One of the results of the Liberals’ long-unexpected election win earlier this year is that the issue of CBC’s future immediately came off the boil — and it wasn’t even all that big of an issue during the campaign, despite Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s unambiguous promise to defund CBC’s English-language operations entirely. Travis Dhanraj, a balanced and energetic reporter and until recently host of CBC’s Canada Tonight, who mysteriously vanished from CBC’s airwaves earlier this year,

dropped a bomb this week

that could bring the issue back to life very quickly, and perhaps very usefully.

“I had no real choice but to walk away,”

Dhanraj wrote in an open letter

about what he termed his “forced resignation” from Mother Corp. “(But) I still have my voice. And I intend to use it. Because this isn’t just about me. It’s about trust in the CBC — a public institution that’s supposed to serve you. It’s about voices being sidelined, hard truths avoided, and the public being left in the dark about what’s really happening inside their national broadcaster.”

He accused the network — credibly, it must be said — of “performative diversity, tokenism, (and perpetuating) a system designed to elevate certain voices and diminish others.” Dhanraj is brown-skinned, and quickly developed a reputation on the Canada Tonight newsmagazine show for inviting, shall we say, non-CBC types on to the public airwaves. (An appearance by Toronto Sun columnist Brian Lilley caused particular consternation among those who carry CBC tote bags.)

Kathryn Marshall,

who is representing Dhanraj in a planned complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission

, alleged this week that CBC management assumed Dhanraj would hold a “liberal world view” because of his skin colour, and were dismayed when it didn’t pan out the way they assumed it would. (I should say, knowing Dhanraj slightly and having watched him in action, both at press conferences and on TV, I really have no idea what his “world view” is … except that it’s not hopelessly blinkered. That’s a good thing. He’s a reporter.)

“When the time is right, I’ll pull the curtain back,” Dhanraj wrote, portentously. “I’ll share everything. I’ll tell you what is really happening inside the walls of your CBC.”

The sooner the better, please! Because it’s just possible that this federal government might be serious about implementing reforms at the public broadcaster, and as of yet those proposed reforms amount to very weak and expensive tea.

A thousand years ago, in February, the former Heritage minister under the former prime minister

proposed what she called a “new mandate” for CBC

. It was unprepossessing, to say the least: A ton of new money, naturally, plus a partial ban on advertising and some changes to how senior management positions are appointed. The CBC-related commitments in Mark Carney’s Liberal platform (notwithstanding the promise of $150 million extra funding) were even weaker tea: When you’re including “the clear and consistent transmission of life-saving information during emergencies” as a new imperative for your public broadcaster, you know you’re either out of ideas or have a

severely

dysfunctional public broadcaster. Because communicating life-saving information during emergencies is kind of Job One for broadcast journalism.

The first thing CBC did when COVID hit, let us never forget, was to cancel all its local newscasts. It later turned out that calamitous CBC CEO Catherine Tait

had hunkered down for the pandemic in Brooklyn

. She was last heard

defending senior executives’ bonuses

, even as the network was shedding hundreds of jobs, as something akin to the divine right of kings and queens. Amazingly, she kept her job

until her recently extended contract expired

in January this year.

If I believed that an extra $150 million a year would fix what ails CBC, I wouldn’t lose sleep over spending it. My complaints about CBC are myriad and easily Google-able. And it pains me the extent to which Canadian news — including private outlets such as this one, as well as CBC — is now subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. But the simple fact is that if that support disappeared tomorrow there would be a hell of a lot less news out there, and that’s never a good thing.

But I don’t believe an extra $150 million would make much difference; I think it would just disappear into the gaping maw of middle management, emboldening them to get even more in the way of journalists simply doing the work they want to do. CBC news needs to be torn down to the studs and rebuilt, not tinkered with at the margins. So

what Dhanraj and Marshall are teasing here

is tantalizing, because it speaks to something existential about the CBC’s news organization — something conservatives have always believed. It’s not “for Canadians”; it’s for

certain kinds

of Canadians. That has never been any public broadcaster’s mandate. And it is, perhaps, why the ratings are so poor.

I feel terrible for Travis Dhanraj, but I can’t wait to see what’s behind that curtain.

National Post

cselley@postmedia.com

• Chris Selley: We aren’t slaves to AI, unless we want to be
• Chris Selley: Angst over flying the Canadian flag was pure media invention

Travis Dhanraj joined CBC with the intention of doing real journalism. He quickly found out that wasn’t why they hired him.

