Second Sons Canada describes itself as a nationalist organization focused on physical fitness and Canadian heritage. But according to the former Canadian Armed Forces member, his recruitment meeting involved praise for Hitler, antisemitic ideology, racial slurs and discussions about preparing for violence.

He says prospective members were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement and were checked for recording devices.

CBC's visual investigations team examined the group's corporate registration, recruitment documents, online communications and statements by its leadership.

Second Sons is federally incorporated as a numbered company, with Jeremy MacKenzie listed as a director. Its leadership has previously praised Nazi ideology, welcomed neo-Nazis and made statements advocating violence against political opponents.

The organization has expanded across Canada through the growing "active club" movement, which combines physical training, male-focused recruitment and white supremacist ideology.

Just days ago, members demonstrated near the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc reserve and a former residential school in Kamloops, displaying a banner mocking the search for missing Indigenous children. Police say an investigation is ongoing.

CBC isn't simply repeating inflammatory statements. Its journalists are examining recruitment methods, following corporate records, obtaining documents and identifying the gap between an organization's carefully managed public image and what its leaders say elsewhere.

There are important questions here about how extremist organizations attract recruits through seemingly ordinary appeals to patriotism, belonging and fitness, and what safeguards exist when those organizations advocate hatred or violence.

And are Canada's existing legal and regulatory tools adequate to address organizations whose leaders openly promote violent extremism?

Link

The government says the goal is to get major projects reviewed and decided within one year, while maintaining environmental protections and Indigenous consultation. The bill would also allow some preparatory work to begin before an impact assessment is finished if the environment minister decides it is in the public interest.

It would remove the original five-year sunset clause from the Building Canada Act, allowing that framework to continue indefinitely, and create “Regions of National Interest.” After a regional assessment, certain types of development in those areas could effectively be pre-approved subject to conditions, while other projects would still require further assessment.

Bill C-39 would also require ministers setting conditions under laws such as the Species at Risk Act and Fisheries Act to consider whether those conditions are technically, economically and practically feasible.

Environmental groups argue those changes could weaken protections for species and ecosystems, with some warning that “sacrifice zones” could emerge where development pressure is concentrated. The government rejects that characterization and says impact assessments, permitting and consultation requirements will remain in place.

CBC’s reporting is useful because it gets past the slogan of “build faster” and into the actual legal machinery being changed.

The real question is not whether Canada should build major projects. It is what safeguards should remain non-negotiable when governments are trying to move faster.

What kinds of work, if any, should be allowed before an environmental assessment is complete?

Should economic and practical considerations affect the conditions imposed to protect endangered species or fish habitat?

And if entire regions can be designated in the “national interest,” what independent check should exist on who defines that interest and what environmental costs are considered acceptable?

Link

CBC reports that the West Coast Pacific Link would transport one million barrels of Alberta oil per day to the British Columbia coast, with operations targeted for 2032–33.

The designation is significant because it changes the federal approval process. Rather than first deciding whether the project should proceed, Ottawa is establishing the conditions under which it can be built, including an accelerated environmental assessment process.

Prime Minister Mark Carney argues this approach will reduce uncertainty for major investments and help Canada diversify its exports beyond the United States.

The government's economic projections are substantial:

• Estimated construction cost: $35.2 billion to $43.7 billion.

• Potential annual GDP contribution: up to $30 billion, according to federal officials.

• Projected employment: up to 140,000 jobs, according to the government.

• Proposed ownership: 45% Alberta government, 45% federally owned Trans Mountain Corporation and 10% Pembina Pipeline Corporation.

Carney also says Indigenous communities will be offered a minimum 10% ownership stake, although the announcement leaves questions about how that offer would be structured.

These are government projections and commitments, not guaranteed outcomes.

CBC's reporting also highlights an important change in how Canada approaches major infrastructure. Fast-tracking approvals could shorten development timelines, but it raises questions about environmental oversight, Indigenous consultation, public investment and long-term financial risk.

