Montreal shooter's alleged manifesto calls for far-left communist totalitarianism, 'revolutionary terror'



A police officer and a civilian are dead after a long-haired gunman opened fire in Montreal's Côte-des-Neiges neighborhood around 11:30 a.m. ET on Monday.

Some liberal media outfits have narrowly characterized the ideology espoused within the manifesto allegedly left behind by the gunman as "incel" — involuntary celibate — in nature.

'The essential political conditions of a society in which capitalism/liberalism, and thereby, hypergamy itself, are not part of the established order of things, have mostly already been laid out by Marx, Engels, and others.'

The document is brimming with resentment over perceived dynamics between the sexes in contemporary society and for so-called "hypergamy," or women partnering with men of greater perceived mating value. However, it is unmistakably leftist in nature — offering a Marxist rationalization of women's disinterest in undesirable men coupled with a defense of communism and a demand for a violent uprising against the capitalist West.

Despite the defense of and calls for leftist "revolutionary terror" in the document, authorities told reporters that Monday's attack did not constitute an act of terrorism.

The shooting

Footage of the monstrous attack shows fatally wounded Constable Mohamed Lamine Benredouane crawl behind a white Porsche to cover while a female officer crouches behind a cement planter and exchanges fire with the suspect.

Moments later, a civilian, Michael Mizrahi, can be seen falling as gunshots ring out.

It's unclear — and authorities have yet to clarify — whether Mizrahi was fatally shot by the female officer or the gunman. The Bureau des enquêtes indépendantes, or BEI, Quebec's police watchdog, has launched an investigation into the events that took place during the police intervention.

RELATED: Illegal alien terrorist crashes car during ICE arrest after taking his wife hostage, feds claim

Andrej Ivanov/Getty Images

The gunman, who was dressed in "military-type attire" and armed with an apparent semi-automatic rifle, can be seen charging the position of the female officer where he is ultimately neutralized.

While Constable Benredouane succumbed to his wounds, the second officer, though seriously injured, is in stable condition.

When asked about whether the shooting was an ambush targeting police, Montreal Police Chief Fady Dagher indicated that police received a 911 call from an individual telling them that somebody was "shooting from a specific place" — a higher floor — but when police arrived, the gunman was at the street level.

Dagher expressed uncertainty whether the shooter belonged to a larger network but indicated that no other suspect was being sought in relation to the Côte-des-Neiges shooting.

Ian Lafrenière, Quebec's minister of domestic security, told reporters that the shooting "was not considered as a possible terrorism attack but everything has been put in place to make sure it was not linked to something else," reported state media.

The determination that the shooting was not a terror attack reportedly came after Quebec authorities consulted with multiple agencies including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The manifesto

Radio-Canada confirmed that the shooter left behind a "violent incel manifesto targeting women."

State media acknowledged that the manifesto called for a violent revolution, but it — like other media outfits — neglected to note the leftist orientation of the proposed revolution.

The alleged 104-page manifesto published by Rebel News certainly espouses an incel ideology; however, it identifies a totalitarian communist state as the ultimate remedy for all of the West's perceived social and moral ills.

The document:

  • draws heavily from the writings of Karl Marx, noting that "the essential political conditions of a society in which capitalism/liberalism, and thereby, hypergamy itself, are not part of the established order of things, have mostly already been laid out by Marx, Engels, and others in works such as The Communist Manifesto";
  • repeatedly criticizes capitalism and its supporters;
  • calls for the abolition of private property, the centralization of credit in the hands of the state, and the establishment of state control over the means of communication and transportation;
  • characterizes the freedoms now enjoyed by men and women in the West as "mass-enslavement";
  • identifies, applying a Marxist critique, "dispossessed proletarian males of all ethnicities collectively" as "the most voiceless, exploited, marginalized, forgotten, despised, abandoned, and oppressed group within western society";
  • defends "revolutionary terror" as both moral and effective;
  • calls for the "total liquidation of the hypergamy state, down to its most hidden foundations";
  • notes that "women, though their behavior can be very hurtful, are generally not at fault for things" nor are "favored male[s]," and that powerful and influential people should instead be targeted;
  • describes optimal ways to assassinate elite bankers, powerful CEOs, billionaires, influential politicians — liberal and conservatives alike — and "the most crucial employees of the more virulent and filthy facets of the capitalist economy";
  • identifies the "headquarters of all corporations with ties to Zionism," the CEOs of private health insurance companies in the U.S., pornographic industry conferences, porn stars, advocates of pornography, real estate brokerage headquarters, cryptocurrency conferences, and leading military officials as "fair game" for terrorist attacks; and
  • concludes with "KILL THEM ALL!"