It’s important to note that Dhanraj didn’t leave any old job at CBC, he was the host of his own show —

Canada Tonight: With Travis Dhanraj

— the kind of achievement most aspiring television journalists only dream of. He was on the path to a Peter Mansbridge-level of success after working hard for it over his 20-years in journalism which included

roles

at CBC, but also, CP24, Global News, and CTV News.

It appears somewhere along the way, he learned what real journalism was and, more importantly, what it wasn’t.

After his public resignation letter, tendered on Monday, CBC, which claims in its

mandate

to be “fully committed to maintaining accuracy, fairness, balance, impartiality and integrity in its journalism,” as well as, “sensitivity to the diversity,” is likely shaking in its boots. Dhanraj intends to sue.

Dhanraj’s scathing resignation letter, addressed to CBC Leadership about his experiences, opens by saying he’s leaving not by choice, but because the “Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made it impossible for (him) to continue (his) work with integrity.”

Dhanraj describes the discrepancy between what he believed his role at CBC would entail and the reality:

“When I joined CBC, I did so with a clear understanding of its mandate and a belief in its importance to Canadian democracy. I was told I would be ‘a bold voice in journalism.’ I took that role seriously. I worked to elevate underrepresented stories, expand political balance, and uphold the journalistic values Canadians expect from their public broadcaster.”

Given CBC is largely publicly-funded, Dhanraj saw his role as one of public service. That means he saw his job as a duty, given that Canadians support it with their tax dollars. If only more journalists at CBC held Dhanraj’s strong principles and commitment to democracy.

Dhanraj also

accused

CBC of “performative diversity, tokenism, a system designed to elevate certain voices and diminish others.”

This is significant, as previous similar complaints about CBC’s issues with journalistic integrity and obsession with race, from former CBC employee, Tara Henley, can’t be so easily ignored now coming from Dhanraj, who was born in Calgary, but who’s parents

are from Trinidad.

Of her time at CBC, Henley

wrote

: “To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others.”

At some point, CBC apparently stopped appreciating Dhanraj for the “bold voice” they’d hired him for and, in his words, “systematically sidelined, retaliated against, and denied the editorial access and institutional support necessary to fulfill (his) public service role.”

He

describes

himself as being denied access to key newsmakers, whom he no doubt, wanted to press with tough questions, but these opportunities he describes as being relegated to a “particularly a small circle of senior Ottawa-based journalists.”

Dhanraj committed a cardinal sin against CBC when he politely

tweeted

that former CBC president Catherine Tait declined an interview on his show to discuss the broadcaster’s choice to pay very generous bonuses to executives.

Dhanraj explained in his resignation letter, “I was presented with an NDA tied to an investigation about a tweet about then CBC President Catherine Tait. It was designed not to protect privacy, but to sign away my voice. When I refused, I was further marginalized.”

His show,

Canada Tonight: With Travis Dhanraj

, which he

says

was once referred to as a “strategic priority” was rebranded to Ian Hanomansing’s

Hanomansing Tonight

. CBC must have been relieved to find the right kind of brown voice for the job.

Clearly, CBC isn’t interested in diversity, unless it has a very specific, left-leaning viewpoint.

CBC has

rejected

Dhanraj’s accusations about its inner workings, calling them an “attack on the integrity of CBC News.”

But behind closed doors, their executives must be worried. They walked away with Mark Carney’s election promise to boost funding by $150 million, narrowly escaping the Conservative Party’s promise to defund English CBC, had it won. And the relief that a Liberal minority win provided CBC personalities on election night was

palpable

, with their anti-Conservative bias on full display.

Dhanraj appears to have been too “bold” in his attempts to provide Canadians with real journalism — a goal which was clear to those watching him closely, he was aiming to do for years. Even if it meant brushing up against members of government who did not take kindly to his questioning.

One example of this was back in 2022, when he posted a

tweet

from Germany with a video of him asking then-Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and then-Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly in which he approaches them and asks:

“A lot of Canadians are back at home, kind of wondering and watching this trip, and seeing a lot of photo ops, a lot of broad platitudes, and not many specifics when it comes to details, why couldn’t these meetings have been done from Canada? Why does the prime minister, the deputy minister, the minister of foreign affairs, and defence minister, need to be in Europe right now, when there are a lot of domestic issues at home that are very important. And some people view this as a photo op trip to Europe.”

