Posts

Donald Trump’s Presidency Has Not Increased the Number of Americans Applying for Canadian Citizenship

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite claims by furious Trump opponents that they would leave the country if he won the presidency, Canada hasn’t proved as many citizenship applications as might be expected.

The country’s did receive an uptick of 66 per cent in applications from January-April 2017, but that only meant an average of 400 people per month rather than the previous year’s 264.

And those figures are still down from highs of 2011 – the middle of the Obama administration – when 564 Americans a month were trying to become Canadian, the National Post reported.

The paper looked at figures from from 2007 to April of this year, obtained from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

The figures don’t include Americans who have moved to the country in the hope of becoming permanent residents, or those who already live there. (Read more from “Donald Trump’s Presidency Has Not Increased the Number of Americans Applying for Canadian Citizenship” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This New Law in Canada Could Remove Kids From Parents Who Reject Transgender Ideology

/0 Comments/in , /by

Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, just passed a law that could allow the government to remove kids from their home if their parents oppose the new transgender ideology.

Could there be anything more terrifying for parents than that?

It’s not hard to see why the passage of Bill 89 captured the attention of so many across the globe.

But how did this bill—which is about foster care and adoption—get caught up in politically correct ideologies about “gender identity” and “gender expression” in the first place?

It didn’t come out of nowhere.

Ontario has passed five gender laws in the past five years, few of which received much media attention or even opposition in the legislature. Bill 89 is the latest in this litany of bad legislation.

It was back in 2012 “gender identity and gender expression” were added to Ontario’s Human Rights Code, making Ontario the first jurisdiction in North America to pass such a law.

With that initial snowball, the avalanche got rolling.

Facilitated by a majority government and a lame-duck opposition, the following bills sailed through to provincial law in Ontario:

Bill 13, also in 2012, compelled public schools to have gay-straight alliances and demanded schools combat “homophobia” and “transphobia.”

Bill 77 in 2015 prohibited particular forms of therapy for minors who struggle with gender dysphoria or other aspects of their sexuality, against the advice of numerous psychiatrists and counsellors.

Bill 28, which passed into law in December 2016, removed the terms “mother” and “father” from Ontario law, and permits “pre-conception agreements” allowing four unrelated and unmarried people to become parents.

All of this led to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, which passed into law just over a week ago. It is still commonly called Bill 89.

Bill 89 is a child protection bill that aims to make changes to our foster care and adoption system across Ontario. It regulates the Children’s Aid Societies, which includes over 40 organizations across the province responsible for responding to child protection concerns.

The impetus for Bill 89 was, in part, the murder of a 7-year-old girl while in the care of her Children’s Aid Society-appointed guardians.

The new law makes a number of innocuous changes and even some positive ones to how children who are abused and/or abandoned will be treated.

Yet the controversy stems from the inclusion of language from the Ontario Human Rights Code into the new child welfare act. This takes us right back to 2012 when “gender identity and gender expression,” two nebulous terms, were added into the Human Rights Code.

Prior to Bill 89, social workers considered principles in a child protection case—principles like continuity of care, stable family relationships, and respecting cultural, religious, and regional differences.

After Bill 89, social workers attempting to assess a child’s situation must now consider the specifics of the Ontario Human Rights Code, including “[a] child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”

Incorporating the Human Rights Code writ large into Bill 89 is problematic.

The Human Rights Code is intended to be applied to commerce, not families—to employment, housing, and other services. But at the same time, the code also has protections for freedom of conscience and religion.

With Bill 89, Human Rights Code language moves into the private domain of the family, but without including specific protections for conscience and religion.

The most serious and immediate risk is not that children will be arbitrarily removed from a home by some kind of gender police, but rather that prospective foster or adoptive parents who disagree with new gender ideologies will be less likely to be chosen.

This decreases the pool of loving families who can foster children, doing those kids a disservice. While statistics are hard to come by, in some communities in Ontario, it’s estimated that half of all foster families are practicing Christians.

Parents need to be ever vigilant. The reality today across North America is that fashionable new trends are being pushed into law at a dizzying rate.