Canadian authorities have urged the public not to speculate on a motive.

Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette wrote, "As the police operation and investigation are still ongoing, it is important to let the authorities do their work and to avoid any speculation."

Quebec Domestic Security Minister Ian Lafrenière said that the suspect's motives are under investigation by the BEI.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Will Alberta leave Canada? Either way, Premier Danielle Smith is feeling the heat



At a recent anti-separatist rally in Calgary, left-wing activist Jenny Yeremiy denounced Alberta Premier Danielle Smith as a "separatist premier," accusing her of promoting independence "like a teenager slamming her bedroom door."

It was a striking charge against a politician who, at almost the same moment, was being condemned by committed Alberta separatists for refusing to let voters decide independence on the terms they wanted.

'I'm surprised, actually, my polling was as high as it was.'

That political whiplash neatly captures Smith's predicament: To many federalists, she has become the face of a dangerous separatist movement, while to many separatists, she is the establishment figure standing in its way.

As the debate over Alberta independence continues, passions on either side show no signs of abating.

Strong and sovereign

Smith, who has advocated for "a strong and sovereign Alberta within a united Canada," finds herself leading a United Conservative Party whose grassroots includes a significant separatist faction, with past polling suggesting a majority of UCP voters are at least open to Alberta leaving Canada."

The latest flash point came in May after King's Bench Justice Shaina Leonard ruled that an independence referendum question backed by more than 300,000 petition signatures could not proceed without additional consultation with Alberta's indigenous communities.

Although she appealed the court ruling, Smith has concluded that the litigation could take years to resolve. Instead of placing a straight independence question on October's ballot, she has proposed asking Albertans whether they want to hold a binding independence referendum in the future — a referendum on whether to hold a referendum.

RELATED: Albertans are ready to vote on Canadian secession — so why is their premier stalling?

Henry Marken/Getty Images

Wrath of Rath

That decision drew criticism from Alberta Prosperity Project legal counsel Jeff Rath, who argued that the court ruling did not prevent the province from proceeding with the original question asking Albertans whether they wish to remain in Canada.

Speaking with Blaze Lifestyle, Smith defended the government's approach as the product of legal advice.

"As you know, I get a lot of advice from a lot of lawyers, and the lawyers ... have told me that once something is decided in a court of law, it's the law of the land," Smith said.

"The law of the land right now in Alberta is that in order to proceed with a question that was designed as the Stay Free Alberta folks put forward, we'd have to do months of indigenous consultation."

A recent Angus Reid poll found Smith's approval rating in Alberta had fallen to 39%, one of the lowest levels of her premiership. Smith said she considers that number shockingly favorable considering that she has angered nearly every faction in the debate simultaneously.

"I'm surprised, actually, my polling was as high as it was," she said.

"Everyone was mad at me for about a week there — I had four different groups."

'Why are you doing this?'

She described the first group as Albertans who oppose even discussing independence.

"There was a group of people who said, 'Why are you doing this at all?'" For Smith, the answer comes down to Alberta's robust Citizen Initiative Act, which allows eligible voters to submit proposals directly to the provincial government. "When 400,000 people sign that petition, and 300,000 sign another saying they want to have this debate ... it's our obligation as government to follow our own law and put that forward."

A second group, Smith said, wanted a referendum initially but later "got cold feet" and hoped the government would provide "an off-ramp."

"The leave folks ... wanted us to put their question on as it had been written," said Smith, referring to the original petition language asking Albertans directly whether they wish to remain in Canada. "I explained [that] we have legal advice that we cannot do that."

Finally, Smith pointed to Albertans who are dissatisfied with Ottawa but do not want to leave Canada.

