Features
Decision to invite former member of Nazi-aligned Ukrainian military unit to House of Commons raises questions about why he was allowed into Canada in the first place
By BERNIE BELLAN (Originally published Sept. 25 in The Jewish Post & News)
The storm that erupted over the revelation that a former member of a Ukrainian unit that fought with the Nazis during the Second World War was invited to attend the appearance by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky when he spoke to the House of Commons on Friday, September 22, has led to a whole series of questions:
- Who is Yaroslav Hunka, the 98-year-old Ukrainian-Canadian who received a standing ovation from members of all four parties in the House of Commons on Friday, September 22, when he was introduced by House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota prior to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech in the House of Commons?
- What was the Wafen-SS Galicia Division (also known as the SS 14th Wafer Division)?
- How is it that many former members of the Wafen-SS Galicia Division were allowed entry into Canada following World War II?
- Why was there no vetting of Hunka by anyone prior to his having been invited to attend the House of Commons on September 22?
The fierce reaction from various Jewish Canadian groups, including the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies, B’nai Brith Canada, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, was unrelentingly critical of the decision to invite Hunka to attend Zelensky’s appearance in the House of Commons.
Hunka’s past participation in the Wafen-SS Galicia Division was well known. As an article that appeared on Wikipedia on September 24 noted: “Yaroslav Hunka (Ukrainian: Ярослав Гунька; born c. 1925) is a veteran of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), a Nazi Germany military formation. Hunka was born in Urman, then in Poland, and volunteered for SS Galizien in 1943. He emigrated to Canada after the conclusion of World War II. In 2023, Hunka made international headlines after he received a standing ovation from the House of Commons of Canada, and was recognized by Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Later, it was revealed Hunka was affiliated with Nazis, and Canadian government officials apologized to the worldwide Jewish community. Hunka is retired and lives in North Bay, Ontario.
Biography
“Yaroslav Hunka was born in
“Yaroslav Hunka was born in Urman, Second Polish Republic (now Ukraine) c. 1925. In 1944, Hunka was deployed into combat against Red Army forces on the Eastern Front of World War II. Following the conclusion of World War II in Europe, Hunka immigrated to Canada and joined the Ukrainian-Canadian community.] As of 2022, Hunka lived in North Bay, Ontario, and travelled to Greater Sudbury to protest against that year’s Russian invasion of Ukraine.”
The question why so many former members of a Ukrainian military unit that fought for the Nazis were allowed into Canada following WWII is laced with controversy. A website that is very sympathetic to Russia lists a number of very serious allegations about Canadian complicity in allowing those individuals into the country:
“In the immediate postwar period, Canada’s then Liberal government, working in close cahoots with US and British intelligence, opened Canada’s doors to Ukrainian Nazi collaborators. These included members of the infamous 14th Grenadier Division of the Waffen SS, also known as the Galicia Division.
“The scale of the influx of Nazi collaborators only became public knowledge in the 1980s. A comprehensive study carried out by Alti Rodal on behalf of the federal government-appointed Deschênes Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada uncovered records proving that US intelligence agents in Europe had funneled Nazi collaborators from Eastern Europe through the Canadian immigration system using false papers. Rodal revealed that large numbers of identically typed applications were received by Canada’s immigration department from one address in West Germany. On closer inspection, this address turned out to be a US military base.
“The Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney established the Deschênes Commission in 1985, in response to a mounting public outcry over exposures of Nazis and Nazi accomplices who had found a safe haven in Canada and tasked the inquiry with identifying Nazi war criminals residing in Canada.
“Around the same time, the Simon Wiesenthal Center estimated that upwards of 2,000 Nazis and Nazi collaborators emigrated to Canada in the years after the war. A quarter-century later, in 2011, it would give Canada an “F minus” in its annual report ranking countries on their efforts to prosecute war criminals. This placed Canada on a par with Ukraine and the former Baltic republics, i.e. countries where the right-wing, nationalist regimes that have emerged since the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union openly venerate the ultranationalists who aligned with the Nazis when they invaded the USSR.
