Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]


Canada’s Governor General slammed for hosting partisan event promoting Trudeau’s ‘hate speech’ bill


4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Mary Simon, Canada’s supposed non-partisan head of state, appeared to be supporting a Liberal government bill that will further regulate the internet.

Governor General Mary Simon, who serves as Canada’s official non-partisan head of state and representative of King Charles III, has taken heat for hosting a conference supporting a new federal government bill that could lead to large fines or jail time for vaguely defined online “hate speech” infractions.

On April 11, Simon hosted an event titled “The Governor General’s Symposium: Building a Safe and Respectful Digital World” at her Rideau Hall residence, with the goal to “bring together individuals who experience online violence and experts from across the country to share their experiences, explore solutions, and create allyship and networks of resilience.”

The guest list for those invited included those supportive of Liberal Minster Attorney General Arif Virani’s Bill C-63, or Online Harms Act. Some of the invited guests included former Global News reporter Rachel Gilmore, LGBTQ activist Fae Johnstone, Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam, and Ottawa school trustee Nili Kaplan-Myrth. No members of the Conservative Party or independent journalists were invited.

After news spread of the event, which Simon herself posted about on X, many took to social media to voice concerns over Simon hosting the event.

“Can you imagine the Queen having a seminar at Buckingham Palace to talk about a bill before the House of Commons in England? That would be outrageous. That’s what @GGCanada Mary Simon just did,” said political commentator Tom Korski on a CBC radio show.

Another X user @IMHeatherAmI wrote, “Trudeau has corrupted everything.GG Mary Simon is abusing her power by “promoting contentious Liberal bills that are trying to be passed in Parliament.”

Rideau Hall gave no comment that Canada’s supposed non-partisan head of state appeared to be supporting a Liberal government bill that will further regulate the internet.

“The Governor General is non-partisan and apolitical,” Rideau Hall said in a statement.

In comments sent to the media about apparent conflicts of interest, a spokesperson for Simon said that she will keep advocating for “digital respect.”

The Online Harms Act was introduced in the House of Commons on February 26 by Virani and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.

Bill C-63 will modify existing laws, amending the Criminal Code as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography.

However, the bill also seeks to police “hate” speech online with broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics.

Details of the new legislation to regulate the internet show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.

The bill also calls for the creation of a digital safety commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and a digital safety office.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has said Bill C-63 is “the most serious threat to free expression in Canada in generations. This terrible federal legislation, Bill C -63, would empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute Canadians over non-criminal hate speech.”

JCCF president John Carpay recently hand-delivered a petition with 55,000-plus signatures to Canada’s Minister of Justice and all MPs.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author


Defending Provincial Priorities

Published on

News release from Free Alberta Strategy

The recent debate around zoning across the province is a prime example of federal encroachment.

The federal government offered money to cities to help with housing affordability challenges, but only made the money available if cities promised to change zoning policies.

As you are aware, The Free Alberta Strategy was built on the concept that the federal government needs to keep out of provincial jurisdiction.

For years, Ottawa has been watering down the constitutional delineation of duties between the federal government and the provincial government.

Bill 18 – the Provincial Priorities Act – is anticipated to pass in the Alberta Legislature this week, and represents a huge step in the direction of greater provincial jurisdictional autonomy.

The Provincial Priorities Act has been dubbed the “Keep Out of Our Backyard” law by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Under the Provincial Priorities Act, any agreements between the federal government and any provincial entities – including municipalities – must receive provincial approval to be considered valid.

Agreements between the federal government and provincial entities lacking Alberta’s endorsement will be deemed illegal under this legislation.

When the legislation was announced, Smith was not mincing words:

“It is not unreasonable for Alberta to demand fairness from Ottawa. They have shown time and again that they will put ideology before practicality, which hurts Alberta families and our economy. We are not going to apologize for continuing to stand up for Albertans so we get the best deal possible.

