Opinion
Quebec’s ban on gender-neutral bathrooms in schools is good news
From LifeSiteNews
When one school in Alberta decided to bring in gender-neutral bathrooms back in 2017, many students avoided them because, as any idiot knows, boys and girls generally feel uncomfortable doing their business in a stall next to a member of the opposite sex.
It is still sometimes surreal to consider what constitutes a news story in 2024. Imagine telling your grandparents, or even your parents 20 years ago, that it would be breaking news across the board — Global News, the Globe and Mail, the national broadcaster — that a provincial government had issued a directive … that bathrooms and locker rooms in schools be specifically designated for either boys or girls.
But yet here we are. On May 1, Quebec’s new rules banning the implementation of shared, “gender-neutral” or “all-gender” bathrooms came into effect, the result of a 2023 petition to protest the plan to make all bathrooms gender neutral at D’Iberville high school in Rouyn-Noranda. At the time, Premier François Legault commissioned Family Minister Suzanne Roy with creating an advisory committee to do research; recommendations are expected in the winter of 2025.
But Education Minister Bernard Drainville, perhaps realizing how ridiculous it is that an advisory committee needs to be created — and then needs a year — to determine whether or not teenage boys and girls need their own bathrooms, decided to go ahead and “correct the course,” citing the need protect young girls from discomfort and harassment. When the news broke that a Quebec high school in Rouyn-Noranda was starting work on gender-neutral bathrooms, Drainville decided to address the issue via directive.
The very existence of such a sane, common-sense directive reveals how insane our culture has become; mandating male and female bathrooms is not the sort of thing one used to have to do, explicitly. The directive also stipulates that any student wishing to use an individual bathroom must be able to do so. The directive, Drainville says, is needed. “It’s a question of well-being, privacy, and respect for private life,” he said.
The CBC, of course, promptly hunted down some LGBT activists who predictably oppose the policy. “(The directive) is not well balanced because it stigmatizes kids that are a bit different,” said Mona Greenbaum, co-director of LGBT+ Family Coalition. “We know that from all sorts of research that it’s very harmful for young people to not have their gender identity affirmed.” The most recent research, of course, is the UK National Health Service’s Cass Review, which in fact concluded that the so-called “affirmative model” is “very harmful for young people.”
Jennifer Maccarone, a frequently hysterical LGBT activist and Member of the National Assembly, serves as the Liberal Party critic for “the 2SLGBTQIA+ community,” also weighed in, stating that the directive contradicted a 2021 guide for schools published by the Ministry of Education that supported the idea of gender-neutral spaces. “Does the government still stand by their document?” Maccarone demanded to know during a news conference. Drainville’s directive is pretty clear, so it would seem the answer to her question is “no.”
It is because of folks like Maccarone that such directives are even needed in the first place. When one school in Alberta decided to bring in gender-neutral bathrooms back in 2017, many students avoided them because, as any idiot knows, boys and girls generally feel uncomfortable doing their business in a stall next to a member of the opposite sex. Lineups began to form outside the gender-specific bathrooms, and students trekked all the way across the school to avoid using the gender-neutral bathrooms. Girls even risked dehydration and bladder infections rather than use bathrooms with males.
Of course, none of that matters to Maccarone and the LGBT activists. Their agenda is far more important than the comfort and safety of students — especially girls. Their complaints, and their stories, are never even considered. Fortunately, it appears that saner heads are finally prevailing.
Energy
Is Canada the next nuclear superpower?
From Resource Works
The rise of AI and other technologies have pushed energy demand through the roof, and Canada can help power that with nuclear.
Good to see Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pushing nuclear power as a key contributor to meeting the world’s soaring demand for electricity.
“The energy consumption necessary around AI (artificial intelligence) nobody has properly understood yet,” he said. “We have stepped up big time on nuclear.”
He cited Canada’s uranium reserves and progress in building both full-scale CANDU reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs). He said other countries need to “skate where the puck is going” on cleaner energy sources.
“We know that if we are going to meet our net-zero targets around the world, and certainly in this region, nuclear is going to be really part of the mix.”
He stopped short of saying Canada would build more major nuclear reactors for domestic use but spoke about the development of SMRs. Ottawa has previously stated it wants to become “a global leader in SMR deployment.”