“War criminals in Canada
“A significant number of those who made their way to Canada were members of the Nazi SS’s Galicia Division, which was made up of Ukrainian nationalist volunteers who fought on the side of the Wehrmacht against the Red Army during the Nazis’ war of annihilation against the Soviet Union. This preplanned onslaught—launched in June 1941 when a 3 million-strong force comprised of German troops, their Axis allies and fascist volunteers invaded the Soviet Union—led to the deaths of 27 million Soviet citizens and the Holocaust.
“In waging war, suppressing the population, and pursuing the annihilation of the Jews, across Eastern Europe and above all in the USSR, Hitler’s Wehrmacht and SS shock troops relied on the loyal collaboration of ultraright-wing, anti-Semitic forces. Among the Ukrainian nationalists, in both occupied Poland and the USSR, the Nazis found eager collaborators. The Galicia Division was formed in 1943 out of a faction of the Stepan Bandera-led Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists Bandera (OUN-B) and fought with the Nazis against the Red Army throughout 1944.
“Massacres perpetrated by the division against Polish and Jewish civilians have been well documented, including at Huta Pieniacka, Podkamien, and Palikrowy. At Podkamien, 100 Polish civilians were massacred in a hilltop monastery, and at least a further 500 in surrounding villages as the Red Army approached the German-occupied area in March 1944.
“Members of the Galicia Division were initially prohibited from entering Canada due to their membership in the SS. But in 1950, Britain made an appeal to the Commonwealth for volunteers to accept a total of 9,000 division members who were at that time residing in the UK after being disarmed by British troops at the war’s end.
“When Canada’s External Affairs Department, prompted by complaints from the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), raised concerns about the division’s ties to the Nazis and role in Nazi atrocities, the British government insisted that it had carried out background checks. “While in Italy these men were screened by Soviet and British missions and neither then nor subsequently has any evidence been brought to light which would suggest that any of them fought against the Western Allies or engaged in crimes against humanity,” claimed the British Foreign Office. “‘Their behaviour since they came to this country, added London, ‘has been good and they have never indicated in any way that they are infected with any trace of Nazi ideology.’
“With this letter serving as political cover, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and his cabinet declared that Galicia Division members would be permitted to immigrate to Canada unless it could be proved that they had personally committed atrocities against civilian populations based on ‘race, religion or national origins.’ Simply having been a Galicia Division member would not be considered a valid reason to prevent entry, even though after the war all Waffen-SS members had been deemed complicit in war crimes.
“The immigration of Nazi and Nazi-allied war criminals continued for more than a decade after the war and was a significant factor in Canada’s emergence during the Cold War as a political-ideological centre of far-right Ukrainian nationalism.
“Speaking to a CBS “60 Minutes” programme in 1997, Canadian historian Irving Abella, who is currently Professor for Canadian Jewish history at York University, bluntly summed up the political climate of the time. ‘One way of getting into postwar Canada,’ he said ‘was by showing the SS tattoo. This proved that you were an anti-Communist.’
“Ottawa carried out this policy in close collaboration with US authorities, who similarly permitted ex-Nazis to settle in the US and recruited hundreds to act as spies against the Soviet Union and the Soviet-allied regimes in Eastern Europe. According to investigative reporter Eric Lichtblau, up to 1,000 former Nazis were made use of by the CIA in Europe, within the US itself, the Middle East, and in Latin America.
Yet, other historians dispute the notion that Canada became a safe haven for Nazi and Nazi-allied war criminals. In a book titled , written by historian Howard Margolian, and reviewed by Urs Obrist in 2002, Obrist writes the following:
“Even though the debate on the admission of Nazi war criminals to Canada after World War II seemed to have reached its apex in the mid-1980s, with the investigation of the Jules Deschênes Commission and its inquiries on war criminals, the issue has continued to stir historical interest in the 1990s and beyond.[1] This recent publication by Howard Margolian, Unauthorized Entry, revises the widely held view that Canada has been a safe haven for Nazi war criminals. Margolian is a Canadian historian with a special interest in the history of World War II and Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. As the author of Conduct Unbecoming, he has already shed light on the story of the murder of Canadian POWs in Normandy and the trial and fate of the SS-General Kurt Meyer.[2] In Unauthorized Entry, Margolian challenges and refutes accusations stating that the King and St. Laurent governments had been negligent in the admission of Nazi war criminals and collaborators to Canada.
