Justin Trudeau Archives - Page 31 of 41

The current atmosphere in the House of Commons is pretty volatile. Party leaders of the left and right rarely see eye-to-eye on issues. Bipartisanship seems like a figment of the imagination. Rigid partisan politics ranges around Level 3 or 4 on the danger levels – and occasionally flirts with the dreaded Level 5.

Yet, there appears to be one point of agreement on Parliament Hill. When it comes to Bill 21, no-one wants to touch it with a 10-foot pole – or any feet, for that matter.

Bill 21, or An Act respecting the laicity of the State, was introduced by Quebec Premier François Legault and the Coalition Avenir Québec on March 29, 2018. It’s the first piece of Quebec law to have ever stated the following, “The State of Québec is a lay State.”

The bill had four main principles: equality of all citizens, separation of state and world religions, the state’s religious neutrality, and freedom of conscience and religion. All religious symbols, regardless of shape and size, would be prohibited for public employees who carry weapons (police officers, prison guards, bodyguards), work in schools (teachers, principals, vice-principals), and the judiciary (crown prosecutors, government lawyers, judges).

What did this mean for Quebec? One of the world’s strongest religious societies with deep roots in the Roman Catholic Church would be transformed into a secular state.

This didn’t bother many residents in La belle province, truth be told. An Oct. 27 Ipsos poll showed that 76 percent of Quebeckers supported the previous legislation, Bill 62, which banned people wearing face coverings for religious purposes from delivering and receiving public services. In fact, 70 percent of Canadian respondents to the Angus Reid Institute’s Oct. 27, 2017 poll said they would support “legislation similar to Bill 62.”

Bill 21 passed on June 16, 2018 by a vote of 73-35. The CAQ and Parti Quebecois supported it, while the Liberals and Québec solidaire opposed it.

Religious Christians, Jews and Muslims were furious, and remain furious, over Bill 21. Organizations like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and National Council of Canadian Muslims filed unsuccessful challenges to overturn this provincial law. They all felt this bill was a direct attack on their religious freedom in a democratic society.   The recent removal of Fatemeh Anvari, a third-grade teacher in Chelsea, Que., for wearing a hijab in her classroom caused an eruption. It was viewed as an unfair and undemocratic decision. A growing number of Canadians wanted their political leaders to speak out and condemn it.   They haven’t, for the most part – and they won’t anytime soon.   For the record, I’m fundamentally opposed to Bill 21 and believe it’s a direct attack on religious freedom – and I’m agnostic! That being said, it’s not hard for me to understand why our political leaders want to stay out of this fight.  First, it’s a provincial matter.   Bill 21 was passed democratically. If Quebec chooses to maintain this law during Legault’s leadership and beyond, there’s not much that Ottawa can do. They can criticize it to their heart’s content, and attempt to intervene at a certain level. They don’t have the constitutional right to bring down this provincial law, however.   Second, Ottawa doesn’t want to start another war of words with Quebec.   Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has flip-flopped on several occasions in terms of getting involved in this debate. On Dec. 13, he said that he “deeply” disagrees with Bill 21 and “I don’t find that in a free and open society someone should lose their job because of their religion and this is no longer a theoretical issue.” At the same time, he stated “I think the important thing is the province passed the law and Quebecers are defending their rights through the legal process in Quebec.”

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh have basically taken similar stances. Both are frustrated on a personal level, but begrudgingly respect Quebec’s democratic right to pass controversial and non-controversial bills on a provincial level.

Third, Quebec has been (up until recently) a critical piece of the electoral puzzle.

The old political playbook in federal politics was clear: if you can’t win Quebec, you can’t win the election. Hence, parties on the left and right all tried to play nice – or pander, if you prefer – when it came to this province. Policies and programs were announced, and taxpayer money was either ear-marked or doled out. It led to frustration and resentment from the rest of Canada, causing everything from western alienation to support for booting out Quebec. When Quebeckers felt their needs weren’t being met, it led to a rise in separatism and threats to break apart Canada.

