This week on the Alberta Roundup with Rachel Emmanuel, Rachel discusses Rachel Notley’s announcement that she will step down as the leader of the Alberta NDP once a new leader is elected.
Also on the show, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is thanking Albertans for responding to last week’s energy emergency.
Finally, Rachel has an exciting announcement.
Tune into the Alberta Roundup now!
SUBSCRIBE TO THE ALBERTA ROUNDUP
Canadians outpace their American neighbours in tying the importance of language to national identity.
84% of Canadians believe that speaking English or French is very or somewhat important to national identity, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center.
This sentiment is significantly stronger than in the United States, where only 78% consider speaking English important to national identity, marking the U.S. as having the least emphasis on language among the 23 countries included in the study.
15% of Canadians said that it was not at all or not very important to national identity to be able to speak English or French. Across the border, 21% of Americans said the same about English.
In addition to language, customs and traditions also play a key role in Canadian identity.
In Canada, 81% of respondents linked customs and traditions to their national identity, which is a 9-point decline since 2016 but still represents a strong majority. The United States trails with 71% of its respondents saying the same about their traditions.
There was a significant decline in seven countries where the question was previously asked, the biggest being a 14% decrease in Japan between 2016 and 2023.
The survey highlighted four different areas: the importance of language, customs and traditions, birthplace, and religion to national identity.
“Of the four dimensions of national identity included in the survey, language is by far the most valued,” said the report’s authors. They added that in all countries polled, more than eight in ten point to language as important for true belonging in the country.
Political ideology played a factor in these perceptions.
In Canada, 88% of those on the ideological right see language as important, compared to 79% of left-leaning participants. The divide is most notable in the United States, where 90% of right-minded thinkers view speaking the country’s most common language as very or somewhat important. Conversely, in the U.S., only 58% of those on the left feel the same way — a difference between left and right-leaning thinkers of 32%.
Birthplace as a component of national identity seems to be less emphasized in Canada, where 66% deem it not at all or not very important, a sentiment that aligns with countries where international migrants make up a larger share of the population. The U.S. is nearly split on this issue, with 50% considering it important.
Globally, the importance of language and customs remains high, although birthplace and religion see more varied responses.
“Nations where immigrants make up a smaller share of the population tend to see birthplace as a more important component of national identity, and countries with a greater share of immigrants are more willing to accept those born outside of the country as true nationals,” said the report.
The countries with the largest portion of respondents valuing birthplace as important to national identity are Indonesia and Mexico, where 91% of respondents said it was somewhat or very important to national identity to be born within the country. Immigrants make up less than 1% of the population in these countries. Conversely, immigrants make up about a fifth of the population in Canada, where only 33% consider birthplace very or somewhat important to being Canadian.
Regarding religion, 27% of Canadians responded that it was somewhat or very important to national identity. In the U.S., 37% consider religion a key aspect of being American. Countries where these views were most prominent were Nigeria, Kenya and Indonesia, which said that religion was somewhat or very important to national identity at 88%, 87%, and 86%, respectively.
The study’s Canadian segment surveyed 1,007 people across Canada by phone, and it carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. The survey did not include residents of Yukon, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories.
A poll released by Leger late last year revealed an unsettling level of misunderstanding of the constitution among the Canadian public. The survey showed that just one-third of Canadians polled said they had read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many could not understand the difference between the Charter and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, confusing the language of the two.
For example, 88 per cent of respondents to the Leger poll said that the Charter guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not – this is the language from the Declaration of Independence. The Charter guarantees the rights to life, liberty and security of person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
While disheartening, these revelations should not come as a huge surprise. During the pandemic we saw not just members of the public, but also politicians (and arguably, the courts themselves), confused about the protections afforded by the Charter. The Leger poll also asked Canadians to rank in order which Charter rights need the most protecting. At the top of that list was freedom of expression, selected by 17 per cent of respondents.
