Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Foreign.
[00:00:04] My name is Jonathan Harvey, and this is the weekly take where we look at Canada's biggest political stories of the week. What happened, why it matters, and how it actually affects you. On today's show, how six Federal Bills are Turning Canada into a Police State Canada enters the USMCA renewal talks divided, strategically exposed and buried in tariffs Made in Canada when killing children Becomes care, Society has lost its moral compass. From big cities to small towns, Canada's homelessness crisis is accelerating fast. How jenzy uprisings abroad are reshaping Canada's streets and finally reclaiming the spirit of Christmas during hard times. All right, let's get into it. Story number one for the day.
[00:00:43] Death by Policy how six Federal Bills are Turning Canada into a Police state Canada isn't losing its freedoms in one dramatic overnight crackdown. It's losing them quietly, incrementally, through six separate laws. And each may sound reasonable on its own, but together they fundamentally change the relationship between citizens, the state, and the Internet. This is how modern democracies slide toward controlled speech and routine surveillance, not with a single shocking law, but with many small ones that never quite trigger mass resistance. The pattern is consistent. Each bill is framed as a technical fix, updating outdated rules, protecting children, supporting journalism, securing infrastructure. But each one chips away at the barriers that once protected individual liberty. And once those barriers fall, they hardly ever rise again. It started with the Online Streaming Act, Bill C11, which extended CRTC authority into the digital world. Streaming platforms and in some cases user generated content were pulled under the same regulatory framework as traditional broadcasters. In practice, this gives regulators the power to influence what is promoted, what is deprioritized, and what counts as Canadian content.
[00:01:48] That power doesn't require outright bans to work. Algorithms determine visibility, and visibility determines survival online.
[00:01:54] When the government mandates discoverability, it inevitably favors certain viewpoints, industries and institutions, usually those already aligned with state funding, while burying independent content creators, dissenting voices, and smaller outlets. No censor has to knock on your door if your content simply disappears. Next came the Online News act or Bill C18, framed as a way to help journalism survive in the digital age. In reality, it reshaped the news economy around government approved deals. Meta responded by blocking Canadian news entirely, devastating traffic to independent outlets. Google negotiated a $100 million annual payment scheme, overwhelmingly benefiting legacy media. The danger here is structural, not malicious. When news organizations rely on government linked payments, they become more risk averse, less adversarial, and more aligned with official narratives. Journalism shifts from servicing the public to maintaining access, independent voices shrinking and the media ecosystem becomes centralized, compliant, and financially dependent. The temporarily stalled Online Harms ACT, or Bill C63, shows us the next stage. Under the universally appealing goal of protecting children, it proposed a digital safety commission with sweeping powers, forcing platforms to remove lawful speech, compelling disclosure of user data, conducting warrantless inspections, and issuing massive fines, even jail time, all with minimal oversight. What made Bill C63 dangerous wasn't just that it targeted citizens, but how broadly it defined harm. The bill could punish Canadians for lawful expression and even preemptively for speech someone might make in the future, which is clearly insane. Once governments adopt that mindset, speech itself becomes a liability.
[00:03:35] Next is Bill C2, which is currently before Parliament. It's better known as the Strong Borders Act, a name that obscures its true function. The bill dramatically expands warrantless access to subscriber data and metadata, not just for police, but for a wide range of government officials. It allows Canada posts to open mail without a warrant and criminalizes large cash transactions. It's kind of insane. This isn't border security, it's surveillance infrastructure. Metadata can reveal political activity, personal relationships, religious practice, and protest involvement. And once collected, it rarely stays confined to its original purpose.
[00:04:08] Systems built for serious crimes are routinely repurposed for regulatory enforcement, political investigations, and administrative convenience. So beware.