All of us need to be on the alert for seemingly small or inconsequential developments in language, policy, or law. Little words like “gender expression” can represent big ideology, and they are worth combatting wherever they crop up.

Five gender bills in five years makes Ontario’s story a cautionary tale for our friends and neighbors to the south. (For more from the author of “This New Law in Canada Could Remove Kids From Parents Who Reject Transgender Ideology” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Canadian Charged in US Airport Terror Attack

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Canadian man from Tunisia shouted in Arabic before stabbing a police officer in the neck at a Michigan airport, and referenced people being killed overseas during the attack that’s now being investigated as an act of terrorism, federal and court officials said.

Amor Ftouhi, 49, of Montreal, was immediately taken into custody. A criminal complaint charging him with committing violence at an airport says Ftouhi asked an officer who subdued him why the officer didn’t kill him.

The attack Wednesday at Bishop International Airport in Flint, Michigan, is being investigated as an act of terrorism, but authorities have no indication at this time that the suspect was involved in a “wider plot,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge David Gelios. (Read more from “Canadian Charged in US Airport Terror Attack” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Canadians Could Be Jailed or Fined for Using Incorrect Gender Pronouns

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.

Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11, according to LifeSiteNews. The bill now only needs royal assent from the governor general.

“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.”

“Proud that Bill C-16 has passed in the Senate,” said Jody Wilson-Raybould, the country’s attorney general and minister of justice. “All Canadians should feel #FreeToBeMe.”

“[There’s an argument] that transgender identity is too subjective a concept to be enshrined in law because it is defined as an individual’s deeply felt internal experience of gender,” said Grant Mitchell, a conservative senator, in November 2016. “Yet we, of course, accept outright that no one can discriminate on the basis of religion, and that too is clearly a very deeply subjective and personal feeling.” (Read more from “Canadians Could Be Jailed or Fined for Using Incorrect Gender Pronouns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In Canada, Big Brother Is Ready to Raid Your Home and Steal Your Child

/0 Comments/in , , /by

We have not been crying wolf. We have not been exaggerating the danger. The unthinkable is now reality in Canada. And it could be coming to America next.

We Were Warned

In 2012, headlines announced, “Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexual acts sinful in class, says Alberta government.”

As the article explained, “Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.”

So, in the privacy of your own home, as you teach and instruct your own children, you would be forbidden by law to teach them what the Bible said about homosexual practice. And how, pray tell, was the government planning to monitor this?

In 2015, Dawn Stefanowicz, herself the child of a gay father who died of AIDS, raised her voice as well. The headline to her article read, “A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights.”

She wrote:

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Canadians Could Lose Their Children

She was not exaggerating. In fact, she may have understated her case. The latest headlines from Canada announce something even more Orwellian: “Canada’s New Law Lets Government Take Children Away If Parents Don’t Accept Their Gender Identity.”

What exactly does this mean?

A Canadian province has passed a law that gives rights to the government to take away children from families that don’t accept their kid’s chosen “gender identity” or “gender expression”.

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also know as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.

This is beyond mind-boggling. It might even be beyond Orwellian. Really now, would even Orwell have predicted that the government could seize your 8-year-old boy if you wouldn’t let him dress like a girl or if you refused to affirm his perceived female identity?

For good reason, Jack Fonseca, a political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition, slammed the new bill in no uncertain terms: “With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history. Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

And it is not just an era of totalitarian power. It is an era of misguided totalitarian power.

Not only is it saying that the government, not the parent, knows best. It is saying that the child, not the parent, knows best. It is saying that it is impossible that little Johnny is confused and that one day, he will outgrow his belief that he is really a girl.

No. If he’s convinced he’s a girl and his parents don’t affirm this, he could presumably tell his teachers at school, who would then report this to the government.

Soon enough, there’s a knock at your door, and government agents are taking your son — yes, your very own child — and putting him in a new environment where he can live as Jane.

As nightmarish as this scenario sounds, it is now the law. And it was passed with ease by a vote of 63 to 23.