"I know that there's a group out there that are not happy with [Alberta's] relationship with Canada, don't want to break the country up, but they want to send a message. And ... I just think there's a better way to send a message."

Digital ID for Canadians? Carney's new internet censorship bill could be a back door



If Prime Minister Mark Carney has is way, logging on to social media in Canada may one day require more than a password.

Critics say the Liberal Party's latest legislation is a backdoor attempt to normalize digital ID while creating a powerful new bureaucracy to police online speech.

Platforms that fail to comply could face fines of up to $10 million and an additional penalty of 3% of global revenue.

This is but the latest step in a years-long campaign to expand government oversight of the internet that began under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and appears to be accelerating under Carney.

Harm's way

Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, would prohibit anyone under the age of 16 from using social media platforms. To enforce that restriction, users would have to verify their age online, prompting concerns that Canadians could ultimately be required to use digital ID or comparable age-verification systems simply to access social media.

The bill also establishes broad categories of prohibited “harmful content.” Platforms that fail to comply could face fines of up to $10 million and an additional penalty of 3% of global revenue. Those companies may in turn seek to shift liability onto individual livestreamers and content creators, creating what this reporter has previously described as “trickle-down censorship.”

It remains unclear whether Bill C-34 is intended to replace the Trudeau government’s proposed Online Harms Act or simply add another layer to Canada’s growing regime of internet regulation.

Hate reach

Meanwhile, Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, awaits final approval before becoming law — a step widely expected to proceed without difficulty. The legislation expands Canada’s hate speech laws and removes the long-standing defense for good-faith religious expression in certain criminal hate speech cases, raising alarms among civil liberties advocates and religious freedom groups.

The earlier Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) never became law after Parliament dissolved before it could be passed. Even so, it remains one of the most alarming assaults on free expression ever proposed in Canada.

Among its most controversial provisions, the bill would have allowed courts to impose preventive peace bonds — including curfews, travel restrictions, electronic monitoring, and even house arrest — on people who had not been convicted or even accused of a hate crime, but who authorities feared might commit one in the future. In other words, Canadians could have had their liberty restricted not for something they had done, but for something the government believed they might do.

Pre-crime division

The legislation also would have revived Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, exposing citizens to steep civil penalties for certain forms of online expression, and expanded hate-related penalties elsewhere in Canadian law. It is little wonder that critics denounced the proposal as a form of “thought crime” or “pre-crime” legislation — a dramatic departure from the traditional principle that people should be punished for their actions, not for what governments fear they may think, say, or do.

Bill C-34 identifies seven categories of prohibited “harmful content”:

  • Intimate content communicated without consent.
  • Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor.
  • Content that induces a child to harm himself.
  • Content used to bully a child.
  • Content that foments hatred.
  • Content that incites violence.
  • Terrorism or violent extremism content.

Notably, the legislation does not define “hatred,” even as it devotes extensive language to defining “terrorism” and “violent extremism” as politically, religiously, or ideologically motivated acts intended to intimidate the public or undermine institutions or social stability.

The bill would also establish a digital safety commissioner, a position critics say could function as a de facto national internet censor with sweeping authority to assess and enforce rules governing online content.

RELATED: Canada-US coalition emerges against Mark Carney's surveillance bill

JCCF board member John Robson. David Krayden

'Blank check'

Among the organizations condemning the legislation is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

“Greater transparency and accountability from tech companies is long overdue. But that must come through clear, targeted rules, not sweeping obligations and an open-ended government authority over any regulated service,” said Howard Sapers, the association’s executive director. “A blank check for federal power is the wrong answer to a real problem.”

“Bill C-34 introduces obligations which are so alarmingly broad that providers of regulated services will be tempted to over-comply at the expense of users’ freedom of expression and privacy rights,” Sapers added.

Another Carney government proposal, Bill C-22, would require technology companies to disclose user communications when requested by federal authorities or Canadian law enforcement agencies, potentially overriding their own privacy commitments.

Two Republican members of Congress have also raised concerns about the legislation. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast (R-Fla.) have written to Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree warning that Bill C-22 could threaten privacy rights in both Canada and the United States.