Winning Quebec isn’t the prime electoral strategy any longer. Alas, political leaders still walk on eggshells when it comes to this province. They try to avoid as much conflict as humanly possible. In the case of Bill 21, they would rather stay out of this fight than get involved and cost them a few seats in future elections.

Doesn’t make it right, of course. It makes them look weak and ineffective.

Trudeau, O’Toole, Singh and other federal leaders should band together and help bring down Bill 21. If nothing else, it would be nice to see the House of Commons sitting at Level 1 or 2, even for a short spell.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Click here for more

Unfortunately for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his grand plans to battle climate change will inevitably run into a massive roadblock.

And that roadblock is this: in order to save mother nature, he’ll first have to overcome human nature.

My point is, even though battling climate change is a trendy and popular issue with global elites in general and with a certain precocious Swedish teenager in particular, actually implementing a plan to stop global warming will eventually run counter to every human being’s innate desire to look out for number one.

Simply put, when it comes to priorities, people will put their own immediate interests ahead of saving the planet.

Yes, I know that sounds cynical, but it’s true.

In fact, we saw an example of this recently in the United States when gas prices at the pump were rampaging out of control.

To a committed environmentalist, of course, super-high gas prices are a welcome development since it means people will be forced to consume fewer fossil fuels, which, in theory, will help stop climate change.

This is the reason, for instance, why Prime Minister Trudeau is enacting carbon taxes; he wants to “nudge” us to drive less and eventually to buy solar powered cars.

But predictably, high gas prices enraged American consumers, who apparently were not up on the latest climate change theories.

In other words, very few Americans actually said something like, “Hey, I’ll need a small bank loan to fill up my car, isn’t that great for the planet. I’m so happy!”

Indeed, so great was the anger in America that US President Joe Biden — who like Trudeau fancies himself as an eco-warrior – decided to tap into the country’s strategic oil reserves so he could flood the market with 50 million barrels of toxic fossil fuels.

Seems his rapid drop in the polls somehow made gas seem less dangerous to the environment.

Score: Human nature 1, Planet 0

At any rate, if gas prices in Canada massively surge thanks to Trudeau’s carbon taxes, he could find himself in a similar pickle as Biden.

As Canadian pollster Darrell Bricker recently noted on Twitter: “What we are seeing in our Ipsos polling. Inflation coming up like a bullet as a concern for Canadians. It’s personal and intense. COVID, climate, other issues dropping. Rearranging of public priorities has the potential to sideswipe best laid plans of governments and businesses.”

Also, human nature is at work in other countries.

For example, I strongly doubt countries with emerging economies will totally embrace the fight against climate change if doing so means their poor will have to remain poor.

This is especially true for China.

As American political humorist P. J. O’Rourke once succinctly put it, “There are 1.3 billion people in China, and they all want a Buick.”

Score: Human nature 2, Planet 0

Finally, we also have to consider the human nature of those political leaders who are pushing climate change initiatives.

Will they lead by example?

The answer to that question is likely a resounding “No!”

After all, politicians tend to come from the “Do as I say, not as I do” school of leadership.

To see what I mean, just consider the “leadership” former Ontario Finance Minister Rod Phillips exhibited during the COVID crisis.

I’m sure you remember the whole sordid story.

Last Christmas season, all the while his government was urging Ontarians to stay home for the holidays to help stop the spread of COVID, Phillips decided to secretly fly off to the Caribbean to enjoy a nice warm vacation.

Then there’s the example of Trudeau, who couldn’t resist the urge to go surfing in British Columbia on “Truth and Reconciliation Day” — a time when all Canadians were supposed to somberly reflect upon the historic grievances of Canada’s aboriginal communities.

The bottom line is politicians love the perks of office, and they’ll not give them up lightly.

What that means is we can expect the same leaders, who lecture us about the need to drive less and to lower our thermostats in the dead of winter, will continue to fly around the world in private jets and holiday in tropical climates.

Score: Human Nature 3, Planet 0.

Needless to say, open displays of climate hypocrisy will generate resentment among the general population which usually leads to bad things for leaders.

Just ask Marie Antionette.