Freedom of expression is a widely misunderstood right among the public – and among politicians. One of the greatest misperceptions is who it applies to. The Charter protects citizens from government action. It does not free individuals from consequences for their speech from their employer, from their community or family, or even from social platforms. Some may read this and think that this suggests that the right to freedom of expression is not robust. This is not the case. Although the right does apply only to government action, governments are frequently acting to limit expression.
The desire to silence the speech of those with whom they disagree is the knee-jerk reaction of almost every political actor, even in modern liberal democracies. We saw the political pressure put on Twitter by the Biden administration to silence non-mainstream views on COVID-19. We saw the use of Canada’s most extraordinary and powerful law, the Emergencies Act, to shut down the non-violent (though disruptive) Freedom Convoy protest.
Local municipal governments are often the most severe in terms of censorship. For example, Calgary has banned protests on the basis of subject matter near libraries and community centres, a clear violation of the right to expression, which is content neutral.
Many Canadians will also be familiar with the use of statutorily empowered professional regulators to silence the speech of people in regulated professions, even when their speech is private and outside the scope of their profession. The sanctions against Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario are just the most recent example of the censorship creep of these bodies.
Freedom of expression is fundamentally important to the functioning of democracy and requires a strong understanding by the citizenry. It is through freedom of expression that we define the contours of all our other rights. Without these guarantees, governments would be free to act unopposed, and their policies, including unjust policies, would be uncontested.
Freedom of expression is also fundamental to basic human dignity. If we cannot engage in truth seeking and express our beliefs we cannot act with autonomy or develop as rational beings.
This is what makes the public’s confusion over the Charter so concerning. Without an understanding of how our constitution functions and how our rights are guaranteed, Canadians are poorly positioned to protect themselves against government overreach.
That’s why the legal charity the Canadian Constitution Foundation has undertaken a new initiative to provide free legal education to Canadians about not just the constitution, but specifically about the right to freedom of expression. At theCCF.ca/learn Canadians can register for free online courses in Constitutional Law 101 as well as a new course on freedom of expression, taught by some of Canada’s leading scholars and practitioners.
Professor emerita Jamie Cameron of Osgoode Hall gives a lecture on the constitutional framework for freedom of expression. Prof. Richard Moon of Windsor Law shares his insight on the philosophical underpinnings of the right. Lawyers Adam Goldenberg and Justin Safayeni speak in the course about major freedom of expression cases from hate speech to defamation to pornography. And University of Saskatchewan Prof. Dwight Newman delves into unexplored areas of freedom of expression, including the rights to thought, belief and opinion as well as press freedom.
If you’re looking for a new year’s resolution, gaining an improved understanding of your basic rights is a great start.
Canada’s restaurant industry is poised to receive yet another financial blow as the deadline to repay the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) comes this week.
The deadline comes after four years of diminished clientele as consumers continue to struggle financially.
“The effects of aggressive interest rate increases have not yet been fully felt by consumers directly nor by the economy as a whole,” said DBRS Morningstar, a global credit rating agency said in its 2024 Restaurant Outlook, released on Wednesday.
The agency is predicting moderate potential improvements for restaurants by the end of the year, but said that remains contingent on how interest rate shifts affect consumer behaviour.
“The restaurant industry has had to endure significant hardships over the past few years. Acknowledging some geographic nuances, restaurant traffic generally only recovered toward pre-pandemic levels in 2022,” said the agency, which went on to say that the macroeconomic challenges have also compounded over that same timeframe.
“Consumers’ purchasing power was squeezed during (2023), leading to considerable changes in their behaviour as consumers tried to stretch their wallet. These changes naturally also extended to the restaurant industry.”
Globally, the number of consumers dining out dropped dramatically in 2023, decreasing by low single digits on a monthly basis consistently year-over-year since the pandemic.
Just over half of Canadian restaurants, 53%, are now operating at a loss or barely breaking even, according to DBRS Morningstar. Whereas before the pandemic, that number held steady at a rate of about 10%.
Additionally, Canada saw a nearly 40% year-over-year increase in bankruptcies in the accommodation and food services industry for the 12 months ending Nov. 30, 2023, according to Financial Post.