Soon enough, Johnny will be taking hormone blockers to stop the onset of puberty, and before you know it, he’ll be a lovely young lady, sex-change surgery and all. And there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Nothing.

Don’t Hit Snooze

There’s a reason that so many of us have been raising our voices so loudly for so many years. It’s not because we hate gays or transgenders. It’s because we foresaw the disastrous consequences of LGBT activism and have been standing as watchmen on the wall, sounding the alarm. I urge you from the bottom of my heart: Please don’t hit the snooze button again.

And please don’t console yourself by saying, “Well, that’s Canada, not America.”

First, are the people of Canada unimportant? Does something matter only if it affects America? Surely you won’t say, “Who cares if Christian families in Canada have their children seized by the government? I’m OK here in America.”

Second, we’ve seen how LGBT activism has become the principle threat to our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion here in the States. Canada is just one step ahead.

Third, already in America, “A federal district court judge just dismissed a mother’s lawsuit, essentially upholding Minnesota’s very harmful and unconstitutional ‘emancipation statute’ that allows minor children — with the aid of outside groups — to leave their families whenever there is conflict, as long as the child is living independently and can support himself or herself.”

In the case at hand, the mother’s minor son had “decided to be treated with hormones in an effort to ‘change’ his biological sex and to change his name.” The mother opposed this, which was one of the reasons the child sought “emancipation.” Now, the government (here in America!) is helping to underwrite his “transition,” and there’s nothing his mother can do to prevent it.

Recently, the flagship gay publication The Advocate, celebrated an 8-year-old drag queen — meaning, a boy who identifies as a boy but who likes to dress up as a girl. (Interestingly, the boy lives in Canada.)

Yes, “Montreal’s newest drag superstar has the poise of someone four times his age.

“A new girl on the Montreal drag scene is making the city’s other queens look geriatric by comparison. That would be Lactatia — a.k.a. Nemis Quinn Mélançon Golden, an 8-year-old who started getting into drag at the ripe old age of 7.”

In this case, the boy’s parents are highly supportive of him (that’s bad enough). But if they weren’t supportive of him, since this is part of his gender expression, the government could remove him from his home.

This madness must be stopped. (For more from the author of “In Canada, Big Brother Is Ready to Raid Your Home and Steal Your Child” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After Obama Speaks in Canada, Chant Erupts That Many Will Find Chilling

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Wrapping up his final months in office, President Obama made a trip to Canada’s Parliament Wednesday where he delivered a warm speech and praised the close relations between the U.S. and Canada.

The president also had kind words for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, saying his fellow liberal has brought “new energy and hope” to relationships between the two nations.

“My time in office may be nearing an end, but I know that Canada and the world will benefit from your leadership in the years to come,” he said of Trudeau.

Trudeau had earlier introduced Obama by claiming the two had an ongoing “bromance,” remarking, “This House gets to see a bromance up close.”

Obama touched on some more serious matters as well, calling on Canada to carry its own weight internationally and especially in regards to NATO.

“As your NATO ally and your friend, let me say, we’ll be more secure when every NATO member, including Canada, contributes its full share to our common security,” Obama told Parliament. “Because the Canadian Armed Forces are really good. And if I can borrow a phrase, the world needs more Canada. NATO needs more Canada. We need you.”

According to Obama, the world order has become “increasingly strained” due to instability and inequality. He said he expects that “people will push back out of anger; out of fear,” but Obama expressed optimism for the future of market-based liberal economies.

At the conclusion of his speech, Obama was met with thunderous applause and chants of “four more years.”

His visit to Canada marks the first time since 1995 a sitting U.S. leader has visited the government body. Liberal and Conservative lawmakers returned from their summer break to witness Obama’s speech. (For more from the author of “After Obama Speaks in Canada, Chant Erupts That Many Will Find Chilling” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Canadians Are Going Loonie on Social Media About THIS

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is often said that a free-floating currency acts as a shock absorber.

But when Canadians go shopping for groceries these days, they’re getting nothing but the shock—sticker shock, that is.