[00:04:17] Alongside it sits the Critical Cyber Systems Protection ACT, or Bill C8, giving cabinet authority to declare almost any service vital and impose binding directives on private companies. Under vague language about interference or manipulation, the government can order telecom companies to cut off the Internet and mobile services entirely with no warrant and no real explanation needed. Of course, as with all policy, the risk of abuse lies in discretion. Broad definitions and secretive enforcement allow political pressure to seep in. Protection against foreign cyber threats can easily expand to domestic disinformation, dissent, or unpopular viewpoints, especially during elections or crises, when governments are most tempted to control the narrative. And finally, the Combating HATEATE Act, Bill C9. This lowers the threshold for hate speech prosecutions by removing Attorney General approval and increasing penalties.
[00:05:06] This sounds procedural, but it changes enforcement incentives. Lower barriers mean more investigations, more charges, and more pressure to self censor, especially online, where speech is permanent, searchable, and easily misinterpreted. In this environment, religious expression, political activism, satire and protest all carry legal risks. The law doesn't need to be enforced aggressively to be effective. The mere possibility of punishment is enough to kill free speech.
[00:05:33] Taken individually, each of these bills can be defended with soothing rhetoric. Together, they form a system. Speech is monitored, visibility is regulated, privacy is conditional. Dissent carries growing risk in this Case control is exercised not through blunt force, but through algorithms, licensing, and compliance requirements. This is the boiling frog model of governance, a slow, procedural and bureaucratic death. People adapt to each change and one day realize that the environment itself has been completely transformed.
[00:06:03] So this is your warning. Canada still has a choice, but only if it recognizes the pattern before it becomes normalized. The erosion of freedom rarely announces itself as tyranny. It arrives disguised as safety, fairness, and modernization. By the time it becomes obvious, reversing course is nearly impossible.
[00:06:21] All right, next up, Canada enters the USMCA renewal talks divided, strategically exposed and buried in tariffs. The United States Mexico Canada Agreement, the deal that replaced NAFTA in 2020, is heading towards a decisive moment. On July 1, 2026, the agreement hits its mandatory review. All three countries must agree to extend it for another 16 years. And if they don't, the deal begins to unwind. And right now, Canada is heading into that review from a position of utter weakness.
[00:06:48] Negotiations with the United States have stalled, tariffs are already in place, and Washington is making it clear that renewal won't come for free.
[00:06:56] The US Wants concessions, and Canada doesn't appear to have a coherent plan for how to respond. To no surprise, the American position isn't subtle. At the top of their list is Canada supply management for dairy, a system built on quotas and steep tariffs that shield domestic producers from competition. Canada already made concessions during the original USMCA talks in 2018, but the US officials argue those concessions were hollow. Market access they say exists on paper but not in practice. And quite honestly, they're not wrong. U.S. trade Representative Jameson Greer has been explicit. Fix dairy or expect trouble at renewal. Then there's Canada's Online Streaming act, which we just talked about. From Washington's perspective, this is another example of Canada using regulation to tilt the field, forcing platforms like Netflix, YouTube, and Spotify to comply with Canadian content rules that disproportionately hurt U.S. companies. Add the Online News act, which compels tech platforms to subsidize Canadian media, and the pattern becomes hard to ignore. The US Sees these laws not as cultural protection, but as trade barriers dressed up as policy. The list of irritants keeps growing. Provincial procurement rules that favor local firms, retaliatory bans on US Alcohol. Each move might score points at home, but collectively, they've made Canada look fragmented and reactive. From Washington's point of view, Canada isn't negotiating, it's improvising. And they're not wrong. President Trump has leaned into that imbalance. He's openly used the threat of USMCA withdrawal and the blunt instrument of tariffs as leverage. This isn't a misunderstanding. It's a pressure campaign. And so far, it's working. Ottawa's response has been meek at best.
[00:08:28] Prime Minister Mark Carney has acknowledged that a sector by sector deal to ease tariffs is now unlikely before the full USMCA review in July. And as many of you know, talks have been effectively frozen since late October. To give you all a quick reminder, the reason we've been stalled for months is because of an Ontario government ad campaign that was run in the United States attacking American protectionism and tariffs by invoking Ronald Reagan. And this was just as negotiations were nearing progress. Of course, Premier Doug Ford defended it as clever and cheap.