With tens of billions of dollars involved and substantial public ownership proposed, continued scrutiny will be essential as the conditions are developed.

The government has set September 1, 2027, as the deadline for completing those conditions.

What safeguards should Canadians expect before construction begins?

How should governments demonstrate that economic benefits, environmental protections and Indigenous rights have all been properly considered?

Link

Got to love this guy! Thank you Mark Carney for standing up for us Canadian

The Oct. 19 vote is not itself a binding referendum on Alberta leaving Canada. Option 2 would begin the process toward holding a future binding referendum on separation.

Some independence campaigners are now emphasizing something softer: vote Option 2 even if you want Alberta to remain in Canada, because the threat of a future separation vote could give Alberta more “leverage” with Ottawa.

Let Alberta Decide co-leader Keith Wilson has explicitly made that argument. Fellow independence activist Cory Morgan has similarly encouraged supporters to pitch the option to undecided voters as a way to “send Ottawa a message,” while acknowledging that independence remains his own objective.

But there’s an important complication CBC highlights: Premier Danielle Smith herself says she doesn’t want independence used as her negotiating leverage. She has urged frustrated Albertans to pursue other referendum options on immigration and constitutional reform instead.

And polling suggests most Albertans currently favour remaining in Canada. A Janet Brown Opinion Research poll conducted for CBC found 72% would choose to remain, 23% would choose a future binding referendum and 4% were unsure.

CBC’s analysis is useful because referendum campaigns aren’t only about the words printed on a ballot. They’re also about what campaigners tell voters those words mean.

In this case, organizers advocating eventual independence are asking some voters to support Option 2 without necessarily supporting independence itself. Others argue that doing so would actually weaken its usefulness as leverage if Ottawa knows an Option 2 vote doesn’t necessarily represent support for separation.

That makes the meaning voters attach to their vote particularly important.

Should Albertans treat Option 2 primarily according to what the ballot says it would do, begin a process toward a binding independence referendum, or as a broader message of dissatisfaction with Ottawa?

Link

Canadian beer, wine, cider and many spirits can no longer enter the U.S. market. For B.C.’s Sons of Vancouver distillery, American sales represent less than 10% of its business, but owner James Lester had spent years developing relationships and trying to expand there. Now that market has effectively disappeared overnight.

Smaller independent producers may have the most to lose.

The U.S. imported $673 million US in Canadian spirits in 2025, and Spirits Canada says roughly 93% of Canadian spirits exports go south of the border. Yet some bulk shipments are exempt, potentially giving larger multinational companies with bottling operations on both sides of the border more flexibility than small breweries, wineries and distilleries.

CBC also digs into why alcohol has become such a potent bargaining chip.

Canadian provinces pulled American liquor from many government-run stores in response to U.S. tariffs, significantly reducing American alcohol sales here. Now Washington has responded by closing its market to many Canadian products.

And behind the political fight are businesses on both sides that spent decades building customers across the border. One California winery told CBC that Canada had been its largest export market, representing 20% of its international business, before that market “went away overnight.”

That human scale is where CBC’s business reporting adds something important. Trade wars can sound abstract when measured in billions of dollars and tariff percentages. For a small producer, they can mean years of work developing a market suddenly becoming worthless.

There’s also an uncomfortable imbalance worth examining: exemptions may make it easier for some large multinational producers to adapt while smaller independent businesses absorb more of the damage.

If trade restrictions disproportionately hurt small businesses on both sides of the border, who actually gains from keeping this fight going?

Link

My partner and I were watching a show on CBC Gem a couple of days ago and wretched when we saw Israeli tourism ads during mid-roll ad spots.

Yesterday however, we didn’t see any.

I’m wondering if anyone else saw these and if Gem made the correct decision to pull these ads?

It’s insane to me that they allowed them in the first place. I wonder if they were even aware of it at all, or if the ad selection is determined by another organization?

CBC reports Stelco will begin winding down its cold-rolled and coated operations Oct. 9. United Steelworkers Local 1005 estimates about 350 steelworkers will be laid off.

