocent people who have nothing to hide rightfully cherish their ability to think, speak, explore ideas, and meet with others without the state silently observing their every move. If we are not comfortable with a nosy neighbour or even a close friend knowing everything about us, why should we accept the state having that power?

Beyond the intrinsic value of privacy, there is also a practical reason to oppose expanding government surveillance: human nature is a mixture of good and evil. Governments are made up of people, and people in power can do great harm. More citizens were murdered by their own governments in the twentieth century than the number of soldiers who died on the battlefields. From Stalin and Mao to Hitler and Pol Pot, state surveillance was a key tool used to enforce obedience, crush dissent, maintain power, and perpetrate genocides. Privacy is the shield of a free people.

MPs will soon vote on Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act. Under the pretext of “public safety,” Bill C-22 would expand state power over ordinary Canadians while doing nothing to address the actual legal architecture that allows transnational criminal networks to operate in Canada.

Under its broad definition of “electronic service providers,” Bill C-22 could require AI companies and “core providers” like Rogers, Bell, Google, and WhatsApp to retain metadata for up to one year and build systems for rapid data handover when law enforcement presents a valid authorization. Bill C-22 also makes it easier for police to obtain a warrant and demand users’ subscriber information (name, address, email, IP address, account details, etc.) by lowering the legal standard from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect.” 

Law professor Michael Geist posits that mandatory metadata retention for internet service providers is one of the most privacy-invasive tools available, creating backdoor surveillance capabilities extending beyond the government’s stated anti-crime goals.

Numerous companies have stated publicly that Bill C-22 would force them to compromise their no-logs architecture and encryption protections. They would leave Canada and stop providing their services to Canadians.

Signal, the secure messaging service used by millions of Canadians, has warned it would rather withdraw from Canada than compromise the privacy promises it has made to its users. Signal is used by journalists and by dissidents seeking to avoid scrutiny from repressive regimes, specifically because it doesn’t store user chats or contact lists.

Bill C-22 would require private companies to engineer vulnerabilities into their electronic systems that can be exploited by hackers, with private messaging services serving as an ideal target for foreign adversaries.

The concern from Signal and other tech companies is that the bill would effectively require them to engineer backdoors into their software. Tiwari was blunt about why that’s a problem: “End-to-end encryption is incompatible with exceptional access, no matter how creative the route taken to achieve it.” Tiwari called provisions that force vulnerabilities into that kind of infrastructure “a grave threat to privacy everywhere.”

Apple and Meta oppose Bill C-22, stating that the legislation could turn private companies into an arm of the government’s surveillance apparatus.

Non-profit consumer advocate group OpenMedia argues that Bill C-22 “continues to create an unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous surveillance architecture that could impact every digital tool people in Canada depend on every day.”

Tobi Lütke, founder and chief executive of Shopify, Canada’s most important technology company, has called Bill C-22 "a huge mistake" that “may well end up dealing a death blow to Canadian tech viability,” and has publicly urged Ottawa’s Public Safety Minister to study expert opinion on the bill’s fatal flaws. Windscribe, the Toronto-headquartered virtual private network provider, has threatened to move its headquarters out of Canada if Bill C-22 passes.

Proton VPN has warned that Bill C-22 empowers the government to order VPN providers in Canada to retain metadata for up to a year. Operating under Swiss and European jurisdiction, Proton VPN has put it bluntly: “Complying with foreign surveillance orders without Swiss legal process is a criminal offence. Not happening.” NordVPN states its no-logs policy is not up for debate. Likewise, Toronto-based Windscribe VPN states that Bill C-22 is driving VPN businesses out of Canada because of the required user logging.

South of our border, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Brian Mast have written to Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, warning that Bill C-22 would “drastically expand Canada’s surveillance and data access powers in ways that create significant cross-border risks to the security and data privacy of Americans.”

Everyone supports public safety and fighting crime effectively. We can and must do this without turning Canada into a surveillance state. Now is the time for freedom-loving Canadians to contact their MP and urge him or her to vote against Bill C-22.

John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

Blacklock's Reporter says in-house Privy Council Office research found only 41% of Canadians surveyed said they trust the federal government to make good decisions, while 47% expressed distrust, including 29% who said they “strongly distrust” Ottawa.

The report, titled Trust, Information And Digital Ecosystems, was commissioned to measure Canadians’ views on public institutions, democracy and media consumption habits.

“The purpose of this study is to understand opinions and behaviour relating to public trust, Canadian democracy and information consumption across multiple areas of Canadian public,” the report stated.