Trump Mulls At Ending His Signature Trade Deal

'We don’t need anything Canada has'

Cheap Chinese cars: Trojan horse built to undermine US security?



Why are Washington and Detroit so worried about Chinese automakers?

Most Americans assume the answer is cheap cars. But lower-priced imports are only the visible part of China's advantage.

Companies like BYD aren't simply building vehicles. They're building integrated ecosystems that include batteries, software, and charging infrastructure.

The bigger story is who controls the batteries, software, supply chains, and technology that increasingly determine who wins — and loses — the future of the auto business.

Hard line

To control a nation's car industry is to control an industry that sits at the center of manufacturing, technology, and national security.

That's the assumption behind Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno's proposal to block Chinese vehicles and components entirely — and it signals a turning point. His message is blunt: Chinese automakers should not gain a foothold in the United States. This isn't an incremental policy adjustment. It's a hard line.

The automotive industry isn't some niche corner of the economy. It accounts for roughly 22% of trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, making it one of the most important industries on the continent. And now it's being challenged by a global competitor that plays by very different rules.

While the United States tightens restrictions, the international response remains divided. Europe has imposed steep tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, arguing they are being dumped below cost. Canada has taken a different approach, agreeing to allow 49,000 Chinese EVs into its market.

That divergence matters because supply chains don't stop at national borders.

Washington is already signaling that any attempt to route Chinese vehicles through Canada or other backdoor channels will face scrutiny. The message is clear: If Chinese vehicles can't enter directly, they won't be allowed to enter indirectly.

Losing control

Nor is this happening in isolation. The Biden administration already laid much of the groundwork through executive actions targeting Chinese vehicle imports over concerns about software, hardware, and data security.

Those concerns aren't hypothetical. U.S. officials have confirmed that Chinese state-sponsored hackers have infiltrated critical infrastructure systems.

Now apply that reality to modern vehicles, which increasingly function as rolling computers. The issue isn't simply where a vehicle is assembled. It's who controls the software, connectivity, and data flowing through it.

That's why Moreno's proposal focuses not only on vehicles themselves, but also on software integration, component sourcing, and corporate partnerships.

That may be a step in the right direction, but the auto industry itself is now pushing for even tougher restrictions.

Fast lane

Major industry groups representing automakers, suppliers, and dealers argue that simply moving Chinese production onto U.S. soil doesn't solve the underlying problem if the technology, software, and supply chains remain controlled elsewhere. That leaves policymakers weighing the benefits of investment and jobs against concerns over long-term dependence on foreign-controlled technology.

At the same time, the global auto industry is changing faster than many manufacturers anticipated.

Toyota executives have warned that the industry's traditional cost structures and manufacturing assumptions may no longer be sufficient in a rapidly changing market. This isn't about minor adjustments. It's about adapting to a fundamentally different competitive landscape.

Chinese companies dominate battery production, accounting for roughly 80% of global output. Batteries are the most expensive component in most electric vehicles and increasingly important in hybrids as well. Control over battery production translates directly into pricing power and manufacturing flexibility.

Companies like BYD aren't simply building vehicles. They're building integrated ecosystems that include batteries, software, and charging infrastructure. That level of vertical integration allows them to move faster and often at lower cost than competitors relying on fragmented global supply chains.

RELATED: The great motor oil shortage of 2026 is another fake, media-driven panic — and drivers are paying the price

Kevin Carter/Jeff Greenberg/Getty Images

Cashing in their chips

Technology companies are also entering the automotive space with a different mindset. They're not burdened by decades of manufacturing habits or legacy systems. They're focused on software, speed, and scale. Watch companies like NVIDIA and Qualcomm, which are becoming increasingly important players in automotive technology.

For traditional automakers, the challenge is no longer just building a better vehicle. It's building vehicles faster, cheaper, and smarter while navigating regulations that seem to change with every election cycle.

That uncertainty has become a growing frustration across the industry. Executives increasingly complain about regulatory whiplash that makes long-term planning difficult.

Two years ago, the industry was being pushed toward full electrification. Today, many automakers are shifting resources toward hybrids as consumer demand evolves. Those strategic pivots are expensive.