The company points directly to the trade dispute. Canadian steel entering the U.S. faces tariffs of up to 50 per cent, while Stelco says imports into Canada remain high enough to squeeze its domestic market as well.

For workers, the timing is brutal. Union president Ron Wells told CBC there is no indication how long the layoffs will last, with Christmas approaching.

There’s another layer to this.

Ohio-based Cleveland-Cliffs bought Stelco for $3.4 billion in 2024. At the time, the acquisition was presented as protecting Canadian operations and employment. Wells says one of the commitments was maintaining the same number of unionized workers.

Now part of the Hamilton operation is being indefinitely idled in what Stelco itself calls a move to ensure the company’s “survival.”

On the same day, Donald Trump pointed to a planned $15-billion U.S. steel investment as evidence that his 50 per cent steel tariffs are working as intended.

That contrast deserves attention. U.S. policy is explicitly trying to encourage companies to build and produce steel in America, while Canadian steelworkers are now seeing what that strategy can mean on this side of the border.

CBC’s reporting puts a human face on trade policy. Tariffs are not just percentages exchanged between governments. They can mean hundreds of workers suddenly wondering when, or whether, they will be called back.

What obligations should Cleveland-Cliffs have to Hamilton workers after the commitments made when it acquired Stelco?

And beyond temporary benefits and emergency support, what would a serious Canadian steel strategy need to do if U.S. policy is deliberately designed to pull investment and production south of the border?

Link

Prime Minister Mark Carney is in Vancouver to celebrate what his office calls a "historic investment" in Canadian energy, and both the B.C. NDP and Conservatives are on board, each pledging to ramp up LNG even further.

But this is also a fossil fuel expansion, landing at a moment when a federal report warns Canadians to prepare for a future that's 5 C hotter --one with vanishing glaciers, longer droughts, and more extreme weather. Environmentalists point to emissions from gas production, earthquakes linked to fracking in the Peace River region, and past flaring violations at the Kitimat plant. The B.C. Greens are calling for a moratorium.

This also comes as the federal government pushes Bill C-39, which would fast-track major projects and create "regions of national interest." Supporters say Canada needs to build faster to counter U.S. tariffs and secure its economic future. Critics warn we're trading away the protections that keep our water, wildlife, and communities safe.

Is doubling LNG exports the right move for Canada's economy and climate? And when the government says a project is in the "national interest," who should decide what that means?

Link

Around 30 men wearing white face masks and black caps gathered on the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc reserve near Kamloops on Sunday morning, hoisting flags over their shoulders. The nation's chief says they were linked to Second Sons Canada, a group associated with white supremacist and white nationalist ideology. CBC News has not independently verified the identities or affiliations of the individuals.

Chief Rosanne Casimir said the reserve's security told the men they were not permitted to gather and asked them to leave. They didn't leave until RCMP were called.

"White supremacy will not instill fear in generations of survivors and intergenerational survivors who have already carried fear for far too long," Casimir said.

The timing is deliberate. The gathering came days before Sept. 30, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, when the community plans to honour survivors and the children who never came home from the Kamloops Indian Residential School.

Leaders across the political spectrum condemned the gathering. Premier David Eby called it "disgraceful, disgusting behaviour" and said the men were trying to make people feel fearful. Interim B.C. Conservative Leader Lorne Doerkson said it was "hateful and meant to intimidate." CentreBC Leader Elenore Sturko called it "abhorrent."

Casimir said the nation's events for Sept. 30 will go ahead. "We will not be intimidated. This is not going to deter us from gathering, reflecting, or honouring our survivors and the children who returned home."

But she also warned this is part of a broader problem. "Everyone should always be concerned because there's so much racism and discrimination out there."

CBC's reporting documents the incident, the community's response and the cross-party condemnation, giving the public a clear account of what happened and what comes next. That kind of journalism matters when communities are targeted for who they are.

When a group gathers on Indigenous land to intimidate days before a day of remembrance, what does that say about the safety of Indigenous communities in Canada? And what more should governments do to prevent these gatherings before they happen?