Public confidence varied significantly depending on the issue.

Canadians expressed the highest levels of trust in the federal government’s handling of international trade at 53%, followed closely by national defence at 52%. Confidence dropped on economic management, where only 46% expressed trust.

Trust levels were even lower on firearms regulation at 41%, immigration at 35% and housing at just 24%.

Distrust of provincial governments was even higher, averaging 50% nationwide, though the report did not provide provincial breakdowns.

The Privy Council Office spent $276,808 on the research conducted by Ottawa-based Ekos Research Associates.

Confidence in politicians was especially weak.

Only 24% of respondents said they trust politicians in Canada, compared to 46% who trust news media, 61% who trust police and 71% who trust the Canadian Armed Forces.

The findings also pointed to growing public cynicism about whether ordinary Canadians have any influence over the political system.

When asked whether people like them can influence politics in Canada, 66% said “very little” or “not at all.”

Public satisfaction with Canadian democracy also appears to be eroding.

Only 48% said they were satisfied with the way democracy functions in Canada, while 40% expressed dissatisfaction.

The report also found widespread skepticism about fairness in the justice system. A majority of 55% disagreed with the statement that the Canadian justice system treats everyone equally, while only 7% strongly agreed.

Canadians also expressed concerns about foreign interference in elections.

Forty-one per cent said they believed foreign actors likely influenced the 2025 federal election. Nearly half — 47% — specifically believed China attempted to interfere in the vote.

The report further revealed growing suspicion toward government narratives and institutions more broadly.

Thirty per cent of respondents said Canada does not have a political system that benefits all people, while 34% agreed that “official government accounts of events cannot be trusted.”

May 21 was a whirlwind of emotion. Waiting for, and listening to, Danielle Smith’s announcement of an independence question being added to the October 19 ballot had me on the edge of my seat. Full of optimistic anticipation, I couldn’t wait to hear that our hard-earned question had miraculously found its way to a referendum after a Liberal judge unlawfully shot it down. It only took a few minutes, though, for all that to change. I won’t lie, my emotions ran the full negative gamut, ranging from shock and disappointment to anger and fury, before settling on crushed as I crawled into bed.

But with a new day came a new perspective, and something occurred to me. Could this be the best thing that has ever happened to Western independence?

As much as supporters of this movement like to believe that their push for independence is mainstream and reasonable, the overwhelming majority of Albertans still think otherwise. Giving them a chance to better understand the cause will only help to alleviate their doubts. And remarkably, the mainstream media seems to believe that this new referendum question is a game-changer. Despite my own thoughts on that being quite different, I can still recognize that for the next five months, all the major news outlets will be peddling independence like mad. Though they’ll be slamming the idea as terrible and slinging mud far and wide in an effort to disgrace anyone attached to it, what they’re really doing is advertising. And as P.T. Barnum once astutely observed, ‘there’s no such thing as bad publicity.’ In other words, time and continued national debate will only help to normalize and rationalize the independence argument.

Then I remembered the insult of the shared ballot and how it trivializes our question. But even this sting was replaced by a new thought: Is that really so bad? Think about it. For a movement that hasn’t quite found its way into being socially acceptable, it gives people who don’t have the conviction to stand in an independence lineup a chance to vote without judgment. After all, they’re not in line to support independence, they’re there to vote on immigration — nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

It also has the added benefit of getting a lot more people involved. After all, Albertans, who had no intention of joining the discussion on independence, will almost certainly vote on it now, as they’re already checking off boxes for something else. The likelihood of them skipping it is low, and the sheer number of people voting will only make the issue more significant nationally.

And lastly, as much as it breaks my heart, this is not a vote on independence. On one hand, this means independence supporters gain very little, but on the other hand, fence sitters have nothing to lose. It makes voicing their frustrations with Ottawa easier, as checking the ‘leave’ box doesn’t actually cause us to go. There is no doubt that millions of Albertans are sick and tired of the relationship our province has with the East, but not all of those people are ready to call it quits. The way the question is currently phrased allows those individuals to express their anger while risking nothing at all.

I truly believe the turnout for this referendum will be exponentially larger than it being placed with other questions, and written the way it is. I also believe hundreds of thousands of fence sitters, maybe even millions, will be much more likely to vote on leaving.