Hyundai executives have acknowledged that competing directly with Chinese manufacturers on price is likely a losing proposition. Their strategy is to compete on quality, brand reputation, and dealer networks.

Price is right

Consumers, however, ultimately care about affordability.

If Chinese manufacturers can consistently deliver competitive vehicles at significantly lower prices, pressure on Western automakers will continue to grow.

That's why this debate isn't going away.

The push to block Chinese vehicles and components is as much about buying time as it is about setting policy. It gives American and allied manufacturers time to strengthen battery production, secure supply chains, and improve their competitive position.

But time alone won't solve the problem.

The United States still possesses enormous advantages in engineering talent, established brands, and one of the strongest dealer networks in the world. Those advantages remain meaningful, but they aren't permanent. They have to be reinforced with competitive products, realistic pricing, and a clear, long-term strategy.

Cars are no longer just transportation. They are increasingly software platforms, data hubs, and strategic industrial assets.

That is why the debate over Chinese vehicles has become far bigger than tariffs or trade policy. The question is whether the United States can remain competitive in an industry being reshaped by technology, batteries, and global supply chains.

Once control of those systems is lost, getting it back becomes far more difficult than anyone expects.

Canada Needs A Real Reckoning For The ‘Mass Graves’ Hoax

Five years after Canadian liberals incited a moral panic about “mass graves” of indigenous schoolchildren, almost no one will admit it happened.

Canada’s State-Sponsored Suicide, Now Available At Your Local Drive-Thru

Canada’s ‘Dr. Death and Donuts’ practices at the same clinic as my family physician. My own child has been treated by him.

Canada-US coalition emerges against Mark Carney's surveillance bill



What happens when a government can order technology companies to create a back door into encrypted communications that even they cannot access?

A rare cross-border coalition of Canadian civil-liberties advocates and Republican lawmakers is warning that Canada's proposed surveillance legislation could threaten privacy rights on both sides of the border.

'Privacy is not a luxury in a free society.'

Sweeping vulnerability

Supporters of proposed Bill C-22 say such powers are necessary to help law enforcement investigate terrorists, organized crime, and other serious threats in an age of encrypted messaging. Critics counter that once a vulnerability is built into a system, it cannot be confined to one country, one agency, or one investigation.

Last Friday, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms presented a petition to the office of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. More than 40,000 people signed the petition opposing Bill C-22, which would expand the government's ability to obtain electronic communications and other digital evidence during criminal and national security investigations.

US opposition

VPN providers are already threatening to leave the Canadian market if the bill becomes law. In a May 7 letter, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, warned Canada's Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree that the legislation could jeopardize privacy rights in both countries.

"Canada's Bill C-22, currently under consideration in Parliament, would drastically expand Canada's surveillance and data access powers in ways that create significant cross-border risks to the security and data privacy of Americans," the lawmakers wrote.

"We write to express our concerns that, if enacted, Bill C-22 would allow Canadian government officials to compel American companies to build backdoors into their encrypted systems, thereby introducing systemic vulnerabilities that could be exploited by hackers, foreign adversaries, and cybercriminals."

The lawmakers also warned that the bill's language is sufficiently broad to permit secret ministerial orders.

"If a U.S.-based provider is forced to redesign its system to facilitate Canadian authorized access to content that is currently inaccessible even to the provider itself, the resulting capability cannot be geographically limited," they wrote. "This directly threatens the privacy of U.S. persons who expect and depend upon robust encryption to protect sensitive communications, health data, financial records, and personal correspondence from unwarranted intrusion."

RELATED: Albertans are ready to vote on Canadian secession — so why is their premier stalling?

Separatist leader Mitch Sylvestre at a rally in front of the Elections Alberta headquarters in Edmonton, Canada. Henry Marken/Getty Images

Stark terms

At a Friday news conference before submitting the petition to Carney, JCCF board member John Robson, a prominent Ottawa historian and journalist, described the bill in stark terms.

“I'm here on Parliament Hill today because we are delivering a petition with 42,344 signatures asking Parliament not to proceed with Bill C-22 ... because [Prime Minister Mark Carney] is the moving force behind this bill, and we're hoping to persuade him that all these signatures from Canadians across the country ... represent legitimate, serious concerns about the scope of this bill,” Robson said.