[00:08:58] However, I would suggest it was neither. It dug Canada into a deeper hole with our primary trading partner, and it cost taxpayers $75 million. The U.S. ambassador called it unprecedented interference, while President Trump responded by walking away from the table.
[00:09:12] Since then, provincial actions have added heat, but not leverage. Carney has made a few concessions, like scrapping the digital service tax and easing some retaliatory tariffs. But the larger problem remains. Canada is negotiating as a collection of provinces and policies, not as a unified country with a clear strategy. Carney insists supply management is never on the table. And while that may be politically safe, it also locks Canada into a standoff with no escape route, especially when no alternative plan has been offered to offset the economic damage. And that damage is already being felt. The US has imposed a sweeping tariff regiment. 50% on steel and aluminum, 25% on automobiles, 10% on energy critical minerals and potash, 35% on non USMCA compliant goods, 45% on lumber, and 25% on products like kitchen cabinets and upholstered wood furniture. These aren't symbolic tariffs. They hit core Canadian industries, they cost jobs, they raise prices, and they compound uncertainty.
[00:10:10] So with the USMCA review still months away and talks suspended, Canadian businesses are stuck in limbo and investment decisions are delayed. Supply chains are disrupted. Costs rise, and eventually consumers pay the price. Canada's competitive edge erodes quietly while our political leaders argue about posturing.
[00:10:26] Now, here's where the framing actually matters. Much of the Canadian media has cast this as kind of a David versus Goliath story. Trump is portrayed as the brute, the bully, the strongman, while Mark Carney is positioned as the principled underdog, bravely standing up for Canadian values against American aggression. It's a familiar narrative. It's emotionally satisfying. However, it's dangerously misleading because this isn't a morality play. It's a power negotiation. That framing lowers expectations. It primes the public to accept losses as courage. It allows concessions to be sold as victories. And it shifts the conversation away from outcomes towards optics. If Canada loses market access, that's not failure, it's standing tall. If tariffs bite, that's not mismanagement, it's the cost of resistance.
[00:11:10] But trade wars don't care about narratives. They care about leverage, coordination, and outcomes. And right now, Canada is running short on all three. So Canada doesn't need to be David in this scenario. It needs to be serious. Because in the real world, the side that wins isn't the one with the better story. It's the one with a plan, which we apparently don't have.
[00:11:30] All right, moving on. Made in Canada. When killing children becomes care, society has lost its moral compass there. There are moments in public life that signal a quiet but profound shift. Not because they arrive with drama, but because they're discussed calmly, almost casually. When a society begins debating the deliberate ending of its own children's lives, not as an unthinkable tragedy, but as a regulated option, something dramatic has changed. And in Canada, that change didn't happen overnight. It unfolded gradually, wrapped in professional language and framed as compassion. That reality came into sharper focus recently when the College of Medicine in Quebec, or the cmq, told the Daily Mail that medical assistance and dying may be an appropriate treatment for babies suffering from extreme pain. The college added that parents should have the opportunity to obtain this care for their infant under these well defined circumstances. The emphasis, they say, is on rare and severe cases, situations where suffering is considerable and unmanageable. But infants cannot describe their pain. They cannot express fear, hope, or a desire to continue living. They cannot consent. What qualifies as unmanageable Suffering is therefore determined entirely by others. Physicians, parents review bodies acting in good good faith, perhaps, but still making irreversible decisions on behalf of someone with no voice at all. That alone should give us pause.
[00:12:46] Part of what makes this debate so difficult is the language surrounding it. Euthanasia is consistently described as care, a term used by the college itself.
[00:12:55] Now, whatever one's moral position, it's worth acknowledging what that language obscures.