In the video, Joly and Freeland are visibly annoyed by Dhanraj’s question. They snit their faces as if to suggest they were both above questions from reporters that would hold a sitting government to account for its choice to jetset around the world at every opportunity. Heaven forbid.

Sharing the video on X, he

wrote

: “Deputy PM @cafreeland & Foreign Affairs Min @melaniejoly clearly did not like my Q — Why is @JustinTrudeau in Europe on the taxpayer dime while there are pressing domestic issues he could be dealing w/ at home…here’s the exchange #cdnpoli.”

Dhanraj’s received considerable backlash for the tweet and eventually followed up with

another

, explaining why he’d done his job: “Verdict continues to roll in. Some love Q some hate it. My take after a few hrs: was worded clumsily as was tweet…my fault, I take responsibility…However there are legit Q’s about what this trip will do to substantially address the situation Ukrainians are dealing w/right now.”

I’m sure Dhanraj now realizes why he never should have apologized.

tnewman@postmedia.com

X: @TLNewmanMTL

There was a time when most Canadians stood proudly in the political centre. We believed in individual freedoms, a social safety net and reasonable government. But something has shifted. Today, many of us who still hold those values inexplicably find ourselves on the right of the political spectrum.

Ideas once considered mainstream — free speech, public safety, fiscal responsibility — are now branded right-wing.

Extremes on both sides have reshaped the political landscape. Performative outrage has replaced practical solutions. Moderates are being pushed aside or shouted down — not for changing, but for refusing to.

Let’s face it: being reasonable now means being labelled right-of-centre. Wanting a Canada that protects freedoms, rewards effort and respects differing opinions is now controversial. And yet, those were once core Canadian values.

Centrists have become disillusioned — and for good reason. Take the case of former prime minister Justin Trudeau. Once the darling of the centre, he took the Liberal party sharply to the left and abandoned the liberal principles that once defined the party: fiscal responsibility, common sense, personal accountability and respect for democratic institutions.

One of the clearest examples came in 2023, when the federal government gave British Columbia the authority to decriminalize all drugs, including heroin and fentanyl. It was framed as a compassionate move, but the results were disastrous. The streets of Vancouver and Victoria  were surrendered to an ideology that insists nothing — not addiction, not public disorder — should ever be judged or addressed.

Then there was the overreach. In 2022, the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act to deal with some protesters in downtown Ottawa. There were horns and bouncy castles, but the protest was largely peaceful.

Contrast that with the past two years, as antisemitic demonstrators have blocked streets in major cities, chanting violent slogans that frighten Jewish-Canadians — and police responded not with emergency powers, but with crowd control and, in one case, coffee.

The double standard is glaring. And questioning it now gets you branded as far-right. Somehow, common sense has become radical.

It’s not off-base to identify as a conservative, even for those who don’t support the Conservative party. These days, it can simply mean believing in accountability, freedom of thought and respect for institutions — values that used to unite Canadians across party lines.

The truth is that those who once leaned slightly left and those who leaned slightly right now have more in common than ever before. The political centre — that wide, quiet majority — has been forced into the same room by the extremes. And we’re realizing we agree on far more than we don’t.

It’s time for the centre to get noisy. For too long we’ve been the quiet, trusting that reason would prevail. But silence has let the fringes take over. We need to speak up for the values this country was built on: fairness, freedom, respect and reason.

Oddly enough, the extremes have done us a favour. By polarizing the debate, they’ve created a new space for those who value nuance and compromise to be heard. So let’s own it, love it, share it and talk about it. Our vision for Canada depends on it.

To those who believe in unity over outrage, calm over chaos and principled progress, this is your call. Speak up. Claim your space. Be proud of where you stand.

Let’s define the new centre — together.

National Post

• Sean Speer: The more radical the progressive left becomes, the more the right reacts
• Ivison: The centre strikes back with new political party

In a time when every institution feels captured, when every faculty lounge seems to echo with the same stifling progressive orthodoxies, it’s tempting for conservatives to throw up their hands and walk away from academia altogether.

In many cases, the ivory tower has become a fortress of ideological conformity, guarded by those who would rather shout down dissent than engage with it. And I’ll be honest: there are days when even I feel the pull to simply torch the whole edifice and move on.

But that instinct, however understandable, must be resisted, because, for all its decay, universities still matter. We cannot afford to abandon the academy — not now, not ever.

I don’t say this as some wide-eyed idealist. I say it as someone who’s been lucky enough to know what the academy was, and in some rare cases, still is.