Meanwhile, International Trade Minister Mary Ng said Canada is launching a gateway for nuclear development in the Asia-Pacific region. She said growing Pacific Rim economies will face increasing demand for electricity, not just to curb emissions.
“All this followed CANDU licence-holder AtkinsRéalis announcing a “multi-billion-dollar” sale of two CANDU reactors to Romania, the first to be built since 2007. The federal government contributed $3 billion, the company said.
And in one of our Resource Works Power Struggle podcasts, energy journalist Robert Bryce said: “We’re seeing the revitalization of the nuclear sector… There are a lot of promising signs.”
Also from Bryce: “Forty-seven per cent of the people on the planet today live in electricity poverty. There are over three billion people who live in the unplugged world; 3.7 billion who live in places where electricity consumption is less than what’s consumed by an average kitchen refrigerator.”
Policy Options magazine notes how Canada and 21 other countries signed a 2023 pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, and says: “The reality would appear to be clear: there is no feasible net-zero future without the deployment of new nuclear power.”
For Canada, it adds: “We have an opportunity to expand our global status, but this requires overcoming years of policy inaction while other nations have modernized their nuclear strategies. To triple our nuclear capacity by 2050, we need clear priorities and unwavering political commitment.”
Earlier this year, François-Philippe Champagne, federal minister of innovation, science and industry, said nuclear power needs to grow for the world’s renewable-energy economy.
“Nuclear, definitely. For me, we have to look at hydro, we have to look at nuclear, we have to look at small modular reactors, we have to look at wind, we have to look at solar.”
Jonathan Wilkinson, energy and natural resources minister, promised to expedite the approval process for new Canadian nuclear projects.
Canada now gets about 15% of its electricity from nuclear generation, mostly from reactors in Ontario.
But the last nuclear reactor to come into service in Canada was at the Darlington station, east of Toronto, back in 1993. No new nuclear project has been approved since then, but multi-million-dollar upgrades are underway at existing Ontario plants.
Heather Exner-Pirot of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and Jesse McCormick of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition see SMRs and micro-reactors as a plus for rural and remote areas of Canada that now rely on diesel to generate power. Some First Nations are also interested.
However, the two commentators point out that nuclear developers will need Indigenous support and will have to “provide meaningful economic benefits and consider Indigenous perspectives in project design.”
Now, the Wabigoon Lake nation in Ontario has stepped up as a potential host to a deep underground facility for storing nuclear waste.
As Canada looks to SMRs to meet electricity demand, our country also hopes to sell more uranium to other nations—perhaps with a little help from Russia.
In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed restrictions on Russian uranium exports in retaliation for Western sanctions on Russian oil, gas, and LNG.
That boosted hopes for increased exports of Canadian uranium.
Canada, once the world’s largest uranium producer, is now the world’s second-largest, behind Kazakhstan, and accounts for roughly 13% of global output.
Putin’s threat gave more momentum to the plans underway by NexGen Energy for its $4-billion Rook 1 uranium mine in Saskatchewan.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has completed its final technical review of the project. Next comes a commission hearing, followed by a final decision on approval.
NexGen is working on detailed engineering plans in preparation for full construction, pending federal approval.
NexGen could push Canada to become the world’s largest uranium producer over the next decade. Other companies are rushing to Saskatchewan to start exploration projects in the Athabasca region, while existing players are reopening dormant mines.
All this follows the commitment by nearly two dozen countries in 2023 to triple their nuclear-energy output by 2050.
And so Britain’s BBC News topped a recent roundup on nuclear power with this headline: “Why Canada could become the next nuclear energy ‘superpower’.”
Business
The Health Research Funding Scandal Costing Canadians Billions is Parading in Plain View
Why Can’t We See the Canadian Institutes for Health Research-Funded Research We Pay For?
Right off the top I should acknowledge that a lot of the research funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) is creative, rigorous, and valuable. No matter which academic category I looked at during my explorations, at least a few study titles sparked a strong “well it’s about time” reaction.
But two things dampen my enthusiasm:
- Precious few of the more than 39,000 studies funded by CIHR since 2011 are available to the public. We’re generally permitted to see no more than brief and incomplete descriptions – and sometimes not even that.
