In the last two years, the federal government have vastly expanded their power in the name of public health, and constitutional challenges have thus far been unsuccessful at stopping it. It still stands to be seen whether courts will condemn Justin Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was used to conscript tow truck drivers, limit free expression, and freeze bank accounts. In an Epoch Times op-ed, constitutional lawyer Bruce Pardy and economist Patricia Adams write that Canada needs a new constitution. Pardy and Adams joined True North’s The Andrew Lawton Show for an in-depth discussion about the similarities between Canada and China when it comes to social credit, press freedom, and the rise of the state.
Bruce Pardy is the executive director of Rights Probe (RightsProbe.org) and professor of law at Queen’s University.
Patricia Adams is an economist and the President of the Energy Probe Research Foundation and Probe International, an independent think tank in Canada and around the world.
It seems the common cold has made a comeback – or at least that it’s still around – but you wouldn’t know it from the continuing hysteria over COVID-19.
Just a week ago, I was sick for six days with symptoms similar to those of the contagious Omicron variant of COVID. I had a raw throat, laryngitis, a runny nose, a cough and chest congestion – all in that order.
After five days of downing cough medicine and cold pills, eating the chicken soup my wife made me and wearing a mask the few times I ventured out, I decided I’d better take a COVID test just to be safe.
It came back negative. The verdict: I had caught a rhinovirus (the common cold). It wasn’t COVID. But that didn’t stop people from reacting like it was or even could be.
Last weekend, we were supposed to have dinner with a friend from Toronto who was down in Florida. When she learned I had a cold AND that I had tested negative for COVID, she did not even want to meet up with my wife (I had planned to remain home).
She suggested that – one – I might test positive the next day, or – two – my wife might get sick or test positive next week.
Truth is, neither has happened, and I’d already been sick for five days before I got tested, meaning I’d probably been dealing with symptoms for a week. Sadly, none of that seems to matter to some people. Because the legacy media and egomaniacal doctors have done such an excellent job of preying on people’s fears, logic has flown completely out the window.
In short, they’ve created a population of paranoid hypochondriacs.
We have lived for two years in our bubbles surviving the mental anguish of social isolation, only connecting in our surreal online worlds – no hugs, no face-to-face contact, no social gatherings.
We are double- and triple-vaccinated, and for some – like me – the side-effects of those vaccinations linger. I still get tingling and numbness in my hands, particularly when I’m riding my bike or swimming. I’m learning to live with it, but I find it more troubling than the cold symptoms I experienced last week.
And businesses have suffered tremendously. The tourism industry is only starting to climb back. More restaurants than I care to know have gone out of business or are hanging on by their fingertips.
Yet there are people who simply can’t move forward.
It’s beyond being fearful. I call it COVID Derangement Syndrome.
It seems to have also brought out the worst in those who may already be suffering from OCD or some other compulsive disorder.
Frankly, anyone I know who has picked up COVID since being vaccinated has experienced very mild symptoms – a mild fever, headache, runny nose – which go away in two or three days. Despite this, the lefty doctors simply won’t give up frightening people and are now claiming a sixth wave is on its way or already here.
The last time @ongov waited to see how bad things would get before acting they ended up imposing capacity restrictions, delaying school reopening and surgeries were cancelled.
Now is the time to : -promote & ramp up shot 3(&4) -encourage shot 1&2 for 5-11 -put masks back on
Dr. Michael Warner – who can’t let go of his now-expired 15 minutes of fame – even suggested that more five-to-11-year-olds need to be vaccinated, even though they’re at such low risk for the virus.
And of course he’s pushing for a new masking edict.
I have also seen Toronto mayor John Tory still doing photo opps masked while indoors even though the mask mandate was lifted in Ontario more than a week ago. Instead of encouraging his voters to move forward and enjoy their long-awaited freedom, this obsessive virtue-signaller continues to promote fear.
We want Torontonians to enjoy all 100 @TorontoLibrary branches – with absolutely no barriers to access.