Now restaurants are faced with the challenge of repaying their CEBA loans by Jan. 18.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB,) predicts this will result in a 50% increase in pandemic debt as many of these businesses will be unable to repay their loans.
The restaurant industry and a number of small-business groups requested a deadline extension several months ago, however the Trudeau government did not respond to their pleas.
“The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is very disappointed that the federal government has ignored the pleas of tens of thousands of small business owners to give them more time to repay their Canada Emergency Business Account loans in order to keep the forgivable portion,” said the CFIB in a press release on Wednesday.
According to the terms of the CEBA loans, business owners are required to repay as much as $40,000 on their loans, or opt for refinancing from the initial issuing bank by Jan. 18, 2024. If they decide to refinance, they could be qualified for the forgivable portion of up to $20,000.
However, businesses that miss the deadline may be on the hook for a CEBA debt increase of an additional $20,000.
“Ottawa failed to address the most critical issue on outstanding CEBA loans — the loss of the forgivable portion,” said CFIB president Dan Kelly in the release. “I believe the government will regret the decision to not grant more time as small businesses fail and default on their entire loan. For many businesses, CEBA will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”
Kelly warned that the deadline is likely to bring one in every five Canadian restaurants to the brink of closure.
Advocates are calling for the defunding of Montreal’s Concordia University, accusing the school of having taken inadequate action in regards to antisemitism on its campus.
This comes as the university is currently dealing with multiple cases of legal action from the Jewish community.
Lawrence Muscant, senior vice president at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is among those calling for the university to lose funding. He also wants to see Concordia’s leadership resign.
Mascant is accusing the university of having failed to uphold its own stated codes of conduct, failed to protect Jewish students on campus, failed to publicly denounce and defund the “antisemitic” Concordia Student Union and of having failed to deal with agitators on campus.
Half of the university’s funding comes from government grants. The university also receives money from donors.
This week, the university came under fire after it was accused of telling Jewish students they could not set up a table on campus that called for the release of hostages – amid there being a risk of bad actions by “radical groups.”
Jewish students opted to set up the table anyway and did not face further opposition from the administration.
In an email to True North, a Concordia spokesperson denied that the university told Jewish students they could not set up a table – saying that they were instead asked to not set it up at the same time as a pro-Palestinian display.
“We did not tell students they could not set up a table. We learned a few days ago that the Concordia Student Union had given permission to two groups, one pro-Palestinian, the other pro-Israeli, to have events on the mezzanine – a space the CSU manages, at the same time, on the same day.”
“We requested that the events be held at different times,” added the university. “Since reservations for that space are made on a first come-first serve basis, the group that registered last, Start Up Nation, was asked to reschedule their event.”
“They were offered a new booking time as well as a different space on the same day and refused both.”
In a statement, Jewish groups Hillel Montreal and Federation CJA said “while we are glad the gathering was ultimately permitted by Concordia University, the initial refusal to ban on a specific day reflects an inability to protect students’ safety and security.”
“Preventing Jewish students from assembling for ‘safety’ only emboldens extremist groups that seek to intimidate, oppress and silence those who differ from their worldview.
Concordia is also facing new legal action from the Jewish community.
As reported by The Suburban, Concordia, its President Graham Carr, the student union and the anti-Israel group Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights have been served legal papers by Attorney Neil Oberman – who is representing a Jewish student.
The legal letter claims that the student plaintiff, who is remaining anonymous amid fears of reprisals, has been “exposed to aggression, bullying, threats of violence and antisemitism on campus, because of the failure of Concordia University, SPHR, Concordia Student Union, and Bara Abuhamed (a Pro-Hamas student) to act in accordance with their legal and moral obligations.”
