Greenbelt Pathway July 1, 2026 Storm Damage Slideshow

 

Further Information

'Extreme weather' wipes out Ottawa's Canada Day activities, including fireworks | CBC News

Memo: July 1 Extreme Weather Event (July 11, 2026) - Memoranda issued by Infrastructure and Water Services | City of Ottawa

Partial closures in the Greenbelt… | National Capital Commission

The Future of 24 Sussex Drive and the Canadian Prime Minister’s Residence

So Mark Carney has a plan, or an idea, but first we need a fund and donors and a contest to choose a design so it is not too late to take at least one last look at the alternatives. So what are they.

1 Do nothing

This has been the approach of the last twenty, or is it forty, years, seems like forever. This has been the approach that allowed politicians to avoid the political impact of making a decision. For some reason they believe that Canadians don’t think our Prime Ministers deserve a decent official residence.

2 No Official Residence, Prime Ministers should buy or rent their own home

This sounds egalitarian and will appeal to the politician haters in the country and some fiscal conservatives that think government spending should be avoided at all cost unless it supports the business and corporate community. The RCMP can just struggle to provide security for a non-purpose built residence.

3. An Official Residence only as a home for the Prime Minister and family

This would be a modest government built and funded home for the Prime Minister and family with security features designed into it but would only serve as a residence with no provision for official functions. Those would take place elsewhere in other government facilities or rented facilities.

This option would have the added benefit of allowing the Prime Minister to set an example for the government that official business should not be done at one’s residence in accordance with government policy.

4. Restore 24 Sussex Drive to as close to it’s original state as possible

This would be in line with the arguments that it should be retained because it is a heritage building.

5. Restore and upgrade 24 Sussex Drive with additional features or buildings

This would retain the original heritage features but add new capabilities in line with the modern needs of a Prime Minister’s residence today, and improved security measures.

5A. The Prime Minister’s Residence as a charity case option

This is the Prime Ministers brilliant answer to avoiding the political controversy over the radical idea of providing Canadian Prime Ministers with a decent and appropriate official residence. We delegate the design to a competition and the cost to wealthy donors.

I assume this would come with a plaque stating: “This building and it’s occupant were bought and paid for by the following members of the Canadian elite”.

Ongoing maintenance costs could be covered by leasing out the name for corporate branding on a rotating basis, so we could have the “Canadian Tired Prime Minister’s Residence” followed by the “No Frills Prime Minister’s Residence”, the “American Expressed Prime Minister’s Residence”, and so on and so on,

6. A new modern Prime Minister’s Residence (and what to do with 24 Sussex Drive)

As a modern G7 country Canada deserves a modern Prime Minister’s Residence purpose built to provide proper security for the Prime Minster and their family with proper facilities for whatever other functions are deemed appropriate for the residence.

This would be The Fifth Column’s preferred option.

If it is deemed necessary to keep 24 Sussex Drive for it’s heritage value it could be rehabilitated to its original state (with upgrades to meet modern building codes) and used as a Museum of Former Prime Ministers.

7. The totally off the wall option

Convert the Diefenbunker into the Prime Minister’s residence. Nuff said.

Random Thoughts on Freedom of Religion

I have been thinking about writing on freedom of religion for awhile but have not been able to develop a framework for my thoughts so I decided to just set them out randomly and see if they organize themselves.

Any rational person today considering the matter without knowledge or consideration of the history behind it, would wonder why the freedom to believe the fairy tales or myths of your choice should be a protected right while the broader concepts of freedom of conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression would cover it.

However the history behind freedom of religion goes back to when religion was inextricably intertwined with culture and was part of who people were. Freedom of religion was, and still is for many, the freedom to be who they are.

But that is not why we entrench the concept of freedom of religion. It is because for all of history people have been discriminated against and persecuted for their religion, persecuted to the point of genocide.

Which is why it has been entrenched in so many constitutions and declarations of human rights..

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Article 10

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Article 21

Non-discrimination

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental freedoms

2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

United States Constitution - First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

The first thing to be said about freedom of religion is that it is not a right that belongs to religious institutions but one that belongs to believers, a right to believe in and practice the religion of their choice without discrimination or persecution.

The second thing to be said is that that right is not absolute, otherwise believers could be sacrificing virgins or stoning non-believers to death in the name of freedom of religion. In Canada that restriction is set out in clause one of The Charter of Rights which states that the protected rights are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

This however does not mean governments can pass laws whose only purpose is to discriminate against or persecute people based on their religion.