[00:13:00] Maid is not palliative care or counseling or pain management. It is the intentional ending of life.
[00:13:06] As George Orwell famously warned, political language often exists to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable. In Canada, that linguistic shift is no longer theoretical, it's now institutional. It would be easier to process this if it were limited to a single medical body or a handful of outlier voices. But it isn't. These ideas are now firmly embedded in Canada's political process. A joint parliamentary committee has already been recommended expanding assisted dying to minors. Witnesses told MPS that a young person's capacity to consent should not be determined by age or even the nature of their suffering. The committee ultimately agreed, concluding that MAID eligibility should not be denied on the basis of age alone. So you can't vote, buy lottery tickets, cigarettes, alcohol, get a tattoo, or perhaps even drive, but you can decide it's time to end your own life?
[00:13:54] I don't think so. Commentator Anna Farrow has noted the uncomfortable historical echo that accompanies this logic. The first state organized euthanasia program targeting disabled infants began in Nazi Germany in 1939. Following what was described as a single act of mercy, that Reasoning expanded to Action T4, a bureaucratic program that ultimately killed an estimated 250,000 disabled children and adults.
[00:14:18] See, history rarely begins with atrocities. It begins with committees, doctors and forms, each step justified as reasonable in its time. Time and Canada's own numbers show how quickly norms can shift once a system is in Place. Since MAID was legalized in 2016, more than 76,000 Canadians have died through the program. In 2024 alone, 16,499 deaths were accounted for, over 5% of all deaths nationwide, and these were all attributed to maid. That share grows each year as eligibility expands, particularly under Track two, where a patient's death does not need to be reasonably forced. Foreseeable. Jonathan Regler, a retired Vancouver island family physician who provided maid, offered a candid explanation of how he reconciled his role in Track two cases.
[00:15:01] Once you accept that life is not sacred and not something that can only be taken by God, a being I don't believe in, he said, then some of us have to go forward and say we will do it.
[00:15:12] That statement is striking not because it's cruel but because it's clear. It reflects a philosophical shift away from the idea that life has intrinsic value independent of suffering, productivity or autonomy. Many supporters of MAID sincerely believe that they are reducing harm. But sincerity doesn't resolve the deeper question of where this logic ultimately leads. This doesn't require panic or apocalyptic language. It requires seriousness. When a country begins treating the death of its most vulnerable citizens first the sick, then the disabled, now potentially infants as a medical solution, it owes itself an honest, careful reckoning not with slogans or euphemisms, but with the full moral weight of what is actually being proposed. All right, moving on from big cities to small towns, Canada's homelessness crisis is accelerating fast.
[00:15:56] Homelessness in Canada is no longer a problem. Confined to a handful of major urban centers, it has spread quickly into smaller cities and towns from St. Catharines and Windsor to Barry, Greater Sudbury, Saskatoon and Halifax, overwhelming communities that lack the resources and infrastructure to respond effectively. Across the country, residences and business owners alike are report rising tent encampments, open drug use, public disorder, and growing safety concerns in downtown Kors that were once stable and accessible. And the scale of the problem is expanding faster than many realize. The 2024 Point in Time Count, Canada's most comprehensive homelessness snapshot, found nearly 60,000 people experiencing homelessness on a single night in 74 communities, including 17,088 unsheltered individuals, of whom nearly 5,000 were in encampments, and another almost 7,000 in transitional housing programs. This represented roughly a 79% rise in homelessness in just a few years, with unsheltered homelessness more than doubling over the same period. What's crazy is that these numbers are almost certainly an undercount. Quebec did not participate in the 2024 survey, and the methodology itself only captures a single night, excluding transient and hidden homelessness that occurs across weeks, months and seasons. Using broader participation rates, homelessness very likely exceeds 70 75,000 on any given night.
[00:17:11] Alarmingly small urban centers are now seeing sharp increases. In Greater Sudbury, the number of people experiencing homelessness climbed from 164 to 237 within a year, and the number of encampments quadrupled from 25 to 113.
