In the weeks following Hamas’ first attacks on Israel, the contradictory nature of modern left-wing ideology has become impossible to ignore, as radial progressives continue to throw their support behind a group with zero tolerance for progressivism. Prager U founder Dennis Prager spoke with True North’s Andrew Lawton to explain why the left is wrong about Israel, and just about everything else.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE ANDREW LAWTON SHOW
As the conflict in Gaza continues, many prominent left-wing figures have been unashamed in their support for Hamas, promoting the group as a champion of the broader “decolonization” movement. Post Millennial senior editor Andy Ngo spoke with True North’s Andrew Lawton about the underlying ideology causing self-proclaimed progressives to rally behind a terrorist organization.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE ANDREW LAWTON SHOW
Workers in Saskatchewan cannot be told to keep their poppies off, thanks to a new law passed just in time for Remembrance Day.
Bill 139, the Saskatchewan Remembrance Observance Act, grants employees the right to wear poppies in the workplace.
After the government’s legislation was introduced Wednesday, all Saskatchewan MLAs voted together to pass the legislation immediately, according to 980 CJME.
“I don’t remember many times — and I’ve been around here a long time — that a bill would go through so quickly, unanimously with support from opposition and, of course, government,” Labour Minister Don McMorris told reporters.
The law enshrines the right to wear a poppy at work between Nov. 1 and 11 unless it poses a danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the worker or others.
The timeframe of the law coincides with the Royal Canadian Legion’s poppy campaign period, Nov. 1-11, and includes Indigenous Veteran’s Day on Nov. 8.
The law, which applies to provincially regulated workers, comes in response to incidents where individuals were compelled by employers to remove their poppies, perceived incorrectly as political symbols.
McMorris provided several examples of occurrences where someone was asked to remove their poppy. Some of these instances included where poppy’s were alleged to be a political symbol, or seen as not “neutral.”
One incident involved an Estevan courthouse employee who was asked to remove their poppy because it was deemed as not “neutral.”
The swift and unanimous passage underscores the province’s collective commitment to honouring veterans, the government said.
“We don’t feel it’s a political statement at all. I think it’s a statement of respect for those that came before us,” said McMorris.
This legislation does not extend to federally regulated sectors including banks, telecommunications, and interprovincial transportation services.
Saskatchewan joins Ontario and Manitoba in legislating this right for workers to wear a poppy in the workplace.
“Our veterans, current and past, have fought for our freedom and peace in Canada,” McMorris said.
“Providing the right for workers to wear a poppy while in the workplace is a way to honour the sacrifice veterans and their families have made.”
In the wake of an “urgent” meeting with provincial finance ministers Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, reaffirmed Alberta’s right to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan but questioned the number Alberta says it’s entitled to from the pension fund if it does.
“Of course, Alberta has the right to withdraw from the CPP (Canada Pension Plan) should it so choose,” Freeland admitted after the meeting with her provincial and territorial counterparts.
However, she added that Alberta’s choice about the CPP implicates every single Canadian. Due to this, the meeting focused on what the consequences for the entire country would be if Alberta decided to leave, she explained.
Alberta has referenced a study indicating its claim to a significant portion of the CPP’s holdings.
The study projects that by Jan. 1, 2027, Alberta could lay claim to an estimated $334 billion, representing about 53% of the CPP’s assets. This projected share far exceeds Alberta’s relative population size within the CPP framework, around 15%.
Freeland rejected that figure when asked if she thought it was realistic.
“No, I do not,” she said.
During the meeting, Freeland confirmed that she “told ministers today that she would ask the chief actuary to provide an estimate of the transfer based on a reasonable interpretation of the provisions in the CPP legislation.”
Freeland added the many legal complexities of Alberta’s exit from the CPP. Since the CPP was founded nearly 60 years ago, no province has ever left, although Quebec opted not to join in the first place.
“This action is unprecedented. This is just the beginning of a national conversation, and I expect to meet with my ministerial counterparts in person in the coming weeks,” she said.
Freeland brought up the issue of portability. She explained that Alberta would need to negotiate portability agreements with the CPP and the Quebec Pension Plan.