This is why Quebec’s law (Act respecting the laicity of the State) requiring that public servants or others serving the public like teachers must hide their religious affiliation while working required the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights.

The notwithstanding clause essentially says if a government finds the human rights included in the Charter of Rights inconvenient it can ignore them. It is essentially a get out of human rights free card. It is a provision that should never be included in a Charter of Rights and is a stain on Canada’s reputation as an advocate of human rights.

The notwithstanding clause was also used by Alberta to persecute transgender youth.

Section 33 – Notwithstanding clause

Provision

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

 

Also we need to recognize that some religious privileges are not based on freedom of religion. These include the treatment of confessions under the seal of confession as privileged communications and the practice of allowing churches to provide sanctuary to those wanted by the authorities, which are based on common law traditions.

Others such as the tax free status of religious institutions are simply government polices that can be changed.

In Canada the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance in December 2024 recommended that Canada “amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.” However religious institutions could simply establish charitable foundations to do actual charitable work, but purely religious activities and proselytizing or attempting to convert people would not be considered a charitable purpose.

There is yet another religious privilege that is both unwritten and unspoken but just seems to be and that is the exemption of religious institutions from employment standards and gender equality laws.

Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of freedom of religion are religious institutions claims that they should be exempt from hate speech legislation because religious texts or beliefs should not be considered hate speech. I would argue that using god as a defence for hate is indefensible.

The Canadian Criminal Code previously included an exemption for hate speech, "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text." Bill C-9 which removed that exemption has passed the House of Commons and Senate and received Royal Assent on Thursday, June 18, 2026. (Globe and Mail article)

This may seem strange to Americans where freedom of speech is almost absolute except where money is concerned. While the United States does not have hate speech laws is does have libel and slander laws where people or corporations can sue for financial damages if they can show that someone’s free speech has affected them financially.

Freedom of religion must also include freedom from religion. No one should be forced to join a religion or participate in religious activities. Preferably, there should not be a state religion.

We cannot talk about freedom of religion and religious persecution without considering the current genocide taking place today in Gaza and the recent (and not so recent) attempts to redefine antisemitism to include any criticism of the Israeli government and in particular its genocide of the Palestinian people. This has even resulted in the designation of an anti-genocide organization as a terrorist organization. This, however, fits right in with declaring idea idea being anti-fascist as a terrorist organization. The world has truly turned upside down.

In conclusion, the bottom line on freedom of religion is that is is important to protect against religious discrimination and persecution but it is not a licence to violate the law, society’s values, or others’ human rights in the name of religion or god.

The Problem With E-Bikes and Ontario’s Solution

The problem with e-bikes is nobody knows what they are.

When I first considered getting an e-bike I was looking for something that was foremost a bicycle and could be used without the power assist on but have it available for difficult hills, high winds, or the end of extremely long rides. After trying out my wife’s I ended up purchasing a Norco Scene VLT and wrote a review of it which included:

Definitions first. How do I define e-bike. An electric motor assisted bicycle that can be pedalled easily without the assist turned on and that requires pedalling for the motor assist to function. Any so called “e-bike” that does not require pedalling to move (except when coasting) is a variation on an electric motorcycle or scooter.

To me an electric motor assisted bicycle looks like a bicycle and if it does not it probably is not an electric motor assisted bicycle. I use that term because I think that is a more accurate description of what we refer to as e-bikes (Class 1 according to the proposed new Ontario regulations discussed below). But that ship has not only sailed but it has sunk, as the term e-bike is firmly established in the public’s mind.

However the fact that there are no generally agreed union legal definitions of e-bikes has enabled manufactures and retailers, as well as much of the public, to call anything with two wheels and an electric motor an e-bike, including what are obviously motorized scooters or mopeds. I have even seen what looked like an enclosed golf cart marketed as an e-bike.

Regulators are finally starting to catch up and, surprisingly, the Ontario government is proposing a classification which essentially meets my definition but with some more detailed requirements, such as weight and maximum speed. They include a separate category for heavier e-bikes such as cargo bikes, which allow throttle control, but have the same maximum speed restrictions.

These bikes would be treated like bicycles but with a minimum age requirement of 16 years for riders.

The two separate categories allows jurisdictions that feel that the heaver class 2 e-bikes may not be appropriate for a particular location to still allow the lighter Class 1 e-bikes.