Anyway, this is why unless Trudeau can find a way to change human nature, which is a million years in the making, his climate change plans will be guaranteed to run into serious turbulence.

Mind you, a lot of people in this country might get a kick out of seeing Trudeau fail, even if it means we’re all hit with more global warming.

Keep in mind, the joy of gloating is just a part of human nature.

Click here for more

Erin O’Toole may not be the best man at winning elections. But boy he sure can spread a rumour like no one else.

With the tenacity of a prying neighbour or a gossipy teenager, O’Toole spent much of early November spreading the bizarre, unsubstantiated story that the Liberals and NDP were planning on forming a coalition government. According to O’Toole, such an arrangement between the two parties is a “radical” concept that would require “billions of dollars of new spending to buy Jagmeet Singh’s silence” making it a “disaster” for the economy. This would make Canada a “a poor and less relevant nation” and “threaten” both “the livelihood of millions of Canadians” and “national unity” itself.

It’s quite the story and O’Toole is quite the storyteller.

But make no mistake about it: it’s all a work of fiction.

While NDP MP Charlie Angus did confirm that Singh and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had “an initial conversation” about co-operation and shared legislative priorities, a Liberal source made clear that there was no “formal agreement” nor even any ‘talk to have a formal agreement.”

Singh himself reiterated this point at a recent news conference.

When asked point blank by a reporter about the coalition rumours, Singh could not have been more categorical in his response.

“There is no discussion at all of a coalition and that is a firm no for me,” he said. “There’s not going to be any coalition at all.”

As for O’Toole, well he’s the one guilty of spreading the rumours in the first place. Or, as Singh put it, “making stuff up.”

It’s hard to find much fault with Singh’s version of events.

Most formal coalitions require the sharing of cabinet positions. And last time I checked; Trudeau allocated no positions in his bloated cabinet for NDP MPs. If he had, we might have witnessed some truly inspired cabinet appointments, like Charlie Angus being assigned to Indigenous Affairs, Alexandre Boulerice to Labour, or Singh himself as Deputy Prime Minister.

But of course, that didn’t happen.

Instead, all of Trudeau’s cabinet appointments went to his cabal of loyal Liberal followers, leaving little possibility for a coalition agreement with other parties to be hashed out.

For Trudeau – a man not particularly renowned for sharing power or for reaching across the aisle and establishing constructive relations with opposition parties – this was certainly his preferred outcome. The same goes with Singh and the NDP.

For years, the spectre of the failed 2008 coalition attempt by Stephane Dione, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe has enveloped Ottawa and suffocated any enthusiasm or mindful considerations into the merits of a coalition government. Never mind that the chief reason for that coalition’s abysmal failure was more to do with the incompetence of its leaders and the inclusion of separatists as a governing faction than anything else. The Liberals and NDP still fear another voter rebellion against them, should they attempt anything even remotely similar.

It’s a shame, because despite all the fearmongering coming from O’Toole and other Conservatives, the formation of more coalition agreements would really be a benefit to Canada’s democracy. Not only are they perfectly legitimate, but they can help foster inter-party cooperation and dial back hyper-partisanship. Furthermore, when compared to the one-party rule of majority governments (most of which rarely secure over 50 percent of the popular vote) coalitions have the added advantage of ensuring that a greater percentage of voters are represented around the cabinet table.

The strengthening of democracy isn’t the only reason to consider the formation of more coalition governments.

In the current context, a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP would have helped facilitate and accelerate the implementation of more progressive policies in Ottawa. This would benefit everyday Canadians, yes, but also the political parties responsible for implementing said policies.

After two disappointing election cycles, the Liberals must realize by now that their lack of progressive achievements – the ones that actually bolster the socio-economic well-being of working-class Canadians – are wounding them. Its probably too late now, but the influence of the NDP in a formal coalition might have been exactly what Trudeau needed to cement a more admirable and robust legacy before his inevitable retirement.

As for the NDP, they’d have received more publicity for policy accomplishments, and would gain the credibility and experience of governing in Ottawa; something that they’ve long sought after. They’d just have to be wary of being swept up by the Liberal’s token progressivism – and being punished for it later at the ballot box.