So, what do we have to lose? Time will increase our numbers, overturn politically motivated judges, and normalize our cause. Trump will still be President, and his feelings towards Canada have no reason to change. CUSMA will still not be resolved, a pipeline to the West Coast will still not exist, and the price of oil has no reason to go down anytime soon. And perhaps the strongest argument of all: no one brings greater national and international attention to our cause like our own Premier. So, begrudgingly, I’m forced to consider — maybe this is for the best.

R.T. Wells is a veteran of the Royal Canadian Navy.

Police say the driver, a 31-year-old man from Nelson, had been spotted speeding through the same stretch of highway at roughly the same time on multiple days before officers moved in.

The driver was stopped just before 6:30 a.m. on May 14 by an on-duty BC Highway Patrol officer conducting enforcement near Salmo. A radar reading showed the blue hatchback travelling 48 km/h over the posted speed limit.

According to police, an off-duty officer had previously observed the same vehicle speeding in the area over several days and passed the information along.

“BC Highway Patrol uses statistics, data from partner agencies, and reports from the public to develop enforcement intelligence about high-risk driving, but sometimes our eyeballs will do the trick,” said BC Highway Patrol Cpl. Michael McLaughlin.

“Even when we’re off duty, we still care about public safety. This speeding vehicle could not be ignored.”

The driver was issued a $368 excessive speeding ticket under the BC Motor Vehicle Act, along with a $109 fine for illegal window tint.

Police also issued an order requiring the driver to correct the illegal tinting and replace a missing front licence plate.

In addition to the fines, the driver was forced to pay towing costs and the expenses associated with a seven-day vehicle impound.

Police say the financial penalties will continue long after the traffic stop, with high-risk driver premiums expected to push the total cost above $2,500 over the next three years.

The driver left the scene in the passenger seat of the tow truck carrying his impounded hatchback.

The enforcement action comes during BC’s annual High-Risk Driving Campaign in May, which targets excessive speeding, distracted driving and impaired driving across the province.

“We’re going to be on the right side of history,” Carney told reporters while reaffirming Ottawa’s commitment to Ukraine and NATO allies.

Blacklock's Reporter said official figures show Canada has committed $22.6 billion in aid to Ukraine since the Russian invasion began.

The total includes $8.64 billion in military and foreign aid, more than $1 billion in refugee support inside Canada and another $13.93 billion in loans, credit arrangements and guarantees.

Carney said Canada would continue cooperating with allies and expanding defence partnerships, particularly in areas tied to the war in Ukraine.

“We will be cooperating with other partners and diversifying our defence cooperation as we should, as a member of NATO,” said Carney.

“As we should in critical areas such as Ukraine where it is outside direct NATO responsibility but it’s consistent with our values as Canada and it’s consistent with the values of the vast number of our partners.”

“We stand there and Ukraine is going to triumph and we’re going to be on the right side of history for that,” he added.

The Prime Minister also argued the war was reshaping military strategy worldwide and providing lessons for the Canadian Armed Forces.

“The tragedy of the war in Ukraine, the unjustified attack on Ukraine, is changing fundamentally the nature of offence and defence in a ground war in Europe but also with broader applications,” said Carney.

“Drone warfare, and the integration of drone warfare with artificial intelligence, machine learning, the links in that, is a fundamental change,” he said.

“We are supporting Ukraine as you know, and we are also learning from Ukraine.”

Carney’s remarks came as internal Privy Council research showed many Canadians are increasingly indifferent or skeptical about continued involvement in the conflict.

A 2024 government report titled Continuous Qualitative Data Collection Of Canadians’ Views found many participants believed Canada’s contributions had achieved little and that prospects for peace remained remote.

“It was felt Canada’s contributions had not had much of an impact and that Ukraine’s efforts to end the conflict had stalled with little hope for peace in the foreseeable future,” said the report.

Researchers also found many Canadians no longer closely followed developments in Ukraine after years of war coverage.

“Many shared that while they had previously followed the conflict quite closely they were no longer as well-informed as they had once been,” the report stated.

Some participants said they were no longer as worried about the conflict as they had been earlier in the war. Others raised concerns about the economic consequences for Canadians at home.

“Other Canadians expressed concerns regarding the potential impacts this conflict could have on the Canadian economy and fuel prices,” the report said.

The focus group research also found many respondents felt grateful Canada remained geographically distant from global military conflicts and unlikely to face invasion or direct warfare.

I offer no excuses for Eby. He is in a class of his own for what appears to be either deliberate deception or ineptitude on a grand scale. But what the Eby government is doing — or not doing — was initiated by previous BC governments, particularly the government of John Horgan, that unwisely made what was supposed to be a purely aspirational document — UNDRIP — into law in 2017. They then passed on the disaster in progress to the hapless Mr. Eby.