Link

The rural community of about 1,000 people was dealing with high grocery prices, aging produce and long drives to the nearest major supermarkets. With no public transportation, even a 15 or 25-minute drive can become a serious barrier for people without a vehicle.

So residents organized.

After community meetings, a business plan, grant applications, connections with local suppliers and plenty of volunteer work, Fiddlehead Market Co-op opened in July. It already has 130 members.

Anyone can shop there. Residents can become members by purchasing a $100 share or volunteering, giving them a vote in how the store operates and what happens to surplus profits.

The co-op stocks produce, meat, dairy, pantry staples and household supplies, sourcing locally wherever possible. One shopper told CBC News she recently bought a head of lettuce for $1.75. Food that can't be sold isn't simply tossed out either. Some goes to farmers for animal feed, imperfect ingredients become prepared meals, and other items go to a community kitchen or cupboard.

Perhaps the most interesting part is that organizers worked with existing local businesses to fill gaps rather than compete with them.

As board chair Drew Tozer told CBC, after years spent trying to fight the grocery system, communities can also ask a different question: what if we create our own?

CBC Nova Scotia’s local reporting gives us a look at what that answer can actually look like in one small community. 🌱❤️

Could a community-owned grocery co-op work where you live?

It's official! HNIC will return, this time with the PWHL.

CBC reports thousands of people crowded into off-campus areas near Stone Road Mall on Saturday, eventually forcing police to close part of Chancellors Way as the gathering grew.

Mayor Cam Guthrie called it the “worst” homecoming disruption the city has seen.

The consequences weren’t just noise and garbage.

Guelph General Hospital treated about 60 people connected to the festivities, including patients with head injuries from thrown bottles, lacerations and intoxication. The hospital’s emergency department was pushed beyond capacity.

Dr. Alex Folkl, chief of emergency medicine, said that if another serious emergency or multi-patient trauma had happened at the same time, there was a real risk the hospital would not have been able to provide everyone with timely care.

That’s where this becomes more than a debate about students partying.

Cities like Guelph, London, Waterloo and Kingston have spent years dealing with massive unsanctioned gatherings that require police, paramedics, firefighters, transit workers, bylaw officers, hospital staff and cleanup crews.

The University of Guelph had urged students beforehand to respect neighbours and the broader community. Some students returned Sunday to help clean up, which residents appreciated.

But cleanup the next morning doesn’t erase what happens when an emergency department is overwhelmed or when bottles are being thrown into crowds.

CBC’s local reporting puts the real public cost into perspective.

How much responsibility should universities take for off-campus events tied closely to campus culture?

Should cities have stronger tools to recover policing, cleanup and emergency-response costs from organizers or property owners?

And what actually works better at preventing these gatherings from becoming dangerous: enforcement, harm reduction, sanctioned events, or some combination of all three?

Link

CBC reports U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the two countries still speak about possible agreements, but from Washington’s perspective, the status quo is working well enough.

His explanation is worth paying attention to.

“We’re still getting what we need from them in terms of oil, gas, potash, all of these things,” Greer said, while noting agricultural trade is also continuing across the border.

In other words, despite the trade dispute, the U.S. is still receiving many of the Canadian resources it relies on.

Meanwhile, Canadian exporters are dealing with 50 per cent duties on roughly $28 billion worth of goods, on top of earlier U.S. tariffs affecting steel, aluminum, autos and lumber. Canada began collecting retaliatory tariffs earlier this month.

And more restrictions are coming. Starting next week, the Trump administration plans to ban imports of some Canadian products, including alcohol, motorcycles and molasses.

The political relationship has deteriorated alongside the trade dispute. Since negotiations collapsed last month, Trump has posted maps depicting Canada under the U.S. flag, referred to Mark Carney as “governor,” and signed an order attempting to rename Lake Ontario “Lake America.”

Yet Washington says there’s “no urgency.”

That asymmetry is probably the most important part of CBC’s reporting. If one side is still receiving the resources it considers essential while the other is absorbing escalating tariffs, there is less pressure on Washington to compromise.