“Since Ottawa refuses to acknowledge the negative impacts of its overreach, even after losing battles at the Federal and Supreme Courts, we are putting in additional measures to protect our provincial jurisdiction to ensure our province receives our fair share of federal tax dollars and that those dollars are spent on the priorities of Albertans.”

Although the federal government has limited direct authority in provincial jurisdiction, it can leverage its substantial financial resources to prompt or pressure provincial governments into specific actions.

The recent debate around zoning across the province is a prime example of federal encroachment.

The federal government offered money to cities to help with housing affordability challenges, but only made the money available if cities promised to change zoning policies.

Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek tried to claim that the federal housing funds were not contingent on the city’s rezoning efforts, but federal Housing Minister Sean Fraser posted a pretty strong response on social media platform X (formerly Twitter):

“If Calgary, or any other city, does not meet the conditions they have agreed to, we will withhold funding under the agreement.”

The federal government played the same trick in many other provinces, too.

But, notably, in Quebec, the federal government just gave the Quebec government the cash and let them distribute it to their municipalities without conditions.

It’s tempting to think this is just more federal bias towards Quebec.

But, actually, this is a great example of how pushing back can have results.

You see, the Provincial Priorities Act in Alberta is modeled after existing legislation in Quebec, known as “An Act Respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif,” which prohibits any municipal body from negotiating or entering into agreements with the federal government or its agencies without explicit authorization from the Quebec government.

If Ottawa wants to meddle in Quebec’s jurisdiction, it must first seek Quebec’s approval.

And it works – the federal government got back in line.

Now, with the Provincial Priorities Act, if Ottawa wants to meddle in Alberta’s jurisdiction, it must first seek Alberta’s approval.

It’s time for Ottawa to recognize Alberta’s autonomy and respect our right to determine our own future.

At the Free Alberta Strategy, we understand that constant vigilance is necessary – every time we establish a boundary, the federal government tries to circumvent it.

We will continue to inform you about what’s happening in Alberta and fight to keep Ottawa out.

But we need your support.

With your help, we can continue our work to defend Alberta’s sovereignty and serve the best interests of all Albertans.

Enough is enough – we will not stand by while our interests are disregarded.

If you are in a financial position to contribute to our work, please donate!

Continue Reading


CTF launches legal challenge against CBC

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Franco Terrazzano 

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation launched a legal challenge against the CBC as the public broadcaster continues to stonewall the release of senior executive bonuses.

“As a matter of principle, the CBC owes transparency to the taxpayers who pay their salaries,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “The CBC is also required to follow access to information law, but in this case, they’re blatantly breaking it.”

Lawyers representing the CTF filed the legal challenge with the Office of the Information Commissioner to force the CBC to disclose how much its seven senior executives took in bonuses last year.

On March 11, the CTF filed an access-to-information request seeking details on the compensation paid out to the CBC’s seven senior executives in 2023, including bonuses.

On April 9, the CBC issued a 30-day extension notice.

As a result of the extension, the public broadcaster was required to release the records on May 10, just days after CBC President Catherine Tait testified to a parliamentary committee on May 7.

On May 10, the CBC released a record showing its seven senior executives took home $3,793,000 in total compensation – an average of more than $540,000 a piece.

But the record did not reveal how much of that compensation was bonus pay.

CBC handed out $15 million in bonuses to 1,143 staff in 2023 despite announcing hundreds of layoffs and requesting more money from taxpayers.

Crown corporations like the Bank of Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have provided bonus information for their executives in response to access-to-information requests from the CTF.

In a statement to the CTF’s lawyers, the CBC confirmed they have the requested bonus information, but are refusing to release it.

“Tait seems to think she’s above the law and shouldn’t have to show the same transparency her journalists demand from politicians,” Terrazzano said. “If Tait thinks she deserves her bonus, she should be honest with taxpayers about how much she took.

“Taxpayers have every right to know how much CBC senior executives took from them in bonuses last year. One way or another, the CTF will drag this information into the light.”

The OIC is the body responsible for investigating complaints and resolving disputes related to the federal access-to-information system.

Continue Reading