Regardless of these and other potential pitfalls, the NDP, the Liberals and indeed, all of Canada’s political parties should really get over their fear and aversion to the idea of coalition governments. They’re anything but the “radical” notion O’Toole claims they are, and voters will recognize as much when the democratic rewards from them begin to accumulate.

Plus, it would just be nice if for once the Liberals and the NDP actually gave the Conservative leader something truthful to gossip about.

Click here for more Canada

The latest federal Throne Speech opening the 44th Parliament has attracted the usual wave of criticism. Some comments are thoughtful while other complaints should be dismissed out of hand.

Those who point out the lack of emphasis on inflation, labour shortages or concerns about future deficits in the Throne Speech have raised valid points worthy of a constructive debate.

Other complaints about the vagueness of the Trudeau’s government statements are less well-founded, given the history of Throne Speeches in most parliamentary democracies. They have rarely been specific.

Mr. Singh’s constant refrain that the Liberals repeatedly promise programs and do nothing would be more compelling if he did not routinely ignore major achievements such as a national carbon levy or a substantial child care program.

The strangest epithet hurled against the latest Throne Speech that I read was “like his father, Prime Minister Trudeau is determined to establish a legacy – and hang the consequences.” Some consequence – patriation of the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms.

This criticism aligns with Erin O’Toole blasting Mr Trudeau’s ‘ideological’ approach to policy making. Funny how those words could well apply to the vagaries of Conservative policy-making.

But there remains a distinctly anti-democratic tinge to some of the criticism.

Imagine a government actually wanting to focus and implement the platform on which it just ran in the recently concluded election. Is that not the purpose of an election, to give the public choices to make?

One media commentator, writing in a national newspaper, started his column by implicitly questioning the Liberal government’s mandate to press ahead with reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, combatting climate change, new housing supports and the national child-care program.

He notes “ in the last federal election, the Liberal Party received the support of less than one-third of the voters. No federal political party has formed government with a weaker public mandate”.

The column continues that ‘the Liberals appears determined to push forward with a weak electoral mandate and despite warnings from the central bank that interests rates are about to climb’.

The commentator then suggests that the failure of the Liberals to win the popular vote in five of the last 7 elections speaks in part to ‘declining legitimacy’ of political institutions in the country.’

There are numerous caveats that should be applied to these types of analysis.

The first is recognition that the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc Quebecois campaigned in favour of a host of policies which mirrored a number of these Liberal agenda items. Adding together their collective vote, almost two thirds of Canadians supported focus in these areas.

Depending whether you count the Conservative flip flops on climate change and their support for a tax-based child-care program, it would be reasonable to argue that an even greater number of the electorate support at least some of these policy thrusts.

The second is the reality of a minority government. Unless the Liberals secure the support of at least one other party (other than the Greens) for each piece of specific legislation, the initiatives will fail to pass.

With the emergence of more flexible voters, prepared to switch their votes among parties, politicians have to work harder than ever to adapt to the changing public mood rather than count on entrenched supporters.

What could be more democratic.

Cutbacks to the CERB and other Covid relief programs will be enacted because of announced support from the BQ and perhaps the Conservatives. The NDP has signalled its support for the continuation of a hybrid Parliament, thereby ensuring its passage.

What troubles me the most is the recurring suggestion that minority governments and adapting governance processes to meet Covid somehow delegitimize a government.

For centuries, whoever gets the most seats in a ‘first past the post’ Westminister system has been given the right to try to form the government. Casting aspersions about legitimacy of a duly elected government trying to advance its agenda is a far greater threat to our democratic institutions than innovative efforts of governing.

As to those critics who believe that an opposition and the media can only hold a government to account through ‘in person’ sittings of Parliament, I say welcome to the 21st century. We are working on changes to the way Canadians vote [electronic], interact with parliamentarians and the public service [virtually, electronically rather than pure paper bound and in-person processes]. We continue to explore in some jurisdictions changes to the ‘first past the post’ system to include ranked ballot or proportional representation.

Canadians so inclined can immediately access from start to finish the details of every question and important debate as well as committee sessions on widely available public channels.