Alberta would also need to negotiate international social security agreements to ensure similar treatment of contributors who spend part of their careers abroad.
Quebec has negotiated its own social security agreements with 39 countries, and Canada has negotiated with 60.
“This would be a complex and multi-year process,” explained Freeland.
Freeland made sure not to speak for the Alberta government but did note that she spoke with the head of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and the head of the Alberta Federation of Labour, who each brought up their “very serious concerns” with Alberta’s proposal.
Alberta has not committed to withdrawing from CPP, but it has said Albertans will be able to vote on whether they wish to do so in a referendum, which has not yet been called.
While Freeland’s comments were about the pension issue, she also faced questions from reporters about the mounting calls for federal carbon tax relief.
Asked whether there would be further exemptions to the carbon tax on home heating beyond eating oil, Freeland said “No.”
When asked about legal actions the federal government would take against provinces that stop collecting the carbon tax, Freeland said that the federal government expects everyone in Canada to obey the law.
“That’s our expectation, and it’s our job to ensure that the law is enforced. It will be,” she said.
As the debate over Alberta’s proposed withdrawal from the CPP continues, so too do the debates surrounding the carbon tax.
Freeland explained that there is a federal, provincial, and territorial finance ministers meeting coming up in December, where they will discuss the carbon tax and other key issues affecting the country.
Over the past few years, the concept of “wokeness” has become a significant part of cultural and civil discourse, with some rallying behind the ideology, while others outright reject it. American author James Lindsay joined True North’s Andrew Lawton to discuss the history of the term, what it actually means, and the impacts of this ideological shift on society, politics, and individual lives.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE ANDREW LAWTON SHOW
Earlier this week, the battle against globalism took centre stage, as prominent political and cultural figures gathered in London, England, for the first ever Alliance for Responsible Citizenship Forum. Political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek joined True North’s Andrew Lawton to discuss the importance of an empowered citizenry, and the need to push back against the globalist movement.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that mandatory minimum sentences for child luring are too broad, which could lead to sentences that violate citizens’ protection against cruel and unusual punishment under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“The mandatory periods of incarceration apply to such an exceptionally wide scope of conduct that the result is grossly disproportionate punishments in reasonably foreseeable scenarios,” said the ruling.
The court ruled on two cases from the Quebec Court of Appeal in a six-to-one decision.
Justice Suzanne Côté was the only one to dissent.
The court ruled that in both cases, mandatory minimum sentences of one year for an indictment and six months for a summary offence violated of Section 12 of the Charter, which states that “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”
However, the guilty parties in both cases were given longer sentences despite the ruling.
The first case involved Maxime Marchand, who met his victim when she was only 13-years-old. Marchand was 22 at the time when he sent her a friend request on Facebook and the two maintained contact for two years. They eventually had “illegal sexual intercourse” on four separate occasions.
Marchand was charged with one count of child luring and one count of sexual interference, for which he pleaded guilty.
He was initially sentenced to the one-year minimum sentence for child luring, however he challenged the sentence, arguing that it violated Section 12.
Marchand won the challenge and was instead sentenced to five months for child luring. He served the five months at the same time as his sentence for sexual interference.
The second case involved a defendant known as H.V., whose identity was not disclosed to the public for the protection of their victim. H.V. pleaded guilty to one count of child luring for sending sexual text messages to the victim over a 10 day period.
H.V. also challenged their mandatory minimum sentence of six months for luring as unconstitutional under Section 12. H.V. was granted two years’ probation and 150 hours of community service in lieu of the challenge.
The judge found mandatory minimum sentences for luring to be unconstitutional on appeal and changed the sentence to a four month prison term.
The Supreme Court’s decision to scrap mandatory minimums was to prevent what they believed to be an overly broad interpretation of the law, as opposed to an effort to diminish the serious offence of child luring.
“The broad reach and range of the offence means that a defined minimum period of imprisonment in all cases will sometimes produce results so excessive as to outrage standards of decency,” said Justice Sheilah Martin, writing for the majority.
“Invalidating the mandatory minimums does not mean that child luring is a less serious offence.”