Joined @CllrCrawford & @PerruzzaTO at the City Hall library to announce the elimination of late fines for teens and adults – following the suspension of kids fines last year. pic.twitter.com/nBoNjB6LxV
But the worst is the number of those who have caught COVID since the mask mandate was lifted and are now proudly announcing it on social media like they’re either a member of the COVID club or implying the lifting of the mask mandate is to blame.
Internal documents have revealed that CBC told its employees to vet the races of proposed guests before inviting them to appear on a program, to ensure that they met a diversity quota.
As first reported by Rebel News, an internal memo with the state broadcaster revealed that producers were directed to Google and to research potential interview subjects to determine what their ethnicity was.
The effort was part of a quota system within CBC meant to “better reflect the diversity of Canadian communities.”
A Guest Sourcing Survey asked producers to rely on publicly available “diversity data” like internet searches to find out if guests were people of colour or indigenous.
“Current Affairs is currently collecting publicly available diversity data on its guests with a view to ensuring its programming better reflects the diversity of Canadian communities,” the questionnaire explained.
“Please complete the following information below based on publicly available information. Please answer the following questions about each person or source in your story that has contributed meaningfully.”
The document asked producers to identify the gender and ethnicity of participants as well as to determine whether they were “biracial/multiracial.”
“Was the guest speaking specifically about a topic related to their ethnicity?” management asked. “Is the character an appointed figure, i.e. a politician?”
Producers were supposed to also provide “additional details of ethnic origin for persons of colour.”
The two-page document was required for every person who appeared on-air, including random Canadians appearing on on-street interviews.
CBC’s diversity questionnaire was exposed after former producer Tara Henley referenced it in a Jan. 3 article explaining why she resigned from the Crown corporation. According to Henley, the CBC has been compromised by the radical far-left.
“To work at the CBC in the current climate is to embrace cognitive dissonance and to abandon journalistic integrity,” wrote Henley.
“It is to sign on, enthusiastically, to a radical political agenda that originated on Ivy League campuses in the United States and spread through American social media platforms that monetize outrage and stoke societal divisions. It is to pretend that the “woke” worldview is near universal — even if it is far from popular with those you know, and speak to, and interview, and read.”
Danielle Smith, journalist and former leader of Alberta’s Wildrose Party, has announced her return to Alberta politics, with possible plans to seek the United Conservative Party’s (UCP) leadership.
In an interview with Postmedia on Thursday, Smith announced that she would be running for her former seat in Alberta’s legislature and made clear that if Jason Kenney fails his upcoming leadership review, Smith will seek the position.
Motivating Smith to re-enter the political scene was the UCP changing the leadership review from an Apr. 9 in-person party convention to a mail-in-ballot, with results expected by May 18.
Smith said she was also angered by Kenney calling individuals who disagreed with him on COVID restrictions “lunatics” and bigots.
Additionally, Smith said she believes that Kenney’s way of governing has been “(m)ore of an Ottawa style” and that the UCP should focus on including individual MLAs in important matters of public policy.
“The individual MLAs have been almost completely taken out of the picture and that’s not giving good governance to the people in my constituency,” said Smith.
Smith’s return to Alberta politics may come as a surprise, given how unceremoniously she departed the scene in 2015.
After growing disillusioned with the direction of the Wildrose Party, she and eight other Wildrose MLAs crossed the floor in 2014 to join the then-governing Progressive Conservatives (PC).
However, this plan to ‘unite-the-right’ would backfire in the 2015 election, which saw the NDP come to power in Alberta for the first time in history. Prior to this, however, Smith had failed to secure the PC nomination for Highwood, and was not on the ballot. The PCs lost their first election in 43 years, failing even to form the official opposition.
After losing her seat, Smith returned to media and became a talk radio host for six years on Corus Radio.
“I’ve had lots of people approach me saying when are you gonna get back into politics, and specifically asking me if I’d put my name forward here, and so I talked with my husband and we agreed, gonna give it one more try,” said Smith.
Smith is now the second former Wildrose leader to declare interest in the UCP’s top spot. Smith’s successor Brian Jean – who was re-elected in a by-election on Mar. 15 – openly campaigned on removing Kenney from leadership.
While she plans on running for leadership if Kenney is ousted, Smith also made it known that she intends to make her voice heard from the backbench if Kenney stays.