As to complaints that hybrid or virtual sessions diminish the value of Question Period, its value will be established only by the quality of the questions and the analysis they are based upon.

Sadly, since the advent of broadcast sessions, all sides including the Opposition play primarily to their own constituencies. That includes the use of visual aids and theatrical pranks

To truly hold government accountable, the challenge keeps coming back to the need for better quality research, investigations and analysis. That includes raising the bar for the Opposition, media, special interest groups including business and union groups , academics and think tanks.

With broadened access to Information legislation, transparency measures such as enhanced lobbyist registries and empowered independent officers of the legislature such as the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Auditor General, the Opposition and media have never been better equipped to hold governments to account. This is particularly true in minority governments where many important committees are chaired by opposition members.

Instead, in the prevalent ‘horse race’ type of analysis, too much reliance is placed on the interpretation of public opinion polls to evaluate government programs.

There remain many challenges to democracy in Canada today. Minority government and governments following through on their current election platforms are not among them.

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

This past November 18 the presidents of the United States and Mexico and the prime minister of Canada met in Washington for the first time in five years.

In Canada there was some initial hope for a return to enthusiasm about North American free trade. But this was soon followed by an anxious debate in the mainstream media.

The main concern is a Buy American tax incentive in the Build Back Better bill just passed by the House of Representatives — worth up to $12,500 to a buyer of a new electric vehicle (EV).

In the true north there are fears that this kind of US Buy American incentive could “kneecap Canada’s auto industry,” still concentrated in Ontario.

What, for example, would such a US tax incentive mean for current struggles to secure the future of a new electric automobile industry north of the Great Lakes? (And note Premier Ford has just announced “a plan” for Ontario to build 400,000 electric vehicles by 2030!)

Whatever else, there are many caveats in all this. To start with, as President Biden has noted, the Buy American EV tax incentive in the Build Back Better (BBB) bill is not law yet. It must still survive the US Senate.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin is also said to have problems here. The Senate could send a version of BBB with the current Buy American EV tax incentive removed back to the House.

As President Biden has noted again : “There’s a lot of complicating factors.” .

The production of a North American automobile today, for example, can involve parts crossing the Canada-US border several times (and then there’s Mexico) — to the point where it’s unclear which country the vehicle was made in.

Similarly, even former President Trump did not seriously implement today’s potent political symbolism of Buy America practically, because this flies in the face of so much that has happened to a globalizing corporate America over the past half century.

There also seems some evidence that the Biden administration has no serious interest in actually trying to do what Donald Trump wisely evaded.

Yet the extent to which even the current White House feels driven to celebrate the symbolism of Buy America is suggested in a November 20 tweet from Vice President Kamala Harris.

It reads : “With the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we’re going to build electric vehicles—and the batteries and parts that go in them—in the United States, instead of relying on other countries … The future will be made in America.” (Note also that, unlike Build Back Better, Bipartisan Infrastructure is already the law of the land!)

The prospect that the Biden administration might somehow find itself unwisely trying to implement the symbolism of Buy America, practically, points to an ultimate observation from Canadian finance minister Chrystia Freeland.

Economic nationalism of this sort could become “the dominant issue” of the Canada-US relationship over the next few years.

Yet again, even if this happens — and the latest evolution of corporate America is turned inside out — that could prove healthy for a more self-reliant Canadian economy, already not quite as dependent on US markets as it was once. (Recent Canadian exports to the United States account for about 74% of all Canada’s goods exports outside the country, down from a high of 84% in 2002.)

If push does come to shove for a new nationalistic era of North American trade, what can Canada do?

From the start Hollywood has regarded Canada as part of the US domestic movie market. Some (central?) Canadian voices would like to see something similar for the automobile industry today.

Alternatively, if even Joe Biden’s democracy does implement a Buy American tax incentive worth up to $12,500, Canada could just copy US policy (as it sometimes has in the past).

To indulge in a little crazy talk, the federal Parliament could legislate a “Buy North American” EV tax incentive (for up to 15,000 US$ say) — in a quest to secure a share of North American automobile manufacturing in the new electric age, roughly equivalent to Canada’s share of the North American automobile consumer market.