All of this is made worse by the Cowichan and Gitxalla cases and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) cases that it is based on. Those cases put both private property and — even BC’s right to manage its own resources without permission from Indian bands —  into question. 

To top it off, BC residents are blindsided by the Musqueam agreement that appears to put a cloud over property ownership in the entire Vancouver area, and the alarming news that more such “agreements” will follow. Considering the fact that there are more than 200 separate Indian bands in BC, each claiming to be a “nation” — this is not news that the 97.2% of the BC population who are not status Indians, and will be paying for all of this largesse, wanted to hear. Combine this with the ultimate outrage of non-indigenous BC residents not even being allowed entry into their own parks, when indigenous “nations” don’t want them there, and one can see that Tom Fletcher is not exaggerating when he calls the situation in BC a “mess.” 

But why are these harmful agreements, like Musqueam, even considered necessary?

Here is the answer that you will hear from both Indian leaders and federal and provincial politicians: That these “modern treaties” are necessary because BC Indians were not the beneficiaries of the treaties that most Canadian Indians signed.

But, is this true? Were BC Indians cheated out of benefits that treaty Indians enjoyed?

The fact is that — except for the $5 per year that treaty Indians receive — BC Indians already enjoy all the benefits that treaty Indians have. 

Let that sink in for a moment: The multi-billion-dollar “modern treaties” that require “co-governing,” a veto over resource development, and being barred from our own parks — developments that are tearing BC apart — could be avoided entirely just by giving every BC Indian $5 per year, aggressively defending Aboriginal title (AT) claims, and abolishing DRIPA and practice directives.

Am I exaggerating?

No.

In the first place, the most expensive special benefits that all Canadian status Indians enjoy have nothing to do with treaties. 

One of the most expensive of those benefits is the very rich health and dental plan that provides all status Indians with benefits that only wealthy Canadians can afford. 

In fact, for odd historical reasons, the status Indians in BC enjoy superior benefits to those of treaty Indians elsewhere. 

And by the way, the claim that the reference to a “medicine chest” in Treaty Six is why Indians receive healthcare is a myth. It is not. It is because providing status Indians with quality healthcare is a federal government policy. The bottom line is that BC Indians receive healthcare that is at least as good as the healthcare received by treaty Indians. (Both groups get far better benefits than most Canadians.)

The very rich educational benefits for status Indians are in that same category. BC Indians and treaty Indians get the same rich post-secondary education benefits. It has been federal government policy for decades to provide free education, including university and graduate school education, to any status Indian who qualifies, regardless of family income. This means that the children of even wealthy status Indian parents can qualify to have the full cost of their expensive university educations paid for by taxpayers. It is not uncommon for indigenous professors, senators, and other professionals to take advantage of these programs. Meanwhile, non-indigenous taxpayers have to pay twice — for their own children’s educations and for the education of the children of the privileged indigenous professionals. BC Indians enjoy exactly the same benefits in this regard as do status Indians in treaty areas. This is because of government policy (and not, as sometimes claimed, because of the promise of a school in the treaties.)

The same for the income tax exemption that applies to every status Indian who lives and works on a reserve (or has their tax advisor arrange things to make it appear that they do so). BC Indians enjoy this benefit. It has nothing to do with treaties. It actually comes from one of the most poorly decided SCC cases on the books, where a provision in the Indian Act forbidding seizure of property on reserves was twisted by a weak court into a permanent income tax exemption, regardless of income level.

And free housing on reserves. No treaty says a single thing about housing. It simply became government policy to build free houses for Indians on reserves — BC included.

For reasons never explained to Canadians, billions are spent building houses for reserve residents, while public housing is extremely restricted for other Canadians, including indigenous Canadians who moved away from reserves!

And what about the hunting rights on Crown land? Treaties gave Indians the right to hunt on Crown land until it was needed by the government for other purposes. That’s all. I have the same right to hunt on Crown land if I buy a hunting licence. Basically, treaty Indians got a free hunting licence. BC Indians enjoy the same hunting rights as treaty Indians.

These are just a few of the expensive benefits that all Canadian status Indians acquire upon birth, in addition to their enjoyment of exactly the same rights that all Canadian citizens are entitled to, that is. But those special entitlements have nothing to do with treaties. BC Indians enjoy them, and so do all the treaty Indians. The only treaty right BC Indians don’t have is the $5 per year, and perhaps some twine and seeds that treaty Indians received in the government’s unsuccessful attempt to turn them into farmers.