[00:17:25] Similarly, Halifax saw chronic homelessness surge from just over 100 people in 2019 to nearly 1,000 in 2024.
[00:17:33] Even cities like Toronto reported more than 200 informal encampments at dozens of locations, compared with far fewer just years earlier. In Saskatoon, the homelessness count also rose sharply. 1,499 were documented in 2024, up markedly from the year before, while the latest 2025 count reported nearly 1,931, including hundreds in emergency shelters and encampments. Revealing this trend is not limited to coastal cities but spreading across the prairies. This geographic spread mirrors broader structural pressures on housing and affordability.
[00:18:04] Vacancy rates across major markets plunged into near historic lows, often below 2%, with with Vancouver dipping below 1% percent. Rather, while rents continue to surge, making even modest housing unaffordable for many workers, Canada's supply of non market or affordable housing sits well below the OECD average, around 3.5% of total housing stock, compared to about 7.1% across OECD countries, limiting options for people priced out of the private rental market. And these pressures are not abstract they translate into visible strain on the social fabric of communities, which we once insulated from urban homelessness. Shelters and encampments fill quickly than refill after closures. Police and emergency services are stretched, trying to balance enforcement with care and response. Businesses reported declining foot traffic and rising incidents of theft or disorder in areas near encampments. Residents expressed a growing sense that public spaces are less safe or welcoming. And of course, crime is up across the board. The rise in homelessness closely tracks Canada's affordability crisis, where housing costs have skyrocketed faster than wages and and vacancy rates have hovered near record lows. At the same time, demographic pressures driven by population growth from immigration and interprovincial movement, have pushed demand without corresponding increase in housing supply. This has left smaller centers serving as overflow zones for people priced out of larger markets. The result is a visible crisis in public spaces, shelters that can't keep up, and a rising number of people living on the margins with no clear exit to stable housing.
[00:19:29] Now public attitudes are also shifting with the visible crisis. Surveys show that over 65% of Canadians now support emergency to clear encampments and restore order in public spaces, a reflection of both concern for the vulnerable and frustration with the deteriorating conditions. What was once framed as a big city problem is now unmistakably national and accelerating. As affordability deteriorates, population growth outpaces infrastructure and governments struggle to balance compassion with order and accountability.
[00:19:57] Homelessness is becoming a more permanent feature of Canadian life. For many communities, the looming question is not whether conditions will worsen, but but how much worse they can get and how long residents will tolerate the transformation of their neighborhoods before they just decide to move away. All right, moving on. World War Z How Gen Z uprisings abroad are reshaping Canada's streets 2025 showed the world just how powerful Gen Z has become. From Nepal to Peru, Indonesia to Madagascar, young people took to the streets and online to demand change. They toppled governments, forced resignations, and in some cases, paid the ultimate price.
[00:20:31] And they did it all using the tools they know best. Discord, TikTok, Reddit and X memes, emojis and pop culture symbols like the one piece pirate flag became a shared language of resistance. In Nepal, youth used a Discord poll to pick an interim prime minister after months of government corruption and social media ban. In Madagascar, students and young workers protested water shortages, power cuts and unemployment. And within days, the president had fled Replaced by a military led interim government. In Peru, citizens forced the impeachment of their president over controversial pension reforms. Across Indonesia and the Philippines, Bulgaria and Morocco, the story was the same young people demanding accountability and systemic change.
[00:21:08] Now, on the one hand, these are very positive movements, but on the other, they carry violence, conflict and division. And Canada has onshored these global crises through our open border immigration policies and refugee programs. Canada now absorbs conflicts that erupt overseas. And it doesn't look like it's going to be stopping anytime soon. Take Israel, Palestine, for example. Every flare up sends waves of new arrivals seeking safety and stability.