The time for quite this kind of crazy talk has not come just yet. Patience with the Biden administration and the US Congress probably remains the best current counsel.

But it is also worth starting to think about the potential longer term prospect that Canada has already entered some more aggressively protectionist era of “North American free trade,” regardless of who is president.

Click here for more

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

It could have been a lovely moment.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ventured into hostile territory this week with a bag of money and handed it to Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, a politician in desperate need of good news.

Here ya go Jason — spread this around to the many families in Alberta who are paying more than $1,000 per month for day care. Take the win — affordable quality day care is great for kids and parents, allows more parents to enter the workforce and frees up disposable income to benefit the entire economy.

Kenney could have taken credit for negotiating a great deal, defending the time it took to ink the agreement as necessary to get the terms just right for Alberta’s special mix of non-profit and profit day care services.

But the premier didn’t leave it at that.

The deep divisions and political baggage between Trudeau and Kenney broke out in a thinly veiled arm wrestling match. Even for a day, Kenney wouldn’t set aside his campaign for “a fair deal” for Alberta to concentrate on a great day care plan for Alberta’s families.

He argued the $3.8 billion was just tax money from Albertans coming back to where it belongs.

The final deal isn’t what he wanted, said the premier. He pressed for a no-strings attached handing over of funds, allowing Alberta to administer it as the government pleased. That would match the deal Quebec received, said Kenney.

“At the end of the day, it’s not the only time where we see what appears to be a two-tier federation,” said the premier.

Trudeau replied that unlike Quebec, Alberta doesn’t have a program that already provides day care at even less than the $10 per day price tag that Ottawa is targeting. If it did, it would get the same deal as Quebec, he argued.

“So let’s not create constitutional conventions out of this. It’s about looking at what families have, what families need, and how we get to $10-a-day child care right across the country, and that’s exactly what we did.”

Kenney accepting the federal largesse without pushback would have handed credit to Trudeau. And in Alberta, where there is still a general dislike of federal Liberals, there would be little political advantage in that.

And to be fair, Trudeau was no shrinking violet in the bizarre press conference exchange. Asked by reporters about the cap on oil and gas emissions he announced at the COP 26 conference, the prime minister managed to tick off the premier by mentioning any number of experts and advisors who are being consulted without any nod to the provinces who actually own oil and gas resources.

Kenney fairly lifted out of his shoes to catch that bait.

All of this is political theatre. And Kenney is not playing to national media or even moms and pops in downtown Calgary and Edmonton.

He is playing to the UCP base. His “fair deal” strategy has become paramount: Talk tough to Ottawa; play the underdog card whenever possible; acknowledge western separatist sentiment without espousing actual separatism.

Increasingly the special status of Quebec is the golden standard Kenney argues Alberta deserves.

There’s a whole other subtext to the government’s reluctance to sign on to the child care deal in the first place. The idea of universally funded not-for-profit day care is not central to the UCP worldview.

No wonder Chrystia Freeland stressed the idea that the economic spinoffs from the program outweigh the cost to the public purse in her remarks at the news conference. Convincing conservatives that social programs spin wealth into the economy is a key selling point for increasing tax spending in this area.

Outside of the direct sparring over Alberta’s rights and place in confederation, Trudeau also tapped the premier on the chin with an oblique remark in answer to a reporter’s question about a challenge to federal Conservative leader Erin O’Toole’s leadership.

The prime minister declined to answer directly, saying “the federal Liberals have never been so united.”

The premier, standing next to Trudeau at the podium, dealing with fractious constituency associations and caucus members, could not say the same of his own party.

Click here for more

Canada and the U.S. have long been great friends, allies and trading partners. At the same time, they both think independently and often follow different paths. When it comes to “woke culture,” for instance, only one of these countries has woken up out of its left-wing slumber… and it’s exactly the one you probably guessed it was.

America’s unexpected love affair with progressive politics appears to be a fait accompli.