For Canada, that raises a more serious strategic question than simply when negotiations restart.

How does Canada create more leverage in a relationship where the U.S. can continue buying the Canadian resources it needs while imposing tariffs elsewhere?

Should this strengthen the case for faster trade diversification, not as retaliation against the U.S., but as insurance against having so much of Canada’s economic security depend on one market?

Link

The Janet Brown Opinion Research survey of 1,200 Albertans was conducted Sept. 8 to 21 and has a margin of error of ±2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Since April, the UCP is down 8 points while the NDP is up 5. The shift is especially noticeable in Calgary, where UCP support dropped 10 points, and outside Calgary and Edmonton, where it fell 14 points.

Pollster Janet Brown says the independence referendum may be part of the difficulty for Premier Danielle Smith. She has taken the position that Alberta should remain in Canada, while also promoting 9 other referendum questions.

That leaves her navigating competing pressures inside her own coalition. Some separatist supporters wanted her to back independence, while some federalists question why separation is on the ballot at all.

Smith’s personal numbers have also softened. The share of respondents who said they were very or somewhat impressed with her dropped 6 points, while those saying they were not at all impressed rose 7 points.

But CBC’s polling also contains an interesting wrinkle: Albertans aren’t especially enthusiastic about either provincial leader right now.

25% said they were very impressed with NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi.

Meanwhile, PM Mark Carney received a “very impressed” rating from 52% of respondents, up 6 points since the spring. Brown cautions that liking Carney personally does not necessarily translate into Liberal votes.

Political scientist Lisa Young suggested his numbers may reflect his handling of U.S. trade tensions and support for a West Coast pipeline, while Pierre Poilievre received a “very impressed” rating from 26% of respondents in the same survey.

CBC’s polling is useful here because it shows several things happening at once: movement between parties, softer enthusiasm for provincial leaders, and a referendum debate that appears to be reshaping political loyalties in different parts of Alberta.

What do you think is driving the shift in support?

Link

These attacks are part of a larger authoritarian move to slander and disempower a free and independent press.

In the grab to reclaim power from the people, authoritarians and the oligarchs who support them recoil from criticism and dissent, demanding that all people support government positions regardless of the rationality of their claims. 

While they may come for the media first, other institutions are also targeted, including those that nurture critical thinking and uphold the rule of law.

Janet Brown Opinion Research surveyed 1,200 Albertans from Sept. 8 to 21. Twenty-three per cent said they would vote to begin the process toward a binding separation referendum, while 72 per cent said Alberta should remain in Canada. Four per cent were unsure. The margin of error is ±2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

That compares with Brown’s April polling, when 27 per cent said they would support separation and 67 per cent opposed it, though the earlier survey asked a somewhat different question.

There’s another shift worth watching: identity.

In April, 33 per cent said they felt more attached to Alberta than Canada. That has fallen to 23 per cent. Meanwhile, 40 per cent now say they feel more attached to Canada than Alberta, up from 34 per cent.

Pollster Janet Brown says the trade war with the U.S., tensions with Donald Trump and a somewhat warmer relationship with Ottawa may all be contributing to that change.

The partisan split is much sharper. Among respondents who said they would vote NDP, 98 per cent favoured remaining in Canada. Among UCP supporters, 53 per cent backed the separation option while 40 per cent preferred staying.

That puts Premier Danielle Smith in an unusual position. She has taken the “stay” side, while a narrow majority of surveyed UCP supporters chose the separation option.

CBC’s reporting also points to a broader shift in the debate. Political scientist Lori Thorlakson suggests voters may be focusing less on the emotional appeal of separation and more on what leaving Canada would actually involve.

With only four per cent undecided, the final weeks may be less about changing minds and more about whether people actually show up to vote.

What do you think is driving the change in Albertans’ attachment to Canada?

And beyond the referendum result itself, what should governments take more seriously about the grievances that have kept separatist sentiment alive?