[00:21:31] However, what we see in many of the communities that form are protests on Canadian streets and pressure on social services. So these aren't abstract problems. They're real, local and shaping Canadian society. And it's not just the Middle East. Political upheaval in Nepal, Madagascar or Peru reaches our cities through family sponsorships, work permits and asylum claims. People fleeing instability bring with them trauma, distrust of institutions, and expectations about government accountability. Expectations shaped by governments that often fail spectacularly. Combine that with a digital generation that's globally aware, socially networked and politically active, and you have a population ready to challenge the status quo the moment they land in Canada. And I'm not saying challenging the status quo is necessarily a bad idea, but when we do challenge it with many different expectations of outcome, that is no cohesive cultural narrative. We only get more division. The bottom line is this. Gen Z is teaching the world and Canada that youth activism is fast, smart and relentless. But in Canada, these lessons come with consequences. By welcoming people fleeing global instability, we've made foreign conflicts part of our domestic landscape. How we integrate, support and guide these arrivals will determine whether Canada's open door policies become a source of strength or a flashpoint for unrest in the years ahead.
[00:22:45] And for our last story of the day, reclaiming the spirit of Christmas during hard times.
[00:22:50] Remember when Christmas actually felt like Christmas? Snow blanketing the streets, the scent of pine in the living room, neighbors getting together for a cookie exchange, Midnight carolers were a real thing. Unwrapping shiny new skates, roast turkey, filling the house with warmth as extended family gets together. It was a season that, even if just for a few weeks, brought communities together instead of ripping them apart.
[00:23:10] Now those days are gone. Christmas hasn't vanished, but the world around it has.
[00:23:15] Instead of a time of goodwill, it's become a minefield of political grievance, culture, war, posturing and relentless social division. In Canada, Christmas lights still blink on houses, but the warmth behind them is harder to find. Our traditions, the one that used to unite us, are under assault not by nature, not by chance, but by ideology, apathy, and a government that seems eager to fan the flames of division rather than heal them. Across the country, attacks on faith have become commonplace. In Canada, over 100 Christian churches have been vandalized or burned in recent years. In the U.S. activist groups like the Freedom from Religion foundation target Christmas in the public square. Everywhere, symbols of Judeo Christian traditions that once provided a moral anchor are being politicized, weaponized and torn down. What should be shared experiences of joy and peace are now battlegrounds for identity politics and social control.
[00:24:00] Meanwhile, the decay around us doesn't stop at Christmas. Governments bloat, taxes rise, and public institutions fail to deliver basic competence. Whether it's infrastructure crumbling, healthcare under strain, or schools that churn out young people more indoctrinated than educated, crime, homelessness and addiction fester. While the political class lectures us about tolerance and diversity.
[00:24:20] Our culture, our communities, and even our memories are under siege. In fact, restoring the spirit of Christmas in this climate is a rebellious act. It requires more than tradition. It requires reclaiming civility, generosity, and shared humanity in a society determined to pit us against each other. It means hosting gatherings that bridge divides, stepping away from outrage driven social media, and showing basic kindness in a country where compassion has become conditional. It means volunteering, giving to shelters and donating food to banks, reminding ourselves that Christmas isn't about selfies or streaming. It's about actual human connection and care.
[00:24:53] It means reflecting on our shared experiences and stories, reading Dickens, taking the kids tobogganing, or simply talking to a neighbor without turning it into a debate. In a world quick to weaponize difference, we have to choose the hard path. Empathy.
[00:25:07] And yes, I know choosing goodwill won't fix every problem. The government will still fumble, taxes will still crush families, school will still miseducate, and cultural divisions will still persist. But it restores the one thing they cannot touch, the warmth that once made this season truly wonderful. That warmth, the simple act of being decent to one another, is the quiet rebellion against a society intent on eroding everything worth cherishing. So this Christmas, don't let them steal your humanity. Reclaim it for family, for faith, if that's your thing. For sanity. And for Canada.
[00:25:37] Well, that's a wrap, folks. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. We'll see you next week.