Among other things, the demand letter is seeking that the university’s president provides, in writing, “steps that will be taken to provide physical safety and security to all students regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or other protected group; how Concordia University will dismantle the SPHR on campus; how Concordia will stop funding the CSU until the hate is removed from this student union; what measures Concordia University will take against students employing antisemitic statements, violence, harassment and/or bullying; what measures Concordia University will take to remove anti-Semitic graffiti and literature from the campus; how Concordia University will remove Bara Abuhamed from campus and enjoin him from enrolling in any courses; and how it will stop anti-Semitic behaviour on campus and restore a proper learning environment.”
At a Thursday afternoon press conference, Oberman defended his client’s decision to pursue legal action against Concordia.
“Don’t get the message confused. They will talk about free speech, assembly and political rights. All those are completely acceptable, but what this is about is stopping free hate, free terrorism and hate assembly. That is what we need to focus on to create an environment where students of all types can go to school without being bothered,” Oberman said.
This latest legal action comes in addition to a $15 million dollar class-action lawsuit launched against Concordia and its student union in November. The latter accuses the university of failing to adequately respond to antisemitic activities on its campuses.
There have been several antisemitic incidents at Concordia since the Hamas terrorist attacks of Oct. 7.
Notable incidents include a brawl that broke out between students protesting the war in November, which led to three injuries and one arrest. During the incident, one woman, who uses “they/them” pronouns, was accused of calling a someone a “k*ke” (an antisemitic slur), while a University of Montreal professor present at the rally told a student to “go back to Poland, sharmouta (wh*re in Arabic).”
While Concordia’s spokesperson said it could not comment on the specifics of legal proceedings, she defended the university’s record.
“Concordia has clearly condemned antisemitism and any kind of violence or intimidation. The university has also taken several measures on campus to ensure our community’s safety, including increased monitoring of events and demonstrations as well as adding supplemental personnel when appropriate, meetings with student groups, and the creation of a committee with expertise in mediation and conflict resolution.”
“Note that any form of racism including antisemitism is strictly prohibited and that any community member experiencing such treatment can make a complaint under Concordia’s Code of Rights and Responsibilities.”
The university also says it is following up on already complaints made, increased anti-discrimination workshops and will soon launch an anti-hate campaign that will first focus on antisemitism.
The Conservatives are calling out Chrystia Freeland for opting to “rub elbows with global elites” rather than focusing on issues that matter to Canadians.
Freeland, Canada’s deputy prime minister, was in Davos this week for the World Economic Forum’s 2024 annual meeting. She participated in a panel on trade and, according to her published itineraries, took “meetings with business leaders and other participants.”
In a statement to True North, a Conservative spokesperson said Freeland’s return to the Swiss alps is “yet more evidence of her high flying, high carbon hypocrisy.”
“Instead of focusing on the problems facing Canadians, she has jetted across the globe to rub elbows with global elites and lecture the world on decarbonization,” the spokesperson said. “In fact, she won’t even tell Canadians who she is meeting with in Davos and what the topics of those meetings are.”
The spokesperson’s reference to decarbonization refers to a comment Freeland made on her panel about transitioning away from oil and gas.
“Canada is absolutely determined that decarbonization, for us, will mean more jobs, more growth, more manufacturing, and we recognize government needs to play a role to make that happen,” Freeland said Thursday.
The implications of decarbonization are debatable. While some advocates, like Freeland, claim it can be profitable for industry, other leaders see it as antithetical to capitalism.
The same day as Freeland’s panel, Colombian Environment Minister Susana Mohamad told World Economic Forum attendees that decarbonization requires a “revolution” to upend the capitalist system and tolerate “another way of living.”
A representative of Freeland responded to the criticism from Poilievre’s office in an email to True North defending the trip.
“The Deputy Prime Minister had a number of meetings to promote investment in Canada, which is key to economic growth and job creation,” Freeland’s spokesperson, Katherine Cuplinskas, said. “As a reminder, Mr. Poilievre’s Deputy Leader Ms. (Melissa) Lantsman, and his Associate Finance Critic, Mr. (Adam) Chambers, both attended WEF in the company of former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and then-Minister Jim Flaherty.”
Cuplinskas directed True North to several posts on X by Freeland featuring photos of her with BHP CEO Mike Henry, Honda executives, and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba.
