Unfortunately, this iconic shed fell victim to one of our winter storms and exists no longer. I used it for many of the photos I have taken of sunsets, icebergs and boats leaving or returning.
Here’s one I took last year on this date.
Today would have been Lisa’s 50th birthday.
Instead, she’s forever 44.
It should be a day of celebration.
Instead, it will be spent quietly with family, and later on, a little cake with Zach as we remember our special precious person.
Missed every day x
It should alarm every Canadian that the primary use the Liberals have made of their new, backroom, bribe-bought majority has been to ram through legislation that censors the internet, spies on citizens, and lays the groundwork for a virtual surveillance state.
Listen carefully.
The Prime Minister keeps saying Canada will be part of a “New World Order.”
What does that mean?
Canadians deserve more than vague globalist language.
What happens to Canadian sovereignty under this “new world order” ?
As a Parliamentarian, I can tell you there has been no debate in Parliament about Canada joining any “New World Order.”
What do you think a “New World Order” is?
Wake up. Labour must be called out. They are talking about banning VPNs, overnight curfews and total control of the internet. This is authoritarian state stuff outside our tradtions of liberty and should be resisted loudly by anyone committed to magna carta and our constitution.
Under the guise of empowering the government to protect your children - an obligation which should be on the parent, not the government - you will abdicate all of your rights.
To a fundamentally corrupt government that can never be trusted.
What could possibly go wrong.
The Free Speech Union has serious concerns about the Government’s proposal to ban under-16s from some social media platforms (but not others).
When the proposal was first announced, ministers cited supposedly 'harmful' platforms such as X, Facebook and YouTube, but made no mention of the left-leaning Bluesky.
A selective ban, rather than a blanket one, means Ofcom will be tasked with enforcing the political preferences of whichever government happens to be in power. If there's a change of government, will X be taken off the banned list and Bluesky put in its place?
Another concern is enforcement. How exactly does the Government intend to make the ban work in practice? In Australia — the model ministers appear keen to follow — many under-16s continue to access social media through VPNs.
Will the Government’s next step be to ban VPNs as well? That would put the UK in the same company as Turkmenistan, Iran and North Korea.
The Government has also failed to explain how this proposal can be reconciled with its duties under the Online Safety Act to protect content of democratic importance and journalistic content — duties that are due to come into force next month.
This is particularly important given the Government’s intention to extend some social media restrictions to 16 and 17 year-olds and at the same time lower the voting age to 16.
How can 16 and 17 year-olds be expected to participate meaningfully in the democratic process if the Government is restricting the content of democratic importance and the journalistic content they're able to access?
The Free Speech Union will be keeping a wary eye on the Government’s plans 👇
That expert would be me. To see a Liberal cabinet minister adopt the Vic Toews’ “you’re with us or with the criminals” style language on lawful access should be the signal that the government has lost its way on Bill C-22.
This is getting out of control. We have very real problems in this country and instead of doing anything about them the govt has become obsessed with building a surveillance state. This can't be allowed to pass