“His study concludes that neither the immigration bureaucracy, nor the immigration lobby in Canada, nor the western intelligence community were as responsible for the influx of about 2000 war criminals and collaborators as has been generally assumed. Instead, he argues, the blame is to be put on the war criminals and collaborators who gained entry to Canada by forged identities or by giving false information about their wartime history. The great majority of Nazi war criminals and collaborators who settled in Canada after the Second World War were admitted not on purpose, but as a result of the absence of, or inaccessibility to, information about their wartime activities. Margolian summarizes that, in view of the benefit drawn from the immigration of the 1.5 million immigrants arriving in Canada between 1945 and 1955, it was worth taking the risk and admitting some 2000 war criminals to Canada.”
However, in his review of Margolin’s book Obrist notes that the Canadian government made exceptions for three categories of immigrants – who were not denied entry even if they might have had Nazi connections: “German scientists, Estonian refugees from Sweden and former members of the Ukrainian SS-Division ‘Galicia’.”
As for how the Speaker of the House of Commons could have completely overlooked Hunka’s past membership in a Nazi-affiliated unit during WWII, Rota released a statement late Sunday afternoon saying he recognized an individual in the gallery on Friday, and that he has “subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so.”
“I wish to make clear that no one, including fellow parliamentarians and the Ukraine delegation, was aware of my intention or of my remarks before I delivered them,” he wrote.
“I particularly want to extend my deepest apologies to Jewish communities in Canada and around the world.”
The statement does not make clear what Rota is apologizing for, and it does not name Hunka or give any details about what information Rota learned about him since Friday.
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
Features
Noah Wyle explains Robby’s controversial behaviour in season two of The Pitt
Noah Wyle believes audiences struggled to accept the changes in Dr. Michael “Robby” Robinavitch during the second season of The Pitt. In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, Wyle explained why viewers reacted strongly to the emergency physician’s increasingly difficult behaviour, arguing that audiences often expect their heroes to maintain an unrealistic standard of “purity”.
(Spoiler warning: for anyone who hasn’t yet watched The Pitt, this article contains minor spoilers.)
In season one of the HBO medical drama, Robby was a dedicated doctor whose composure and clinical instincts made him a reliable member of staff. Season two revealed a more troubled side of the character, with grief and deteriorating mental health affecting his relationships with colleagues.
“An interesting American hypocrisy”
Wyle, who also works as a writer, director and executive producer on the show, sees Robby’s behaviour as part of a character journey rather than a sudden departure from the person audiences admired.
He said that viewers often forgive villains who occasionally do something admirable but tend to judge traditionally heroic characters much more harshly when they make mistakes. Wyle described this as “an interesting American hypocrisy”.
Wyle credited executive producer John Wells for encouraging the team to tell Robby’s story honestly.
Gaming and the success of House
Wyle has suggested a potential five- or six-season trajectory for Robby, with the character currently moving from denial towards recognizing his problems and seeking a way forward. Season two was uncomfortable for viewers, as Robby struggled to acknowledge his condition.
The success of The Pitt, particularly if it lasts for that five- or six-season run, may interest game developers. House, another of the most popular TV medical dramas, inspired two games back in its heyday. In 2008, Exelweiss designed a cellphone game for the show, releasing Spanish and English versions. Two years later, Legacy Interactive released a video game based on the series; players acted as House’s diagnostic team to solve five unusual medical cases.
For now, iGaming companies like Casino Days Ontario are more focused on the immensely popular slots themes, such as ancient civilizations, as well as variations on table classics like poker and blackjack.
The Pitt has been credited with reviving the medical drama, after a successful era of shows that included House (a “prickly” take on the format, in the words of one critic) alongside ER, Grey’s Anatomy, and The Good Doctor. That same critic praised The Pitt for showing that TV medical dramas can be “satisfyingly elongated”, which could inspire developers who specialize in RPGs or other long form games.
Season three could change Robby’s relationships
Wyle offered a glimpse of how the next season might develop Robby’s complicated connection with Dr. Langdon.
Their relationship changed after Langdon disappointed his mentor in the first season. Robby was reluctant to welcome him back in season two, leaving the two characters more separated despite their history.
Robby will return to the hospital after spending a couple of months away, potentially confronting embarrassment about his previous conduct and uncertainty about his abilities.