“Based on the distinct and insidious psychological damage luring generates, in some cases the appropriate penalty for child luring will be imprisonment for a period equal to or longer than that set out in the unconstitutional mandatory minimum sentences.”
Both cases were granted an appeal by the Supreme Court, however Marchand’s sentence was changed from five months to one year and required that it be served after his time given for sexual interference, instead of being served at the same time.
H.V.’s sentence remained at the increased sentence of four months.
Justice Côté said that mandatory minimums for luring children would ‘rarely’ be used disproportionately in her dissenting opinion.
While she agreed with Marchand’s increased sentencing, Côté said she would have raised the sentencing for H.V. to the mandatory minimum of six months, instead of the four month sentence.
The CBC’s top official is refusing to apologize for the state broadcaster’s erroneous reporting on the Gaza hospital explosion.
Plus, scrapping the federal carbon tax will significantly reduce inflation, according to the Bank of Canada.
And Agriculture Canada apologizes for an error in a departmental results report wherein the ministry claimed that it was working towards a “30% reduction of fertilizer use.”
Tune into The Daily Brief with Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and William McBeath!
The NDP is throwing its support behind Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s motion to call on the government to expand its carbon tax pause on all forms of home heating.
NDP House Leader Peter Julian signaled his party’s support for the motion, which will go to a vote next week, in the House of Commons Thursday.
Last month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a three-year pause on the carbon tax for all homes that heat with oil, which predominantly only affects Atlantic Canadians. The majority of homes in Ontario and Western Canada use natural gas.
This prompted several premiers to demand an exemption from the Trudeau government’s federal carbon pricing on natural gas and other forms of home heating as well.
Poilievre also wrote an open letter to Trudeau asking for the exemption to be extended to all forms of home heating, however the government has denied any further exemptions at this time.
“Given the panicked reaction from the Liberals, seemingly tied to their polling standing in Atlantic Canada, given that the Conservatives for once have actually offered a motion that doesn’t deny climate change, we will be supporting that motion,” said Julian.
On Thursday, Poilievre tabled his motion, “That, given that the government has announced a ‘temporary, three-year pause; to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.”
The motion does not bind the government to any action Initially, the NDP wanted the motion amended to include the removal of GST from all forms of home heating, however the Conservatives disapproved of the amendment.
“This is an issue of being the adults in the room,” said Julian. “For once the Conservatives haven’t gone over the top with their motions — they generally tend to do that. And they’ve added they’ve put something that is straight up. We’re going to support that.”
Over the last two days, the Conservatives have been looking for an answer from the NDP as to whether or not they would support the motion, given that many NDPMPs represent remote areas where the cost of home heating has become a concern.
“The NDP leader says he disagrees with the dual class citizenship approach of the prime minister on the carbon tax. I’m giving him a chance to prove it,” said Poilievre in the House of Commons on Thursday.
“Everyday people in Timmins, in Kapuskasing, in Smithers, British Columbia, and in countless other NDP communities will be watching on Monday to find out whether the NDP leader votes for them or the prime minister,” added Poilievre.
Not all NDP MPs are onside with the Conservative leader, however.
NDP MP Charlie Angus called the Conservative motion a political tactic to pit regions against each other.
“They know that if we just take the carbon tax off, it’s not going to mean anything for people in British Columbia, who are still paying heating bills. They’re not covered by the carbon tax because they’re under cap and trade. Neither is Quebec,” said Angus.
According to the National Post, NDP MP Taylor Bachrach disagreed with Angus, citing B.C.’s NDP premier David Eby, who spoke about the importance of giving all Canadians a fair deal earlier this week.
“I think it is eminently reasonable for people in other provinces and other parts of this country who have been overlooked by this government when it comes to the affordability of home heating to want the same,” said Bachrach.
Trudeau’s critics have said the carbon tax carve-out for oil heating only is politically motivated, as much of his caucus represents regions in Atlantic Canada. However, the Liberals claim that the exemption is about affordability, as oil heating is more expensive than natural gas.
However, many NDP MPs do not buy that framing of the Liberal’s decision.