“If me announcing allows people to think that I might be a leadership candidate, then fair enough, I’m in,” said Smith. “I will put my name forward for leadership as well. But that really is a decision that’s up to members.”
“If members choose to keep the current leader then I’m quite happy to make my voice heard from the backbench.”
This article was corrected on Apr. 4. An earlier version had reported that Danielle Smith had lost her seat as a PC candidate in the 2015 Alberta election to a Wildrose candidate. The revised article reflects the fact that Smith failed to secure the PC nomination for Highwood prior to this and was not on the ballot for the general election.
Ross McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph and a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute. He has provided True North with a copy of a letter he sent to the Ontario government on Mar. 29; we have published that letter here in full.
Bill C-67, Racial Equity in the Education System Act, 2022, has passed second reading in the Ontario legislature and is now under review by the Standing Committee on Social Policy.
Bill C-67 seeks to amend various Acts with respect to “racial equity,” including Ontario’s Education Act, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and the Ontario College of Teachers Act. The bill would, among other measures, mandate “anti-racism and racial equity training” for teachers, as well as “fines for persons who disrupt or attempt to disrupt proceedings of a school or class through the use of racist language or activities.”
Dear Ontario MPP’s:
I write to express my deep opposition to Ontario Bill 67, the education sector anti-racism Bill. The problem is not the intent to teach about the complex history of race relations and cultivate non-racist attitudes. We want that in our schools. The problem is that the legislation privileges and mandates adherence to one side of a very complex and divisive battle over how to accomplish the goal. The Act creates an institutional structure that will suppress the very debates and discussions it seeks to encourage.
We are unanimous in Canadian society in opposing racism. Canada did not invent racism but we have done more than pretty much any nation on Earth to eradicate it. We share Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream of a world in which someone is judged on the content of his or her character, not the colour of his or her skin. That, traditionally, is what it has meant to be anti-racist.
We do not need new legislation to embed those ideals in our educational system—they are already there, and to the extent they need re-upping, school boards and school staff have all the tools necessary to do so. Every university has human rights staff who monitor campus activities for signs of racism and intervene swiftly if it is detected. And we have courts and Human Rights Tribunals to provide legal enforcement of charter guarantees against racial discrimination.
Bill 67 is very different
Bill 67 does something different. It embeds into our educational system “anti-racism,” which is a euphemism for a new and controversial school of thought associated with Critical Race Theory (CRT). Enshrining it in law imposes its dominance in the curriculum and governance of our schools before people have had a chance to properly assess it. Many US states have had experience with CRT in the education system over the past few years and are now struggling with the resulting acrimony because of its divisive, accusatory and demoralizing content.
It is not traditional civics education aimed at creating colour-blind citizens. Underneath the benign euphemisms of “equity” and “anti-racism” is a philosophy that has caused chaos and resentment wherever it gets embedded. Until you have been made to sit through mandatory anti-racism training you won’t really appreciate its problems. It works off a premise that racism is a permanent and immutable feature of society and everyone is inherently either an oppressor or a victim by virtue of skin colour. Specifically, non-whites are victims and whites are privileged oppressors. Anti-racism education doesn’t aim to get people to ignore skin colour. Instead, it aims to make skin colour the overriding consideration in all social situations.
Before proceeding, if an MPP objects that this isn’t the intent of the legislation and I am overreacting, my response is, if so, please propose an amendment to the Bill specifically forbidding the teaching in Ontario schools of doctrines that single out any one race or ethnicity as being uniquely prone to racism more than any other, or that espouse any concept of collective guilt on the basis of race. The reaction of the proponents of the Bill will confirm my argument.
Circular reasoning
“Anti-racism training” singles out people in targeted categories for an accusation of bias and bigotry. The various ways that an accused person might try to refute such an accusation are then interpreted as symptoms of being in denial about one’s culpability for systemic racism. It becomes thereby a circular, self-sealing system that can’t be debated through the ordinary processes of testing hypotheses against evidence.