Robson noted that many Canadians and the constitutional scholars at the JCCF “are concerned about Bill C-22 because it would require service providers to compile Canadians' electronic data, to develop systems for extracting information from it and turning it over to the government.”

“It's not that Canadians ... are against law enforcement having appropriate powers, including to fight organized crime,” Robson said.

“It's one more ham-fisted way of targeting ordinary, law-abiding people instead of adopting tailored measures suitable to the real crime problems. And privacy is not a luxury in a free society.”

Canada’s Medical Assistance In Dying Program Is An Express Train To Hell

MAID eligibility is expected to expand on March 17, 2027, to allow medically assisted euthanasia for those who only suffer mental illness.

Foreigners who hate each other, disrespect women are creating serious problems for the Canadian military



David McGuinty, Canada's liberal defense minister, boasted late last month that the DEI-ed Canadian military had surpassed its regular force recruiting target for the second consecutive year, enrolling 7,310 new members in fiscal year 2025-26. That brings the total of full-time military members to 67,827. Another 25,054 souls are in the reserves.

"The Canadian Armed Forces' continued recruiting success signals more than progress — it reflects a renewed strength at the core of our military," said McGuinty.

'I think we are representative of the Canadian demographic.'

What McGuinty neglected to mention in his optimistic press release was that nearly 20% of these recruits aren't actually Canadians, thanks to a 2022 decision by then-Trudeau Defense Minister Anita Anand — the daughter of Indian migrants — to drop the military's citizenship requirement.

It has become abundantly clear that having multitudes of permanent residents from the third world join up in exchange for expedited naturalization isn't so much a value added as a massive liability.

A damning and confidential Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School report that was authored by Lieutenant-Colonel Marc Kieley and obtained both by Juno News and the National Post highlights some of the various problems foreign recruits have created for the military.

RELATED: US calls Canada’s bluff on defense spending; 'pauses' 86-year-old alliance

Creative Touch Imaging Ltd./NurPhoto/Getty Images

The report, which was also leaked online, notes that in Quebec's first noncitizen Francophone platoon, only 48% managed to graduate and there were constant ethnic clashes, specifically between the Cameroonian and Ivory Coast candidates.

More generally, noncitizen recruits in the Canadian military — some of whom had been in the country for only three months — have demonstrated a profound lack of "respect toward women" superiors and peers.

"For many candidates, it is the first time they have lived with members of a different sex, and for some it is also the first time they have been expected to treat women as their peers," said the report. "Platoons are also reporting inter-candidate cultural frustrations, with lack of respect towards women being the most common concern."

Some foreigners apparently also have issues taking orders from younger superiors.

"Older candidates from certain cultural backgrounds are also more likely to experience friction when responding to younger CFLRS instructors due to cultural hierarchies based on age," said the confidential report.

In addition to a failure of baseline competency, ethnic infighting, communication issues, and a rampant disrespect for women and junior officers, foreigners also have unrealistic expectations going into their training.

The report noted, for instance, that a "surprising number of permanent resident candidates believed they would simply go home after basic training" and that foreigners in officer training "are more likely to imagine a CAF officer position as a public service job, rather than a military occupation."

Physical fitness is also an issue for those recruits McGuinty is hoping will renew the Canadian military's strength. Permanent residents failed the initial basic training fitness screening test last year at a rate of 14.79% compared to 7.89% for citizens within the same period.

There has been some internal pushback.

According to the report, "On French (officer) platoons, where permanent residents have made up 50%-80% of all candidates, there have been more emotional responses, with Francophone staff openly raising the question of whether it is appropriate for officer commissions to be granted to non-Canadian citizens."

Commodore Pascal Belhumeur, a spokesman for the Canadian Department of National Defense, told the National Post, "I think the Canadian Armed Forces that we are recruiting is a representation of Canadian society now."

According to Statistics Canada, 23% of the persons presently in Canada are immigrants.

"If you look at the number of Canadians that are foreign-born and the number of people who we’re bringing into the Canadian Armed Forces, I think we are representative of the Canadian demographic," said Belhumeur, adding that the military is "proud to reflect the diversity of Canadian society."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!