I have mixed views on the age restriction because treating proper e-bikes as bicycles would preclude an age limit, but at the same time I think all riders will use e-bike more effectively if they learn to use the gears on a regular bike first so they can use the gears and power assist together rather than simply relying on the power assist when pedalling gets a bit more difficult. As well, young healthy people today do not always get as much exercise as they should in our society.

Electric scooters and mopeds and anything else that is a motorcycle-style vehicle will require registration and insurance and drivers will have to have a motorcycle licence.

Hopefully this will keep those motor vehicles off of bicycle and multi-user pathways that they do not belong on and ease some of the public hysteria about actual e-bikes that has been the result of not understanding what an e-bike actually is, because there was no generally agreed upon definition.

According to the Government of Ontario (source):

The key benefits of an updated regulatory framework for e-bikes include:
• Improving safety by enabling requirements that reflect differences in e-bike speed, weight, and design,
• Providing greater clarity for riders, industry, municipalities, and enforcement,
• Modernizing the framework to keep pace with a rapidly evolving e-bike market; and
• Supporting the safe use of e-bikes as a sustainable transportation option.

The full Ontario government proposal is below: 

A review of the Ontario government proposal is also provided here (but note it is an e-bike retailer website).

For additional information I tried to find a review of all Canadian provinces regulations that was not associated with a retailer but was unsuccessful. These are some summaries provided by retailers:

E-Bike Laws in Canada 2026: Every Province and Territory Explained - Street Rides

Canadian E-Bike Laws by Province 2026: BC to PEI Complete Guide | FavoriteBikes

Understanding E-Bike Classes in Canada: Class 1, 2, and 3 Explained - Chain Reaction Bicycles Inc.

Bridlewood Flowers Slideshow

This is a slideshow of our Bridlewood flower garden in Spring of 2026.

 

How to Fight Fascism

When I first become politically aware during the 1960s it was not that long since World War II and The Holocaust and Fascism was seen as repugnant by almost everyone and not a view anyone would express publicly. Fascists existed in the shadows and recruited from amongst the unemployed and particularly disaffected youth whom they provided with a sense of community and someone to blame for their problems by means of propaganda.

With the arrival of the Internet I naively thought the fascists would lazily they move their recruiting there to where their prey would have easy access to information that would counter the fascists arguments.

In the 1960s we had right and left wing newspapers and radio and TV, but that was reflected in editorial policy. They all reported the same facts, just the interpretation was different. I did not foresee the increasing polarization of media and the trend of people to only watch or view media that spouted what they already had been convinced to believe.

Then came Fox News and others like it that were more propaganda outlets than news media, followed by social media such as Facebook and Twitter (later X), which discovered that designing their algorithms to promote disinformation and hate was very profitable. When Twitter became X under Elon Musk’s ownership the priority changed from profit to propaganda and the promotion of disinformation and hate and it became Fascism Central.

At the same time something was happening largely due to the legitimization of fascist ideas by these new media outlets that had garnered wide followings, that brought the fascists out of the shadows and into the mainstream of society and politics and into elected positions of power.

So what is the answer.

Some might suggest making fascism, fascist parties and expounding fascist ideas illegal, but we must remember whenever political parties and ideas are outlawed the left is always hit harder than the right. This also ignores the conflict with established civil liberties and human rights such as freedom of belief, expression, and association as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These conflicts could have the result of what are usually considered progressive civil liberties organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the American Civil Liberties Union defending the fascists, something they would no doubt exploit to their political advantage, not to mention the creation of political martyrs.

What is to be done ?

In today’s world where people close themselves off from anything that does not agree with their predetermined positions converting fascists is almost impossible. What we have to do is reach people before they are radicalized.

The best way to do that is to create a caring multicultural society like Canada's that values and promotes diversity, and inclusion, particularly in immigration, one that provides everyone with a liberal education that teaches and promotes critical thinking.

That is what is to be done – provide a better alternative before people can become propagandized by the hate mongers.

 

Postscript – I put in an unrelated "easter egg" link to see if anyone is actually clicking on the links.

Bridlewood Hydro Lines Pathways Updates with Videos

In the fall of 2024 I wrote an update on the Bridlewood Hydro Lines Pathways which indicated that portions of both the small and large hydro line pathways had been rebuilt.