According to the theory and the text of the legislation, bias can be conscious or subconscious, so the fact that someone has never acted in an overtly racist way has no bearing on one’s guilt. Disputing an accusation of bias would be tantamount to expressing hostility to anti-racist efforts which according to the Bill is a form of racism. Once people are caught in this Kafka-esque nightmare, faced with a demoralizing accusation that could lead to public ruin and termination of employment, and with no way to defend oneself, the only way out is to confess your crimes, denounce yourself and your heritage, and commit oneself more deeply to the cause.
This is the toxic politics that played out in Maoist China during the cultural revolution and during the worst years of the Soviet Union. Back then the categories were bourgeoisie and proletariat. If you were born into the bourgeois class you were an oppressor of the workers regardless of how you conducted your life, and the only way to avoid being convicted of counter-revolutionary crimes was to denounce your family and class and demonstrate through public affirmations your fanatical devotion to the state ideology.
Ambiguous language
Bill 67 is filled with undefined terms whose ambiguity will create openings for the most ideological backers of this movement to push through an increasingly strident agenda. “Anti-racism” is defined as opposition to racism, which is defined as racism against non-whites, Jews and Muslims, which by process of elimination singles out white, heterosexual males as the main perpetrators. The very foundation of the bill thus makes a race-based generalization.
The Bill repeatedly uses the word “equity” to describe the intended outcome, without providing any definition, specifically by clarifying that a free society enshrines equality of opportunity but not a guarantee of equality of outcome. “Equity” is shorthand in many quarters for equality of outcome. More specifically, superficial evidence of unequal outcomes is cited in anti-bias training as proof of systemic inequity, without any evidence being provided that individuals were not given equal opportunities. Since the Bill fails to define “equity” the activists behind it, who by regulatory mandate are to become the controllers of its quasi-judicial procedures, will be free to read in a definition that pushes the whole system in their preferred direction.
The Bill mandates that teachers will be assessed in their work based on “competencies related to a teacher’s anti-racism awareness and the teacher’s efforts to promote racial equity.” None of this is defined. How can teachers be assessed on their personal “awareness”, which is a subjective state of mind? What would happen to a teacher whose “awareness” of the anti-racism movement led him or her to introduce lessons using material from black anti-CRT scholars like Glenn Lourie or John McWhorter? Or who pushes back against material that he or she believes is unfairly accusatory or demoralizing for Caucasian students? Such a teacher could, under this legislation, be severely sanctioned without recourse. In practice teachers will end up being coerced to outdo one another in signaling their ideological commitment to the agenda behind the bill, since any hesitation on a teacher’s part could be interpreted as insufficient “awareness” and inadequate “efforts to promote racial equity.”
Section 7.1.1 commands the Minister to establish procedures to deal with accusations of racist behaviour. Nowhere in that list is there any provision for due process to protect the rights of accused persons. The entire apparatus is based on the supposition that a reported incident of racism actually took place, the victim must be protected and the guilty parties must be punished. The legislation removes any discretion of the Minister by replacing “may establish” with “shall establish”.
Ideological control
The Act also enshrines new supervisory mechanisms that require annual “anti-racist” education sessions for all teachers, with oversight mechanisms that will sniff out any sign of resistance no matter how extreme, one-sided and inaccurate the material is. The legislation embeds requirements to turn both the training and the quasi-judicial oversight functions over to people with specific expertise in “anti-racism” without defining what that even means. The danger is that it will be used to create a tight guild of strident activists whose qualifications consist primarily of being in alignment with the movement’s ideology, who will under this bill acquire authority over the whole education system including the university sector. They will get to dictate not only curriculum content and the content of mandatory annual indoctrination sessions of teachers but they will be able to demand complete acquiescence to its content based on the threat of finding any dissenters guilty of insufficient “awareness” and inadequate commitment to “efforts to promote racial equity.” The Bill makes no provision for due process or rights of appeal, not that those would help since the crimes being described are subjective and are based on the arbitrary opinion of partisan observers.
How might a teacher, once accused of racism, defend himself or herself when the CRT ideology deftly turns any claims of innocence into further proof of guilt? Under the doctrine of “interest convergence” even past support of anti-racist movements can be interpreted as evidence of wanting to conceal one’s underlying subconscious racism.