Some of the most enriching, soul-shaping relationships in my life have been with old-school scholars — men and women who taught before every syllabus became a political manifesto and every footnote a confession. They were rigorous, eccentric, unfailingly curious. They prized clarity over cant, thought over fashion, truth over ideology. They were the keepers of what the late Sir Roger Scruton called “the conversation of mankind.”

These scholars, many of them conservative in instinct if not in label, understood that conservatism is not simply a political brand, but a disposition. It’s a reverence for what Edmund Burke called the “wisdom of the ages”; a belief, in Michael Oakeshott’s words, that, “What has stood the test of time is good and must not be lightly cast aside.”

They were not culture warriors. They were culture bearers. And they remind us that knowledge is not the enemy of conservatism, it is its foundation. That’s why the right’s growing disdain for academia troubles me so deeply.

Yes, the rot is real. Departments that once trained statesmen and scientists now churn out bureaucrats of resentment, who are fluent only in grievance and jargon. The canon has been gutted. The humanities have become temples of nihilism.

And yet, to walk away is to concede that this land now belongs to them alone. It is to say that the university, the very cradle of our civilization, no longer belongs to those who would conserve it. That’s not just cowardice — it’s suicide.

To abandon the university is to abandon the formation of our future leaders — our judges, teachers, journalists, doctors and civil servants. It would hand the framing of every great moral and political question to people who hate us and then act surprised when the next generation has no idea what we stand for.

But more than that, we would impoverish ourselves. The conservative tradition is one of the richest intellectual lineages in human history.

Burke, T.S. Eliot, Oakeshott, Wilhelm Roepke, Roger Scruton — these were not demagogues, they were men of enormous learning and restraint, thinkers who engaged the world not with slogans, but with ideas. They wrote from within the university, not in defiance of it. They were not guests in the house of learning. They built the thing.

That tradition must not be discarded. It must be reclaimed.

I know it is easier to sneer. Anti-intellectualism is easy. Building is hard. But if conservatism surrenders the life of the mind, it becomes a movement of pure resentment, of rage without reason, of slogans without soul. And rage alone does not a civilization make.

There are still pockets of light. Good scholars still do honest work, even in hostile institutions. There are journals worth reading, students worth teaching and institutes worth supporting. They may be few, but they are not nothing. They are the seedbeds of renewal.

Conservatives must do what the left did in the 1960s. We must build parallel institutions. We must fund research, endow chairs, launch fellowships, establish schools and support scholars not for what they say, but for how they think.

We must cultivate conservative intellectuals, not just polemicists, but teachers, writers and thinkers — men and women capable of defending the good, the true and the beautiful, not just on stage or on screen, but in the classroom and the library. Because if we don’t, no one will.

We stand at a crossroads. One path leads to anti-intellectual populism, a movement defined by its disdain for learning. The other leads to a renaissance, a conservatism that remembers its own roots, that cherishes the life of the mind not as an ornament, but as a necessity.

As Russell Kirk wrote, “The purpose of education … is to develop the mental and moral faculties of the individual person, for the person’s own sake,” but “the chief benefit of formal education is to make people intelligent and good.” If we neglect that purpose, we neglect the soul of the nation itself.

We must not let that happen. We must not abandon the thinking man. For he is, and always has been, one of us.

National Post

• Peter MacKinnon: Hard truths confront Canadian universities struggling to survive
• John Weissenberger: Canadian universities are rotten to the core

By Jeffrey Reynolds and Michel Maisonneuve

Canada Day was somewhat different this year. There are wars raging in Europe and the Middle East, geopolitical fault lines emerging around the world, and turbulent leadership in western nations. We live an era of horrific violent conflict and subversive political warfare unfolding around the world and on our smartphones.

True, Canada sits in the geopolitical equivalent of Beverly Hills. But the comfortable illusion that Canada is shielded by oceans, alliances and politeness is long expired. At least, pollsters report a bit of a resurgence of Canadian patriotism.

We stand at another inflection point: choose to dither and decline or scale and soar. To soar is to have a bold vision for Canada — to be a great power in the world and contribute mightily to the upward march of civilization.

Great powers don’t just have large economies or powerful militaries. They shape world affairs. They protect their people, defend their values and project power. A great power is a nation capable of strategic action and sustained global influence across diplomatic, informational, military, economic, technological and cultural domains.