Small Hydro Line Pathway Southern End Deterioration Continues

There has been no further work since then on the southern end of the small hydro line pathway and it’s deterioration is getting worse.

 

Large Hydro Line Pathway Hydro One Vegetation Maintenance Clearcuts The Hydro Corridor

There has been no work on the unpaved portion of the large hydro line pathway but Hydro One has done what it calls vegetation maintenance on that portion of the hydro corridor, essentially clearcutting the whole thing.

 

Thoughts on Education

This is not intended to be a comprehensive treatise on education but some thoughts on certain aspects of the education system. It is written within the context of the Ontario education system but it’s ideas are intended to be universal.

Education should not be political but in reality some of the policies governing our education system will have to be political decisions, hopefully based on expert advice.

The first political education decision I would make is to have one single education system that teaches Canadian values. I would go beyond just one secular publicly funded education system and establish one system overall, no religious or private schools, nor home schooling at the elementary and secondary level. Students should not be segregated by religion or wealth in school and home schooling is often just a means for parents to teach their own particular version of bigotry or hate to their children free of a counterbalance of Canadian values from the school system.

School boards are perhaps the most obvious political factor in the education system but what purpose do they serve as education is a province wide system governed by province wide standards with policies such as curriculum, class sizes, etc. set provincially and teacher and education worker salaries and benefits being negotiated on a provincial basis.

The one thing local school boards seem to get most involved in is school boundaries and school closure decisions. These are decisions that should be based on the facts of the situation and not politics and that is how they usually start out with reports provided by the experts. Then the community activists/lobbyists get involved, perhaps not a bad thing, but the result is usually in favour of the best organized who more often than not are the most affluent communities.

Though some school board members are indeed concerned with education many run for school board to gain political experience and campaign experience in order to run for what they are really interested in, municipal politics.

It is time to leave education to the experts and leave politics out of it as much as possible.

The most important education system decisions are curriculum decisions, which of necessity at the highest level are going to require political decisions. These are decisions such as: which courses should be offered provincially, the decision to stop streaming students into non-university and university levels courses at grade nine, and the decision to stop making Latin a compulsory high school course. The content of courses should be left to the experts, however they should reflect Canadian values.

Canadian values are the perceived commonly shared ethical and human values of Canadians.[3] The majority of Canadians believe they share specific values,[4][5] with a plurality identifying human rights, respect for the law and gender equality as collective principles.[6][7] Canadians generally exhibit pride in equality before the law, fairness, social justice, freedom, and respect for others;[8] while often making personal decisions based on self-interests rather than a collective Canadian identity.[9] Tolerance and sensitivity hold significant importance in Canada's multicultural society, as does politeness.[9][7] (Source: Wikipedia)

As far curriculum is concerned let’s start with teaching religion. The school system should not teach religion, but because religion is an important cultural and historical factor in the world schools should teach about religion, but should do it the same way we were taught about Greek, Roman and Norse gods, as cultural mythology.

Continuing the discussion of curriculum, I believe one way to engage students is to include room in the provincial curriculum for localized units in all subjects. This will provide students with local information they can relate to as well as an opportunity to do research using locally available original sources, like local newspaper archives, as well as an opportunity for field trips to local historical sites or distinctive local geographic and natural features.

The first and most obvious use of this is to learn about the first indigenous inhabitants of the area their school is located in, but it could also include the history of early local settlements. There will of course be localized study opportunities for all subjects, but particularly the social and natural sciences, as well studying local authors and writers in literature and other fields should also be included.

Beyond curriculum, there is a trend to an increased emphasis on testing and exams. I was lucky enough to start secondary school just after the province ended departmental exams, which were exams set and marked in Toronto so every student in Ontario wrote the same exam. There is an argument being made now to increase reliance on exams partly because AIs cannot write exams like they can papers. However, increased reliance on exams can lead to teaching that which can easily be tested by exams and marked by machines. Exam-based teaching can quickly become teaching students to pass tests rather than to understand the subject matter. I always learned more by writing papers than by trying to memorize facts. I would personally eliminate or make exams \optional as we did at Laurentian University for a few years in the 1970s.

I have not written about the hot button issues of sex education, or accepting students sexual orientation and gender identities because enough has been written about those issues and, as I wrote, this was not intended to be a comprehensive treatise on education policy.

Towards a Rational and Humane Immigration Policy

As the white supremacist regime to the south of us embarks on a policy of ethnic cleansing we should look at our own immigration and citizenship policy.