Teachers who, in good faith, resist bringing materials into their classroom that they feel denigrates or singles out white students could reasonably fear accusations and proceedings that will subject them to extreme emotional, financial and career duress. Teachers and parents will to some extent go along with the whole agenda simply out of fear, but coercion breeds resentment and backlash, as has been seen in the US. Under the Bill’s monitoring and reporting rules the most stridently ideological staff within a school will be turned into snitches. Some will even relish the power this bill gives them over the colleagues, to the detriment of collegiality.
A mistake that needs to be fixed
On a political note, the Bill should have been called the Act to Put Radical Leftists in Charge of Education in Ontario. Bill 67 is poorly-written, misguided in intent and dangerous in its implications. It will do great harm our public educational system and will not accomplish what it sets out to do. For the sake of Ontario’s future please kill this bill.
Liberal politicians and legacy media journalists have been in an uproar since Conservative MP Rachael Thomas announced that “many Canadians” view Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a dictator.
Thomas made the comment on Monday in the House of Commons.
“According to the Oxford dictionary, a dictator is a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force,” she said. There are many Canadians that would believe – that would hold the view – that this does apply to Mr. Trudeau.”
Soon after Thomas made the comment, Liberal politicians and legacy media journalists feigned outrage and denounced the statement as radical and unparliamentary.
Worth noting: Conservative MP Rachael Thomas (née Harder) on Monday in the House of Commons said "many Canadians" hold the view that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fits the definition of a dictator. She did not cite a poll. pic.twitter.com/sczQpD7G5W
In February, Prime Minister Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history to quash the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa. In addition to expanding powers of law enforcement, the extraordinary legislation also allowed the government to have the bank accounts and financial assets of protesters frozen.
Among those who came out to defend Trudeau against Thomas’s claim was Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, who said that calling the prime minister a dictator demeaned the electoral system.
CBC journalist Rosemary Barton also tweeted that Thomas’s use of the term was “irresponsible rhetoric.”
Criticize the LPC/NDP deal all you want, but this is irresponsible rhetoric from someone who was duly elected 6 months ago. https://t.co/KMvJMpcVpN
However – and as pointed out by Conservative commentator Stephen Taylor in a Twitter thread – the Liberals and the media, including Barton, seemed fine calling former prime minister Stephen Harper a dictator for years.
True North has gathered numerous examples of when left-wing politicians and legacy media either called Harper a dictator or took no issue with the label.
Australian Liberal Senator Alex Antic has blasted the World Economic Forum (WEF) for influencing world governments, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet.
Antic, who is a member of the conservative faction of the Liberal Party, accused the WEF and founder Klaus Schwab of being “steeped in authoritarianism and Marxist ideology.”
“It’s an ideology which is creeping into governments across the world,” said Antic. “When speaking about the Canadian parliament, Schwab himself said: ‘We penetrate the cabinets. I know that half this cabinet—even more than half—are actually young global leaders of the World Economic Forum. It’s true in Argentina, it’s true in France—now with the President, who is a young global leader.’”
Australian Liberal Senator Alex Antic mentioned Trudeau's cabinet being penetrated by the World Economic Forum in a speech on the organization's "authoritarian and Marxist" ideology.
"When speaking about the Canadian parliament, Schwab himself said: 'We penetrate the cabinets." pic.twitter.com/Fg7eSSNb24
Antic was referencing a 2017 interview where Schwab directly stated that “half of (Trudeau’s) cabinet” were WEF Young Global Leaders.
“I have to say, when I mention now names (sic), like Mrs. (Angela) Merkel and even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum,” said Schwab.
“But what we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau … We penetrate the cabinet. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.”
Antic went on to criticize the WEF for using “so-called systemic racism” and other progressive issues to hide an “anti capitalist and anti free market” agenda, including advocating for extreme lockdown measures.
“You don’t have to be a political philosopher to figure out that, if you own nothing, the state owns everything,” said Antic. “There’s a word for this: it’s ‘communism’. The World Economic Forum and its affiliates shamelessly promote the abolition of private property.”