- There’s often no visible evidence that the research ever actually took place. Considering how more than $16 billion in taxpayer funds has been spent on those studies over the past 13 years, that’s not a good thing.
If you’ve been reading The Audit for a while, you know that I’ll often identify systems that appear vulnerable to abuse. As a rule though, I’m reluctant to invoke the “s” word. But here’s one place where I can think of no better description: the vacuum where CIHR compliance and enforcement should be is a national scandal.
Keep these posts coming: subscribe to The Audit.
I’ve touched on these things before. And even in that earlier post I acknowledged how:
…as a country, we have an interest in investing in industry sectors where there’s a potential for high growth and where releasing proprietary secrets can be counter productive.
So we shouldn’t expect access to the full results of every single study. But that’s surely not true for the majority of research. And there’s absolutely no reason that CIHR shouldn’t provide evidence that something (anything!) productive was actually done with our money.
Because a well-chosen example can sometimes tell the story better than huge numbers, I’ll focus on one particular study in just a moment. But for context, here are some huge numbers. What follows is an AI-powered breakdown by topic of all 39,751 research grants awarded by CIHR since 2011:
Those numbers shouldn’t be taken as anything close to authoritative. The federal government data doesn’t provide even minimal program descriptions for many of the grants it covers. And many descriptions that are there contain meaningless boilerplate text. That’s why the “Other – Uncategorized” category represents 72 percent of all award dollars.
Ok. Let’s get to our in-the-weeds-level example. In March 2016, Greta R. Bauer and Margaret L. Lawson (principal investigators) won a $1,280,540 grant to study “Transgender youth in clinical care: A pan-Canadian cohort study of medical, social and family outcomes”.
Now that looks like vital and important research. This is especially true in light of recent bans on clinical transgender care for minors in many European countries following the release of the U.K.’s Cass report. Dr. Cass found that such treatment involved unacceptable health risks when weighed against poorly defined benefits.
A website associated with the Bauer-Lawson study (transyouthcan.ca) provides a brief update:
As of December of 2021, we have completed all of our planned 2-year follow up data collection. We want to say thanks so much to all our participants who have continued to share their information with us over these past years! We have been hard at work turning data into research results.
And then things get weird. That page leads to a link to another page containing study results, but that one doesn’t load due to an internal server error.
Before we move on, I should note that I come across a LOT of research-related web pages on potentially controversial topics that suddenly go off-line or unexpectedly retire behind pay walls. Those could, of course, just be a series of unfortunate coincidences. But I’ve seen so many such coincidences that it’s beginning to look more like a pattern.
The good news is that earlier versions of those lost pages are nearly always available through the Internet Archive’s WayBackMachine. And frankly, the stuff I find in those earlier versions is often much more – educational – than whatever intentional updates would show me.
In the case of transyouthcan.ca, archived versions included a valid link to a brief PDF document addressing external stressors (which were NOT the primary focus of the original grant application). That PDF includes an interesting acknowledgment:
This project is being paid for by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). This study is being done by a team of gender-affirming doctors and researchers who have many years of experience doing community-based trans research. Our team includes people who are also parents of trans children, trans adults, and allied researchers with a long history of working to support trans communities.
As most of the participants appear to have financial and professional interests in the research outcome, I can’t avoid wondering whether there might be at least the appearance of bias.
In any case, that’s where the evidence trail stopped. I couldn’t find any references to study results or even to the publication of a related academic paper. And it’s not like the lead investigators lack access to journals. Greta Bauer, for example, has 79 papers listed on PubMed – but none of them related directly to this study topic.
What happened here? Did the authors just walk off with $1.2 million of taxpayer funding? Did they do the research but then change their minds about publishing when the results came in because they don’t fit a preferred narrative?
But the darker question is why no one at CIHR appears to be even mildly curious about this story – and about many thousands of others that might be out there. Who’s in charge?
Keep these posts coming: subscribe to The Audit.
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Economy2 days ago
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Another Mass Grave?
-
ESG11 hours ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Alberta1 day ago
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
-
Energy1 day ago
Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale
-
Alberta1 day ago
On gender, Alberta is following the science
-
International12 hours ago
Elon Musk praises families on X: ‘We should teach fear of childlessness,’ not pregnancy