I have written posts about immigration previously but this post. rather than dealing with specific programs, will deal with the broader philosophy of immigration starting with some basic facts and values.

Firstly, 95% of Canadian residents are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants so, unless they are indigenous, someone claiming that they have more right to be here because their people immigrated here before people that immigrated later is making a baseless argument.

Also claiming that one’s place of birth gives someone more rights to a decent life and human dignity than someone born elsewhere is just as baseless an argument.

As I have written before in On Immigration:

Immigration has traditionally been a matter of consensus within Canada with everyone agreeing the country needs immigrants and has a responsibility to refugees. Political differences have been minor and over implementation rather than broad policy.

Change has come with strategists in the current Conservative Party thinking that the road to power is emulating Trump and cultivating a hard core right wing base. Unfortunately for the Conservatives this path will never lead the party back to the glory days of the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Canada’s immigration policy needs to be shaped by Canadian values.

Canada actively promotes inclusion and respect for diversity at home and abroad. Diversity is a natural characteristic of every society. Canada recognizes diversity as a source of strength and works to champion inclusive attitudes and encourage the adoption of inclusive approaches that lead to the full and meaningful participation of all. (Source: GofC)

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act serves as a legislative framework for promoting diversity, equality and inclusion in Canada, recognizing multiculturalism as a defining characteristic of Canadian identity. (Source: GofC)

Canadians do not fear the other, 95% of us were the other.

There are two major reasons people want to immigrate to Canada.

The most urgent one is fleeing conflict zones where a normal life is impossible or fleeing persecution by the authorities or others because of who they are. This group is known as asylum seekers or refugees. Canada has both a moral and legal requirement under international treaties to accept refugees and asylum seekers.

The second group are those seeking a better life for themselves in Canada. This group is often referred to as economic migrants. This is the group that Canada seeks as refugees as they are needed to fill jobs existing residents are not educated or trained for or simply not interested in doing. They are are also needed to provide demographic balance and support. an aging population. Of course, refugees more often than not, also serve this purpose.

There is another group, family members abroad of those that have already immigrated here and wish to be reunited with their family members in Canada. We could refer to this group as family values immigrants.

All immigrants provide much more than an economic benefit, they help build our communities and contribute to the diversity and multiculturalism that makes up the fabric of Canadian society and the core our value system.

Morally there should be no borders that determine that people deserve a better life based on where they are born and people would be able to move freely globally to try and make a better life for themselves.

But realistically, to maintain the society we have we need to limit immigration to levels our society and infrastructure can accommodate at any particular time, and we need to protect ourselves from those that pose serious criminal and national security threats to the country.

However immigrating is not a crime, so those entering the country without proper documentation or without following proper procedures are not criminals but have committed administrative offences, so while they should face due process they should not be treated as criminals.

I would also argue that anyone who has entered without following proper procedures and has established themselves as contributing members of society should be deemed to have earned their right to be here and provided a path to citizenship like all other immigrants.

I would further add that minor criminal offences should not be an automatic reason to refuse admission or deport people but should be considered within the overall character of the individual and their contributions or potential contributions to Canadian society.

Also “terrorism” should not be used as an excuse to exclude people based on their expressed opinions rather than any actual threat to Canada.

As Canada has only one class of citizen we should also have only one class of immigrant. We currently treat people who come here to do permanent continuing work, such as harvesting crops, differently by calling it temporary employment simply because the work is seasonal, even though the jobs continue from year to year and often the same people do the same jobs from year to year,.

This creates a category of underpaid work with little or no benefits where employees are subject to exploitation and cannot organize to improve their conditions because they can be deported at any time at their employers discretion. It is time to end this practice of exploiting workers then casting them aside till the next year and grant these workers permanent residence status. If we need people to do these jobs they should be able to do them as Canadians.

The only exceptions should be truly temporary jobs, such as foreign workers temporarily working here to install foreign purchased equipment or to train Canadian workers to use the equipment, as well as foreign performers touring Canada.

And it goes without saying that all immigrants should have a path towards full citizenship.

Canada needs to return to being seen as a welcoming society.

The All You Fascists Bound To Lose Collection

  Woody Guthrie

   

 Billy Bragg

 

 Resistance Revival Chorus with Rhiannon Giddens

 NM RagingGranny

 Bette Midler