The Conservative spokesperson accused Freeland of being especially hypocritical for talking about decarbonization while on an international junket.
“Just as her hypocrisy was on display when she lectured Canadians about carbon taxes while being chauffeured around in limousines and government vehicles, she has again sent Canadians a message that she believes there should be one set of rules for struggling Canadians and another set of rules for her and her friends in Davos,” the statement said.
The World Economic Forum’s energy panels are almost exclusively based on the premise that there must be a transition away from oil and gas.
The organization, founded more than 50 years by Klaus Schwab, claims to wield significant influence in governments around the world, including Canada’s.
Freeland is a mainstay on the Davos circuit, serving on the World Economic Forum’s board of trustees. Poilievre has been critical of the organization, vowing to ban cabinet ministers, if he’s elected, from attending the annual meeting.
Nunavut will assume responsibility for a number of its own decisions almost 25 years after becoming a territory following a final agreement signed with the federal government, making it the largest land transfer in Canadian history.
The agreement was signed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier P.J. Akeeagok and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. president Aluki Kotierk at a ceremony in Iqaluit on Thursday.
It will take effect on April 1, and the parties will have until April 2027 to complete the process, known as devolution.
The land transfer totals two million square kilometres of land and water and Nunavut will have control over the area’s resources, according to the 239-page document.
“It’s high time. It’s a turning point for Nunavummiut,” former Nunavut premier and land claims negotiator Paul Quassa told CBC News.
Trudeau called the agreement a “historic” day for Canada.
“A lot of work has gone into making today possible,” said Trudeau. “Leaders, negotiators, officials of many stripes have all worked hard for many years for the same goal: for Nunavummiut to have increased control for decisions on their land, waters and resources.”
Nunavut officially joined Canada as a territory in 1999, and negotiations with the federal government over resources and final decision making have been ongoing ever since.
The Yukon and N.W.T. both undertook similar processes as well in 2003 and 2014 respectively.
Negotiations over who would manage the resource development of land and water was among the last areas to sort out, beginning in 2008. An agreement-in-principle on devolution was signed with the territory in 2019.
“It’s like honey, I guess — it’s sweet,” said Quassa, who was part of the land claim negotiations that initially created Nunavut. “This is something I’ve looked forward to since the day we started negotiating with the Nunavut government.”
Employees with the government of Canada whose jobs involve territorial responsibilities, and who work in Nunavut, will be offered the option to transfer jobs with the Nunavut government as of April 1.
“We’ll decide our own future,” said Premier P.J. Akeeagokz. “Before this, it was Ottawa who had the final decision over whether a project would advance.”
Additionally, the Nunavut government will have greater authority to collect royalties from development projects.
“This is something that we had envisioned,” said Quassa. “We are becoming an important player within Canada.”
Nunavut will receive an additional $85 million a year from the federal government as part of the transfer, as well as a one-time funding of $67 million for transitional activities.
Another $15 million will be given for training purposes.
The devolution agreement also means several pieces of legislation will need to be altered or repealed in order to grant power to the Nunavut government, including the Nunavut Act.
The World Economic Forum’s 2024 annual meeting has come to an end. Over the last five days, many world leaders have dodged very basic questions about what they are doing – or want to do – in the world, which doesn’t exactly help rebuild trust in institutions, which WEF said its Davos summit was trying to do. True North’s Andrew Lawton delivers a conference wrap-up.
The global elites gathered in Davos for the World Economic Forum this week and True North was on the ground – not as Klaus Schwab’s invited elites but as journalists.
On this episode of The Daily Brief, True North’s Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and Andrew Lawton give you an exclusive glimpse into the WEF conference.
Tune into The Daily Brief!
Here at Davos, the global elites don’t just talk about money — they flaunt it! They drive luxury cars, wear expensive furs and buy watches worth more than the average person’s annual salary. Tag along with True North’s Cosmin Dzsurdzsa for an exclusive look at the wealth on display during this year’s World Economic Forum conference.
