Columns & Essays
Canada’s decades-long march toward socialism has become a mad dash to the finish line. Citing the high cost of living, and under pressure from an increasingly assertive NDP, the Trudeau Liberals have implemented, or are implementing, a slew of new entitlement programs ostensibly designed to help Canadians stay healthy and make ends meet. National pharmacare, national dental care, national daycare, and now a national school lunch program. Forget “The Great Reset”, Canada is in the process of being redesigned from top to bottom. But will Canadians be better off when the overhaul is complete?
I've often said that the number one problem confronting policymakers today, not just in Canada but throughout the Western world, is the general, and in my opinion cataclysmic, degradation in the quality of thought that goes into positions they take on issues, and the policies that are derived therefrom. Some refer to this as “post-modern thinking”. That gives it too much credit. I prefer to call it “post-thinking modernism.”
Here we go again. In an attempt to promote peace in the Middle East the diplomatic grandees of the international community are dusting off…yes, you guessed it, the oft-floated “two-state” solution. Except that this time, there is one significant difference. The latest plan – spearheaded by no less prominent a figure than former British Prime Minister, now Foreign Secretary David Cameron – calls on the international community to force a breakthrough in negotiations by unilaterally recognizing an as yet non-existent Palestinian state. This, Cameron believes, will compel Israel to accept the inevitability of a Palestinian state on land captured in 1967.
With a federal budget on the horizon in Canada we are likely to read and hear a lot more about the "scourge" of income inequality in the coming weeks. It’s true that income inequality in our society exists. Citing this as evidence of a growing gap between rich and poor, however, is the statistician’s equivalent of medical malpractice.
Last week Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a surprise trip to Ukraine during which he announced a large (in Canadian terms) aid package for that beleaguered nation. The decision to assist Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression continues to enjoy widespread support in Canada, but would Canadians continue that support if they knew the details?
The Trudeau government has introduced legislation that, if passed, will place Canada at the forefront of efforts to control, among other items, the promotion of hate online. Unlike previous legislation which merely brought the internet into the regulatory framework that already exists for terrestrial and cable broadcasters, The Online Harm Act promises to fully embrace censorship of online content, giving government bureaucrats the authority to determine what is or is not hate speech, and empowering them to prosecute offenders.
The current Israeli campaign in Gaza has two objectives. The first is to secure the return of those abducted by Hamas terrorists on October 7. The second is the elimination of Hamas as a political and paramilitary force, preventing it from ruling Gaza in the future. But military success against Hamas alone will not be enough to establish a durable peace.
The reaction of many world leaders in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ October 7 attack was to express unequivocal support for Israel, its Prime Minister, and even the Jewish People. Within a week, however, some of those same leaders began calling for “restraint”, warning that unless the conflict’s “root causes” are addressed the “cycle of violence” will continue. We’ve heard it all before, and in a sense, these voices are correct: there is a root cause that must be confronted, but it isn’t what they think.
Not all problems can be solved with money; some problems are actually worsened by it. It’s a lesson my parents taught us from a very young age. Unfortunately, it’s a lesson that policy makers across the political spectrum seem to have either missed growing up, or they have forgotten it altogether. Case in point is the response by various governments to inflation we are currently experiencing.
Trans activists and their supporters argue that “gender” is nothing more than a social construct, subject to changes in social attitude. I don’t agree, but even if true, it still does not follow that boundaries between sexes in places like toilets and changerooms should be eliminated.