Canada has the bones of a great power. We are a pioneering people capable of doing incredible things together. We possess vast natural resources: critical minerals, freshwater, arable land and ethical energy. We are a founding member of NATO, the UN, the World Bank, and the OECD. We have an advanced economy, a highly educated population with two official languages, and a history of innovation in space, nuclear research, biomedical engineering and AI, among other things. Our geostrategic position — bordering the United States and with three oceanic frontiers — is the envy of the world. No country is better positioned to thrive in the 21st century.

But strength unused decays and power undeveloped fades. In our current condition, we are not a serious actor on the world stage. We are a resource-rich, idea-rich and values-rich virtue-signalling nation that has grown complacent. Over the past decade, we have grown soft: our adversaries know it and act with impunity against us.

Their combined strengths are not to be underestimated: China’s economy is the second largest in the world and commands a globally integrated manufacturing base. Its diplomatic strength throughout the Global South is unmatched. Its nuclear arsenal is growing as fast as its military power projection capability. Russia, though bloodied in Ukraine, remains a nuclear power and energy superstate and is producing military hardware exponentially faster than NATO nations. North Korea continues to expand its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons capability. And while the United States and Israel have diminished Iran’s capabilities over the past week, the mullahs still wield influence and maintain nuclear ambitions. Together, these adversaries are united not by shared values but by a shared adversary: the liberal West.

We are that West.

Our values — free markets, rule of law, individual liberty, democratic governance, advanced research and education, and human rights (FRIDAH) are not abstractions: they are targets. They must be defended with every element of national power — wherever, whenever, and however necessary.

Canada is vulnerable to political warfare via a lack of leadership, foreign interference, social media influencers and algorithms, corruption, elite capture, organized crime, lax police/immigration enforcement, and myopic government policy. A demoralized and underfunded military with shifting government support signals to citizens that Canada is not worth defending. U.S. President Donald Trump has driven the Canada-U.S. relationship to its lowest point in 200 years. Why? Because he understands something our political class does not: Canada has been unwilling to defend itself or advance its interests beyond the minimum required.

The road to greatness

We must flip the script of Canada and toss out the “post-national state” and “cultural mosaic” rhetoric epitomized by past governments. That mindset has had a surfactant effect on Canada, weakening our bonds to each other over the past decade. Greatness is only achievable when we are strong and united, and when we believe in our non-hyphenated uniqueness.

It is crucial that all Canadians be able to live, work, raise families and enjoy a good life throughout a Canada anchored in shared principles of liberty, community and meaningful enterprise. We must develop a confident national psyche with a strong sense of history, national purpose, territorial integrity, and shared destiny, taught in every school, celebrated in every region, and championed across every aspect of Canadian life — combined with an ironclad willingness to defend all of it.

In short, Canada must become the best version of itself: a Great Power Nation possessing the requisite mix of hard and soft power for the confident advancement of our national interest and the defence of western values.

Let’s start here:

First, rebuild our military. It’s one thing to make a big spending announcement, it’s another to spend the money wisely. Follow up the promises by the Carney government with actions. Make the Canadian Armed Forces a career young Canadians dream of. Grow the regular and reserve forces. Create cyber and space capabilities that rival any in NATO. Modernize procurement for innovation and rapid acquisition. Invest in Arctic sovereignty and power projection. And get a strategic deterrent capability that makes adversaries think twice about doing anything to us. Think: B-21 Raider with RCAF livery.

Second, purge foreign interference. Let’s have a full public inquiry on foreign interference at all levels of government — with teeth this time. Legislate lifetime bans on foreign funding in politics. Introduce criminal penalties for acting as an unregistered foreign agent. We must have institutions and leaders who advance our national interest, not that of an adversary.

Third, renew our institutions. The Charter must be defended and, eventually, finished. Media must be independent. Universities must be free from ideological capture. Restore merit, freedom of speech and equal citizenship and opportunity as guiding lights.

Fourth, develop national strategy that binds us together. Define our values and what is a Canadian. Drop inter-provincial barriers — unleash the free movement of goods, services, people and ideas across the country. Invest in northern infrastructure, energy corridors and advanced research. Reform immigration toward high-value integration into our society. Build space, quantum, AI and nuclear innovation hubs. Unleash natural resources and get them to tidewater.

Finally, promote leaders who understand the assignment. Nation building is tough, and it’s not taught in our schools. This includes an honest assessment of our history that emphasizes Canada’s triumphs, not just its failures. Nation-building is a rejection of provincial self-interest and a commitment to the national interest. We must have principled leaders who embrace — at the cellular level — that Canada is awesome, that its development must be nurtured prudently, and that mediocrity is not our inheritance.