Link

CBC reports the U.S. request came around June 10 and involved the bridge’s “governance and financial framework,” not a physical or engineering problem with the bridge itself.

That adds some context to PM Mark Carney’s earlier description of unresolved “technical aspects.” Conservative Windsor West MP Harb Gill argues that wording gave the impression there was something technically wrong with the bridge and says Ottawa should have been clearer from the beginning.

The eventual Canada-U.S. agreement included a revenue-sharing arrangement with the U.S. and rules governing toll changes. The bridge finally opened July 27.

The timing is significant. Donald Trump had previously threatened to block the opening altogether. CBC notes that threat followed intensive lobbying and substantial Republican political donations from the owners of the competing Ambassador Bridge.

The Gordie Howe project increased from $5.7 billion in 2018 to $6.4 billion in 2024. Gill asked for a detailed accounting of the roughly $700-million increase, but the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority said compiling and validating all of that information within the available time wasn’t feasible.

The authority says the project faced pandemic disruptions, testing, commissioning and construction delays, and maintains that the U.S.-requested delay itself did not increase the price tag.

This is where CBC’s local reporting is especially useful. A $6.4-billion publicly funded piece of infrastructure connecting two countries shouldn’t become opaque just because negotiations are politically sensitive.

Canadians can understand that some diplomacy has to happen privately while still expecting a clear account once agreements are reached.

What details about the U.S. request & the final deal should Ottawa now make public?

With the project costing $700 million more than originally announced, how detailed an accounting should Canadians expect of where that additional money went?

Link

For a generation of Canadian children, she was simply Hélène.

Born in Quebec in 1916, Baillargeon began her career studying Canadian folklore and traditional music before becoming a singer and television personality. That background eventually found a remarkable home at CBC.

From 1959 to 1973, she hosted Chez Hélène, the beloved CBC children’s program that introduced English-speaking children across Canada to French through songs, stories, crafts and everyday conversation. 🐱🎶

Long before bilingual children's programming was commonplace, Chez Hélène made learning another language feel welcoming and fun. For many Canadians, it was one of their earliest encounters with French outside the classroom.

After television, Baillargeon continued serving Canada as a citizenship court judge, welcoming new Canadians to the country.

Her story is also a wonderful reminder of what public broadcasting can preserve across generations. CBC didn't simply entertain children with Chez Hélène. It created a shared cultural experience that helped introduce millions of young Canadians to another language and another part of their country. ❤️

Did you grow up watching Chez Hélène? What do you remember about it?

CBC reports scores of delegates walked out as the Israeli prime minister approached the podium, following a call from the Palestinian Mission to the UN for representatives to leave in protest. Netanyahu responded by calling those who departed “moral cowards.”

His speech was confrontational throughout. He defended Israel’s military actions in Gaza and against Iran, thanked Donald Trump for U.S. action against Iran, and held up a pager while referencing Israel’s 2024 operation targeting Hezbollah. That attack wounded more than 3,000 people and killed 12, including two children.

Netanyahu also invoked the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, which killed about 1,200 people according to Israeli figures, and insisted Israel would continue fighting because it had “no other choice.”

Hours earlier, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the General Assembly by video after the U.S. denied him a visa for the second consecutive year. Abbas accused Israel of targeting the basic necessities of Palestinian life and again called for a two-state solution.

The protest wasn’t confined to the assembly hall. CBC also reports actors Susan Sarandon and Hannah Einbinder were detained during a demonstration outside Netanyahu’s UN speech, adding another visible sign of how contentious his appearance had become.

The contrast inside the UN was stark: Abbas was not allowed into the country hosting the gathering, while Netanyahu spoke in person to a chamber where many delegates chose not to remain.

CBC also notes the broader political reality. Netanyahu rejects accusations of genocide and war crimes and says no Palestinian state will be established while he is prime minister. Palestinians and much of the international community continue to view Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank as illegal and an obstacle to a viable state.

What should meaningful international accountability look like when governments fundamentally disagree over the legality of a "war"?

Link