And if it is pointed out that reserve residents don’t have the right to own land on their own reserve, it must be remembered that the federal government has repeatedly offered to transfer that land to them in exchange for surrendering their special Indian status privileges. The chiefs have refused that offer in 1920, 1933 and 1969.

The fact is that the numbered treaties were very modest agreements. They offered a bit of compensation to help Indians make the transition from a semi-nomadic hunting culture to the nineteenth-century version of the modern world. It was the incredibly generous judges and politicians who came after that piled on all of these lavish benefits (generous with taxpayers’ money, that is).

So, why are these billion-dollar mega agreements, like the Musqueam, considered necessary? Why is it considered necessary to divide BC up into little mini-chiefdoms, with their own special laws? Why is it considered necessary to (somehow) “co-govern” with 200-plus different “nations”? Why is it considered necessary to thoroughly destabilize the principle of certainty of title that has built this country?

The answer to this question seems to be that BC Indian leaders have been very successful lobbyists and marketers. They have somehow managed to convince gullible judges and politicians that the normal requirements of justice — such as the hearsay rule, limitation periods, etc. — shouldn’t apply to them, and that practice directives forbidding the best arguments must be enacted. And they have somehow managed to convince the 97.2% of the BC population who are not status Indians living on reserves, that the entire economy and way of life of the province must be upended to compensate them for the fact that treaties were not signed, in spite of the fact that they enjoy all the special rights that treaty Indians do. But above all, they have somehow managed to convince our judges and elected representatives that “reconciliation” demands the degrading and dismantling of our most important institutions, and grievously damages our economy.

Professor Gad Saad has coined a term for what we see playing out in our legislatures and courts in the name of “reconciliation.”

He calls it “suicidal empathy.”

Most pieces are centered on censorship, free speech, and access to controversial ideas, but still can be sold in most retailers or appear in school curriculums.

In some cases, books can remain largely absent not due to literary controversy, but instead the books’ direct connection to organized hate movements and extremist propaganda.

Titles such as The Poisonous Mushroom, Immorality in the Talmud, The Sins of High Finance, and White Power are examples of literature that has those connections and remain largely absent from mainstream bookstores.

The Poisonous Mushroom (Der Giftpilz) was a children's book published in Nazi Germany by propagandist Julius Streicher in 1938.

It was a Nazi indoctrination tool created specifically to teach children to the hate Jewish community, comparing them to "poisonous mushrooms hidden among safe ones."

The book used grotesque caricatures and fabricated stories to normalize discrimination and eventually justify persecution.

Streicher began as an elementary school teacher before becoming a politician, which influenced this work.

Immorality in the Talmud was published by German theorist Alfred Roseberg in 1920, later getting republished by the Nazi Party.

The book is widely condemned because it deliberately distorts and manipulates Jewish religious teachings in order to portray Jewish people as deceitful.

'Antisemitism' researchers have pointed out the work relied on mistranslations, quotes taken out of context, fabricated interpretations, and conspiracy-driven narratives rather than factual or academic analysis.

The text emerged from an era of extremist political propaganda and had long been associated with efforts to dehumanize Jewish communities and justify discrimination.

The Sins of High Finance (Die Sünden der Großfinanz) was translated in 1927 by the original works of author Theodor Fritsch.

The book has long been associated with extremist and 'antisemitic' propaganda because it frames global finance and economic power through conspiratorial narratives that blames ethnic and religious groups, particularly Jewish people, for social and economic problems.

Historians and researchers have discovered the book uses fear, misinformation, and conspiracy theories to inflame preconception rather than credible economic analysis.

Rather than offering factual scholarship or balanced criticism of financial systems, the text promotes narratives historically used to justify discrimination, social division, and political radicalization.

White Power was written by Commander George Lincoln Rockwell, a former Navy fighter pilot and funder of the American Nazi Party and was published in 1967.

The book has been condemned because it openly promoted white supremacist ideology, racial division, and extremist propaganda.

Extremism researchers identify the book as part of a broader network of white nationalist propaganda designed to glorify racial supremacy while portraying minority groups as threats to society.

The text relies on fearmongering, dehumanizing stereotypes, and authoritarian messaging commonly associated with fascist movements of the 20th century, which was a huge reason it was heavily restricted and removed by many mainstream retailers.