Canada’s future is a choice

Canada’s path to greatness will be difficult, but building our nation has never been easy. We are the descendants of pioneers, rebels, builders and warriors. We carved a nation out of ice and wilderness that spans a continent. Our future is bright — but only if we commit to making it so.

Let this be the moment when we commit ourselves to becoming the great power we are destined to be. We owe it to each other, to our children, and to our allies.

Special to National Post

Jeffrey Reynolds is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. Michel Maisonneuve is a retired Lieutenant-General, senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the author of “In Defence of Canada: Reflections of a Patriot” (2024).

The Order of Canada no longer means anything, if it ever meant anything at all.

On June 30, the supposedly prestigious Canadian honour was

awarded

to physicians Theresa Tam and Bonnie Henry, the former chief public health officer of Canada and the current provincial health officer of British Columbia, respectively.

With these two appointments, the Order of Canada should no longer be considered an honour; instead, it should be seen as a symbol of conformity, obedience and antipathy towards those of us who care about our collective rights and freedoms.

Both doctors became famous — in relative Canadian terms — for their public-health decrees issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Governor General’s

website explains

that, “Bonnie Henry has been using her expertise in public health and preventive medicine to safeguard the health of people in Canada and globally for decades. Notably, as provincial health officer, she led British Columbia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. She is also an author, scholar and University of British Columbia clinical associate professor.”

For her part, Tam was given the award because, “For decades, Theresa Tam has striven to advance global and national public health as a pediatric infectious disease specialist and public servant. Her tenure as Canada’s chief public health officer has been characterized by her commitment to health equity and highlighted by her leadership role in the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

These explanations are blatant whitewashing. Any Canadian who lived through the pandemic will be familiar with the repeat controversies and scandals that plagued both public-health officers. They will be remembered, not for safeguarding life, but for cracking down on Canadians with harmful and coercive public-health policies, many of which were not supported by scientific evidence.

Henry clung to her illiberal and unnecessary vaccine mandate for health-care workers long after it was obvious that the vaccine was not stopping the spread of the virus. Many lost their jobs and the health-care system has yet to recover from the loss. Henry only rescinded the mandate in the lead-up to the 2024 provincial election, in what appeared to be a

politically motivated decision

intended to thwart the rise of B.C.’s Conservative party. It was despicable.

Henry, who’s part owner of a B.C.

winery

, also curiously issued 2021 orders to prohibit indoor dining for bars and restaurants — but

not for wineries

offering wine tasting sessions. Hmm.

Then there’s Tam. Her policies left such a sour note in Canadians’ mouths that police pre-emptively

placed security

around her home in the lead-up to the Freedom Convoy protests. She has been widely

condemned

for her support of

harmful

lockdown policies, for which Canadians are still suffering to this day.

Henry and Tam’s inductions into this Canadian hall of fame is more than enough proof of how politicized the Order of Canada has become. The Governor General is merely patting politically connected cronies on the back. But Canadians know the truth.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a legal advocacy organization,

expressed anger

over the appointments on X: “Honouring Dr. Bonnie Henry and Dr. Theresa Tam the Order of Canada for their destructive and unscientific policies amounts to politicizing this Award. Given the questions about vaccine mandates, and other violations of Charter rights and freedoms, this is completely irresponsible.”

The Order of Canada has been around since 1967. In its 58 years, more than 8,500 people have been given the “honour,” an average of around 147 people a year.

To

be considered eligible

for an Order of Canada, one must be alive and not currently an elected official or sitting judge. That’s it. You don’t even have to be Canadian. The Governor General’s website explains that, “Living non-Canadians are also eligible if their contributions have brought benefit or honour to Canadians or to Canada.”

Henry and Tam have done neither. Many argue that they’ve done the opposite.

An Order of Canada can also be taken away. There is something dubious about an award that can be given and then taken, the honour of its bestowing vanished from the annals of a country’s history. A Nobel Prize, for instance,

cannot be revoked

. This is further evidence that the Order of Canada is not a serious award.

Not to mention that Don Cherry does not have one — what a farce.

The Governor General is handing out Orders of Canada like Costco hands out samples to its members. If you’re in the club, you can get one — just get in line and wait your turn.

National Post

• Chris Selley: Public health officers are still oblivious to their self-destructed COVID credibility
• Amy Hamm: Bonnie Henry only lifted vaccine mandate when it became a threat to the NDP