Virginians elected Republican businessman Glenn Youngkin as its new governor over former Democratic chairman (and governor) Terry McAuliffe. New Jersey Democratic Governor Phil Murphy was nearly toppled by Republican businessman Jack Ciattarelli, while longtime New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney was upset by neophyte Republican Edward Durr, a truck driver who ran his campaign on a shoestring budget of $2,300.

It’s great to see the U.S. rediscovering its political sensibilities. Canada remains deep in the heart of wokeness, however.

What on earth is wrong in the Great White North?

Canada has always historically been more left-leaning than the U.S.. This, in turn, means it’s been more open to embracing progressive ideas like wokeness in spite of interludes from right-leaning governments.

Canada’s King of Wokeness (or Court Jester, if you prefer) is undoubtedly Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. If there’s a progressive cause, he’ll find it. If there’s a new left-wing toy to play with, he’ll be the first in line to get it. If there’s an issue that requires heaps of compassion, emotion and fluffy rhetoric, he’s the politician to do it.

Trudeau took a knee for Black Lives Matter with cameras watching his every move. He talks breathlessly about women’s rights and LGBT rights. He demands that Liberal MPs and candidates must be pro-choice on abortion. He’s wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on environmental pet projects like a crippling national carbon tax that even U.S. President Joe Biden wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole.

The PM has failed on just about every front. The litany of Trudeaupian foolishness ranges from three instances of blackface, spats with (mostly) female MPs and cabinet ministers, foolish jokes and/or praise of totalitarian countries and Communist leaders, and the preposterous use of lines like “peoplekind,” “the budget will balance itself” and his critics “experience things differently.”

It’s definitely hurt him at the polls. Trudeau has only had the support of roughly one-third of Canadian voters in the past two federal elections. Enough for his government to survive, but a clear sign that faith in his leadership has declined.

Yet, many Canadians, both young and old, seemingly want to be part of Trudeau’s politically woke culture – even if he’s at the helm of this voyage.

Why? Canadians tend to be a remarkably forgiving lot, which is why the thrice-blackface PM is still in power. Millennials and first-time voters see Trudeau as being young, hip and more “with it” when it comes to their beliefs and values. Plus, his personal brand of wokeness is probably viewed as being silly, softer and less threatening than the violent mobs and political radicals that destroyed statues and burned buildings in the U.S. and elsewhere.

This largely explains Trudeau’s recent flag flap.

He ordered Canadian flags at most government buildings to be lowered to half-mast after the horrific discovery of more than 1,300 unmarked graves at the abandoned sites of former Native residential schools. The gesture on its own was commendable. Few would have batted an eye had the flags stayed lowered for a week or two to honour their memories. Instead, he kept the flags at half-mast from late May until early November – and refused to return them to full mast until, as he said in September, “it is clear that Indigenous peoples are happy to raise them again.”

Trudeau clearly did this to curry favour with the Indigenous peoples. Much like other matters, he’s been all talk and no action. Improving relations with the Indigenous community, a high priority when he was first elected in 2015, has been a large-scale failure. He even had the audacity to take a surfing trip to Tofino, B.C. on the first-ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which led to a series of apologies for this national embarrassment. If he believed keeping the flag at half-mast would make up for his past indiscretions, he’s got another thing coming.

Other left-leaning parties enjoy competing with our woke PM, too.

The New Democrats decided its first big issue before the return of Parliament on Nov. 22 would be to focus on scrapping the House of Commons’ “archaic” gender-based dress code. That’s right. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh wants to do away with more than 150 years of parliamentary decorum, including male MPs wearing (oh, the horror!) suits and ties to make transgender, non-binary and two-spirit members feel more included.

In a time when politicians of all stripes should be laser focused on COVID-19 and preventing further economic decline, Singh, like Trudeau, prefers to deal with the frilly and silly.

When it comes to shedding wokeness, it’s abundantly clear that Canada needs to follow America’s lead and wake up – now.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

Tag: Justin Trudeau

Click here for more

Click here for more

Click here for more Canada

Click here for more

Click here for more

Click here for more

Click here for more

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Already a subscriber?

Click here for more

Click here for more Canada

loonie politics

premium content