Antic was also one of several Australian senators who voted for a bill that would prohibit discrimination based on COVID-19 vaccination status in 2021.
The WEF has been subject to controversy since it promoted the use of the COVID-19 pandemic as a way to engage in a Great Reset of economies and societies globally. Several Canadian conservative politicians including Alberta premier Jason Kenney have come out vocally against the proposition.
In February, Conservative MP Colin Carrie was also accused of spreading disinformation by his opponents after he asked the Trudeau government a question about their involvement with the group.
“Klaus Schwab is the head of the World Economic Forum, and he bragged how his subversive WEF has ‘infiltrated’ governments around the world,” said Carrie. “In the interests of transparency, could the member please name which cabinet ministers are on board with the WEF’s agenda?”
Deputy Speaker Chris d’Entremont stated that the “audio and video” were really bad and asked Carrie to repeat his question.
Before he could do so, however, NDP MP Charlie Angus complained that he “was openly promoting disinformation.”
The Trudeau government announced its “expert advisory group on online safety” on Wednesday, and it includes a known spreader of misinformation.
Bernie Farber made headlines last month during Ottawa’s Freedom Convoy after sharing a picture of an anti-Semitic flyer that was allegedly found “in plain site.”
The claim was later proven false by journalist Jonathan Kay in a Tweet where Kay found an identical photo posted by someone in Miami a month prior.
Farber’s original Tweet has since been deleted.
Wow Bernie, isn't it incredible that the picture your "friend in Ottawa at the Occupation" sent you is identical to the photo posted on Twitter two weeks ago by someone in Miami, right down to the ceramic design in the background? https://t.co/s4Xf3IbFrIpic.twitter.com/OJGEgrariZ
Farber’s career has reportedly focused on human rights, anti-racism, pluralism and inter-ethnic/faith/race relations. He is also Chair of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAN), an organization that researches hate groups and hate crimes in Canada.
CAN has worked with foreign organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center in the US.
Calling themselves an “independent and non-profit” organization, CAN also received funding from the Canadian government in 2020 as part of a $15 Million grant program called “Building a More Inclusive Canada.”
Liberal heritage minister Pablo Rodriguez unveiled the Trudeau government’s new online safety panel at a press conference on Wednesday.
When asked whether the government’s online hate legislation will infringe on free speech, Rodriguez said the bill will actually help free speech.
When asked if the government’s online hate legislation will infringe on free speech, Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez says the bill will actually help free speech. #cdnpolipic.twitter.com/unvCeYbEDV
Despite saying he fully supports protecting freedom of expression, Farber himself claimed there is an inclination to “lean so favourably towards ensuring the rights of white supremacists” instead of focusing on the rights of victims.
“We don’t have much more time left before there’s going to be another horrible, horrible incident. Canadians are going to throw up their hands in despair and say, ‘Why don’t we have any laws to protect us?’” Farber said.
“Canadians want harms legislation. Why haven’t we got it yet?”
Some health experts are citing a “sixth wave” of COVID and warning Ontarians may soon be forced to wear masks again even though some regions that still have mask mandates display higher rates of COVID transmission.
Ontario lifted its mask mandate for most indoor public settings on Mar. 21. The province had also previously ended all capacity and gathering restrictions as well as its vaccine passport requirement on Mar. 1.
“We are now learning to live with and manage COVID-19 for the long term,” said Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Kieran Moore Mar. 9. “This necessitates a shift to a more balanced response to the pandemic.”
Moore also said that rising indicators were to be expected as people began to have more interactions with each other.
However, a recent increase in COVID-19 transmission has other government health experts worried. In a special statement, Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health Dr. Vera Etches said that the city’s COVID-19 levels “are very concerning.”
She added that “we highly recommend wearing a mask when indoors & getting vaccinated with all the doses you’re eligible for.”
Etches also said in an interview that she is not completely ruling out bringing back mask mandates.
“I am always reviewing the situation and thinking about what could be done locally, including taking a look at whether this is a time where it would make sense to use a Section 22 order,” said Etches.
Under Section 22 of Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act, medical officers of health have the power to issue health orders including mask mandates, lockdowns and school closures.