“I think most Canadians see this quite clearly for what it is, which is a cynical attempt by a flailing government to save its political hide in the only part of rural Canada, where it has any,” said Bachrach.
“I think what the NDP has done in this Parliament is we continue to be the adults in the room. This decision has been made. That’s a bad one. How do we then make it equitable so that everybody can afford to heat their homes this winter?”
It remains uncertain if the Bloc Quebécois will support the Conservative’s motion as Quebec predominantly uses hydroelectricity for heating and, therefore, won’t necessarily benefit from a carbon tax removal.
No Liberal MPs have yet stated that they would vote against their own party on the motion.
The narrative perpetuated by the Canadian federal government and various institutions that Canada is systemically racist simply isn’t true, a study finds.
The study, published by Matthew Lau of the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy Oct. 30, directly counters past comments from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that there are “profound systemic inequities and disparities” ingrained in the nation’s core institutions.
Lau’s research, titled “Systemic racism claims in Canada: A fact-based analysis,” aimed to answer two questions: Is there evidence to back up claims such as these that Canada today is systemically racist? Are government programs and strategies likely to reduce the incidence or mitigate the effects of racism in society?
“The answer to both is a resounding ‘no,’” said the report.
Income disparities analyzed in the study demonstrate that many visible minority groups outearn the white population, contradicting the narrative of widespread disadvantage.
After accounting for employment and sociodemographic factors, only four out of twenty minority groups exhibited lower earnings than their white counterparts, while five minority groups had statistically higher earnings.
“The theory that Canadian institutions are rigged to benefit the white population and disfavour visible minorities therefore finds little support in the income statistics,” noted Lau.
In terms of education, Lau’s research reveals that many visible minority groups achieve higher levels than the white population, with many Asian populations obtaining bachelor’s degrees or higher well above the national average. This observation clashes with the assumption that academic institutions disadvantage visible minorities.
This finding is “not what one would expect if Canadian institutions put visible minorities at a disadvantage,” Lau said.
Furthermore, Lau’s analysis of occupational disparities shows that many visible minority populations are overrepresented in professional occupations such as medicine and engineering.
For example, while South Asians in Canada comprise 7.3% of the working-age population, they make up 12.4% of engineers, 19% of computing professionals, and 12.5% of doctors.
The Chinese population had a similar overrepresentation in these professions, being more than doubly represented compared to their population size.
Public school test scores also debunk the notion of systemic racism in education.
“Our system has been built upon colonial structures meant to uphold white supremacy,” said a booklet published by the Peel District School Board.
However, grade six students from East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Middle Eastern backgrounds all outperform white students on average on the EQAO mathematics tests at the Peel District School Board.
Despite this, an executive with the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario wrote in the union magazine that “EQAO tests are culturally and racially biased, promoting a Eurocentric curriculum and way of life that privileges white students.”
“Student test scores data are generally contrary to the notion that public schools are systematically racist against visible minorities,” said Lau.
When examining income disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians, Lau points out that factors like location and education are the main drivers of this disparity rather than systemic discrimination.
Controlling for education and work status, Indigenous Canadians earn close to the same incomes as non-Indigenous Canadians, further dispelling the myth of systemic discrimination.
“If the typical anti-racism activist in Canada today is looking for widespread institutional or systemic racism of the kind the federal government describes, they will not find it,” said Lau.
Disparities in income, educational attainment, and other outcomes do not imply the existence of such discrimination, according to the study.
The data on disparities in income, educational attainment, occupational outcomes, and public school test scores show that, on average, Asians are doing better than the white population.
“More capitalism and freer markets is the antidote to unfair discrimination — not government regulation and control,” wrote Lau.
Gary Becker, Milton Friedman’s student and winner of the 1992 Nobel Prize in Economics, showed that discrimination will be less pervasive in more competitive industries because companies that discriminate will lose market share to those that do not. Becker presented evidence that discrimination is more pervasive in more-regulated, and therefore less-competitive industries, noted the study.
“The solution prescribed by those who make claims of widespread systemic racism — increasing top-down government interventions — is the wrong one and if implemented would do more harm than good,” concluded Lau in the study.