On Tuesday, the Canadian dollar, commonly known as the loonie, broke below 70 U.S. cents for the first time since May 1, 2003.

For America’s northern neighbor, which imports about 80 percent of the fresh fruits and vegetables its citizens consume, this entails a sharp rise in prices for these goods. With lower-income households tending to spend a larger portion of income on food, this side effect of a soft currency brings them the most acute stress.

James Price, director of Capital Markets Products at Richardson GMP, recently joked during an interview on BloombergTV Canada that “we’re going to be paying a buck a banana pretty soon.” (Read more from “Canadians Are Going Loonie on Social Media About THIS” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Canadian Man Facing Jail Time for Not Giving up Cell Phone; Feds can do the Same Thing at U.S. Borders

/0 Comments/in , /by

Canadian man Alain Philippon . . . flew into Halifax Stanfield International Airport last week, returning to his home country from the Dominican Republic, and border agents demanded that he enter the password to unlock his phone so they could search it, the CBC reported. . .

Philippon refused, saying the information on his phone was “personal.”

. . .In the U.S., the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination and as the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes, law enforcement generally needs a warrant to compel the unlocking of a phone or computer because providing the password is considered self-incriminating testimony by most courts.

However, as CNET noted, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that cops need a warrant to get a phone password, U.S. border agents don’t need a warrant or even individualized suspicion to conduct a “forensic” search of your phone or computer. . .

Philippon will go to court on May 12, facing charges of hindering border agents under Canada’s Customs Act, the CBC reported. (Read more from “Canadian Man Facing Jail Time for Not Giving up Cell Phone; Feds can do the Same Thing at US Borders” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Exclusive: Canadian Stupidity Over Alaska’s Prince Rupert Ferry Terminal Stoking Tensions

/4 Comments/in , , /by

It was reported in The Canadian Press and The Prince George Citizen that Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada has ostensibly directed his administration to take a precedent setting position in regards to the Alaskan operated ferry terminal in Prince Rupert, British Columbia. The Canadian administration’s opening salvo began with threatening to use a little known “Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act,” in order to force the State of Alaska to acquiesce to demands that they use Canadian steel and other products during the construction of a 15 million dollar small ferry terminal.

If done in the manner demanded by the Harper Administration, the procurement of Canadian products will be in violation of the “Buy American Act” provisions embedded in U.S. Federal contracting law. A provision that Alaska Governor Bill Walker has made abundantly clear will not be waived.


Ferry operations by the Alaska Marine Highway System presents challenges at the Port of Prince Rupert. A number of problems with this port, along with additional regulations, add an exorbitant amount of cost to operations. Back on July 23, 1997 a large contingent of fishermen formed a blockade that held hostage the M/V Malaspina for two to three days while the fishermen burned American flags and yelled obscenities at the crew on the Alaskan ferry in protests related to allocation of Pacific salmon harvests. The blockade placed the crew of the vessel and three hundred passengers in fear of additional retaliation due to the belligerent behavior of the fishermen who acted in surprise and impunity of the local authorities . This action was instantly an international incident, which found the United States Senate voting 81-19 in favor of sending in the U.S. Navy to enforce the internationally-recognized Right of Innocent Passage.”

Ultimately cooler heads prevailed and former President Bill Clinton negotiated the “Pacific Salmon Treaty,” which initially was welcomed by both sides of the border, yet was ultimately abandoned in following years. During those hostilities, the blockade lasted until the fishing fleet, based in Prince Rupert, received assurances from their government to renew talks between the United States in regards to fisheries management .

At the time, then Alaskan Governor Tony Knowles engaged in meetings attended by a Canadian delegation including the Canadian Fisheries Minister, and the Washington State Governor as they arrived at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to negotiate the fishing legislation addressing their respective jurisdictions and nations. There was a brief period of time where the State of Alaska suspended all operations in the Port of Prince Rupert, which lasted from the end of July to December 1997.