Dr. Raywat Deonandan, an epidemiologist and associate professor at the University of Ottawa told CP24 he believes in keeping masking, vaccinations and checks for symptoms for “as long as possible.”
Deonandan also said he is anticipating that “just as night follows day, that the rising cases will be followed by rising hospitalizations and a rise in deaths.”
The head of the Ontario Science Advisory Table Dr. Peter Juni also commented on the rise in COVID-19 transmission, saying that people need to be aware that the lifting of mask mandates is probably not going to be permanent.
Despite these warnings, jurisdictions that still have mask mandates in place are also seeing an increase in viral transmission. This includes Quebec, one of the only Canadian provinces that still requires people to wear masks in indoor public settings.
On Thursday, Quebec had 1238 hospitalizations related to COVID-19, including 66 in ICU. The province also reported 12 new deaths and 3319 positive PCR tests.
In contrast, Ontario – which does not have a mask mandate and whose population is almost double that of Quebec – reported a lower number of positive tests, with 3139 cases on Thursday.
Ontario also had 807 people in hospital on Thursday, with 61.3% of them fully vaccinated.
Data from the United Kingdom also shows jurisdictions with mask requirements having a higher per capita case count than those without a mandate.
Scotland, the only UK constituent country that currently requires masking, has the highest case count per 100,000 people. On Mar. 24 there were 201.7 new cases per 100,000 in Scotland, and 126.2 new cases per 100,000 in England, where there is no mask mandate. Scotland also recently saw record COVID-19 hospitalizations.
Northern Ireland, which has no mask mandate, also had a lower new COVID-19 case count per capita than Scotland on Mar. 24.
For now, the government of Ontario does not intend to reintroduce restrictions. However, Quebec’s National Director of Public Health Dr. Luc Boileau did not rule out bringing back restrictions to deal with the sixth wave today in an interview with Radio Canada.
During the Omicron wave, Ontario and Quebec were some of the only jurisdictions in the Western world to reinstate lockdowns.
Quebec went so far as to ban all private indoor gatherings, shut down places of worship and even impose a strict, police-enforced curfew from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. on its population – despite high rates of vaccination.
In contrast, Saskatchewan opted not to close businesses or to limit gatherings during the province’s fifth wave, despite being pressured to do so.
The British Columbia government has removed 750 “outdated gender-based” terms from provincial regulations this year.
According to the Toronto Sun, a majority of the terms wiped from official vocabulary include the words “he,” “she,” “himself” and “herself”.
The words “father,” “son” and “aunt” were also reportedly erased in some places. The changes were part of the Better Regulations for British Columbians initiative.
“Using inclusive language wherever we can doesn’t just remove barriers to services, it also protects people’s rights,” wrote parliamentary secretary for gender equity Grace Lore.
“It’s a way for government to make life a bit easier for the thousands of British Columbians who face unnecessary barriers due to outdated language and to help address gender bias.”
This is not the first time that the B.C. government has moved to revise language use to be more politically correct.
The B.C. Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) released a “coronavirus language guide” in 2020 advising Canadians to avoid using terms like “men and women.”
“The phrase ‘men and women’ excludes non-binary people, and it is unclear whether it includes trans men and women. And ‘guys’ is not gender inclusive – people, everyone, folks, or folx are gender-neutral and thereby inclusive,” wrote the BCCDC.
It also warned Canadians to “avoid terms like penis or vagina” and instead say “internal genitals” and “external genitals.”
When referring to pregnancy, the BCCDC said that “pregnant person” would be more inclusive than “pregnant woman” and recommended people refer to breastfeeding as “chestfeeding.”
Politically correct – or “woke” – language has also spread to the federal government.
Last year, Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam urged “pregnant and breastfeeding people” to get vaccinated against COVID-19 instead of simply referring to those people as women.
“While Canada has achieved great success in vaccinating a significant proportion of our population against COVID-19, some groups lag behind in uptake. One key group that appears to have lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is people who are pregnant,” wrote Dr. Tam.
“…research shows that breastmilk of people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 have antibodies, which may provide some protection.