Ultimately, the parties agreed to the passage of the “Safe Passage” principle that focused on salmon fishing along the Alaskan coast and elsewhere. Eventually, apology letters with assurances from the Mayor of Prince Rupert and Canadian Fisheries Minister that the Canadians will prevent future blockades and give funding to rebuild the image of the Alaskan Ferry System in Canada. The Alaskan Ferry System relented on the suspension of ferry traffic to Prince Rupert, and operations resumed to the present day. (Read page 2 of this story about the Prince Rupert Ferry terminal issue HERE)

[Page 2] Canadian Stupidity Over Alaska’s Prince Rupert Ferry Terminal Stoking Tensions

/0 Comments/in /by

Since 1963, the Alaska Marine Highway System has operated out of Prince Rupert, BC. As the sole user of that particular facility, a fifty-year lease that ended in 2013, and was subsequently renewed. The initial lease provisions required that the Prince Rupert Port Authority was to maintain the terminal facility. In Alaskan Legislative Committee notes dating back to January, 2009 the Alaska Marine Highway System responded to questions regarding the total purchase of the facility noting that the Alaska ferry authority believed the Port Authority of Prince Rupert was not fulfilling the obligations of their contract. The Alaska House Transportation Sub-Committee notes indicate:

The lease requires Prince Rupert to provide dock maintenance, he [Mr. Beedle – the Alaska Marine Highway System Director] advised. However, due to financial constraints the maintenance has not been performed although the Prince Rupert authorities maintain the dock is safe. He acknowledged that Prince Rupert eventually spent $1 million dollars to repair the dock, but ‘this is kind of a band-aid for a three to five year timeline.’ He opined that Prince Rupert does not want to be in the dock business or to finance rebuilding the dock.

In May of 2014, the engineering firm CH2MHILL performed an environmental assessment of the Port Facility in Prince Rupert for the State of Alaska and concluded:

…structural upgrades were completed in 2005… The Terminal is now approaching 50 years of service with significant wear on all parts of the marine facilities. Although the Terminal has had a series of repairs and modifications, it is in poor condition and has reached the end of useful life. Wholesale terminal replacement with modern steel and concrete structures and a new lift system similar to other AMHS ferry terminals is now warranted

The findings by CH2MHill with regard to the Prince Rupert, BC terminal facility seem to support the contention that the Port Authority and City of Prince Rupert were likely in complete abrogation of their contractual obligations long before the State of Alaska took it upon itself to formulate plans to demolish and replace the facility.

The circumstances surrounding the Prince Rupert ferry terminal replacement appears to be the result of the Canadian Government’s decision to ignore their original commitments, and remains as a hallmark of their initial obligations. The conclusion now seems obvious that the need to repair and replace the dock is the direct result of decades of neglect that the local government in their malfeasance failed to perform.

As a result of unjust treatment on the part of select segments of the Canadian populous and some Canadian politicians, Alaskans may be entering a new era of renewed hostilities that are precipitated by a distant Ottawa government. It appears that certain Canadian politicians would rather score some cheap political points thousands of miles away and make illogical statements about Canadian steel and concrete rather than addressing the needs of the local communities they are required to serve. The interference of the Canadian government in a rather trivial ferry terminal facility that they have no vested financial commitment towards is astonishing and not based on tangible harm to the local economy.

The State of Alaska and the United States federal government have been cooperative in all their actions regarding the Prince Rupert ferry terminal leading up to this latest breach of trust by Canadian authorities. In particular, the emphatic statement by Canada’s International Trade Minister, Ed Fast, that a 15 million dollar ferry terminal replacement on about an acre of property will be, “An affront to Canadian Sovereignty.”

As a matter of fact, a 15 million dollar project, solely financed and built for the benefit of Canadian infrastructure with United States tax dollars is a very good deal for our Canadian neighbors and will do much to enhance the economy of the Prince Rupert area. The deal is all the more advantageous and obviously beneficial considering that the Prince Rupert Port Authority all but abandoned that facility a decade ago. (Read page 3 of this story about the Prince Rupert Ferry terminal issue HERE)