Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has announced her resignation from Justin Trudeau’s cabinet, taking aim at “costly political gimmicks” on the eve of the government’s fall economic update.
In a letter to Trudeau posted on social media Monday morning, Freeland said rather than be shuffled to another cabinet position she will be resigning, claiming she and Trudeau have been “at odds about the best path forward for Canada.”
Freeland said she will be staying in caucus as a member of Parliament and seeking re-election.
See my letter to the Prime Minister below // Veuillez trouver ma lettre au Premier ministre ci-dessous pic.twitter.com/NMMMcXUh7A
Freeland, who’s served as finance minister since 2020, noted that in the face of Donald Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs, Trudeau’s government must focus on “eschewing costly political gimmicks” which Canadians “can ill afford.”
This comes after news that Freeland was cancelling Trudeau’s announced $250 cheque distribution scheme.
In the letter, Freeland said the move to hand out the costly rebates could “make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment.”
The Working Canadians Rebate would cost taxpayers $4.675 billion.
Freeland said Canada needs to push back against “America First” economic nationalism to fight for Canada’s economy.
“I know Canadians would recognize and respect such an approach. They know when we are working for them, and they equally know when we are focused on ourselves,” Freeland wrote in the letter. “Inevitably, our time in government will come to an end. But how we deal with the threat our country currently faces will define us for a generation, and perhaps longer.”
According to CBC journalist Ashley Burke, when Freeland was asked if she would deliver the fall economic statement, she said “what happens with the FES is a question for the PM’s office.”
Trudeau’s housing minister, Sean Fraser, told reporters Monday morning that he will not seek re-election in the next federal election and will also be leaving cabinet. Fraser cited “family reasons.”
There have been several reports that Trudeau is actively courting former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney to join his cabinet.
Canadians are less proud of and less attached to their country than they ever have been, with levels plummeting in recent years.
Poll results released by the Angus Reid Institute on Friday highlighted that the years following the pandemic have muddied the waters.
“The years since the onset of COVID-19 have been a well-documented period of division and discord in this country, with Canadians expressing concerns about the lack of a “middle” option politically, an unwillingness from governments to work together for the people, (and) weakening compassion and growing space between Canadians,” reads the poll.
In 1985, 78% of Canadians said they were “very proud” to be Canadian. This saw a slow but consistent fall between 1985 and 2003 to 68%. By 2016, the year after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took office, the percentage had fallen to 52%. By 2024, this value fell off a cliff, reaching a mere 34%.
The study attributed much of the decline to the pandemic.
“Two years after the first COVID-19 lockdowns, 82% of Canadians said the pandemic had ‘pulled people further apart,’ while 61% said Canadians’ level of compassion for one another had grown weaker,” reads the report.
However, many other contributing factors were highlighted. Among them were provinces feeling they were getting a “raw deal” from the confederation, as evidenced by the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan implementing Sovereignty Acts to stop federal government overreach.
Economic issues such as inflation and declining per capita GDP were also a cause for concern, according to the study. Adding to the pain felt by Canadians was the healthcare system – a once renowned system now subject to staffing shortages, long wait times, emergency closures, and a lack of family doctors.
In 1991, 65% of Canadians said they had a deep emotional attachment to Canada and loved what it stood for. This saw a slight drop in 2016 but fell to 49% by 2024. By this year, 8% of Canadians said they were not attached to Canada and wanted to see it split into two or three smaller countries. A smaller 6% of Canadians want the country to join the United States.
Conservative voters were the most likely to want to join the United States, at just over one in ten. Almost three-quarters of Liberal voters said they had a deep emotional attachment to Canada and love what it stands for.
The percentage of Canadians who felt they had a “deep emotional attachment” to Canada in 2016 was 62%. By 2024, this fell to 49%.
Residents of Manitoba and Atlantic Canada reported the strongest emotional attachment, but Alberta saw the largest decline between 2016 and 2024, where those with a “deep emotional attachment” fell from 67% to 47%.
The smallest drop was among Quebecers, who already had the lowest emotional attachment to Canada by a country mile – falling from 37% to 30% between 2016 and 2024.
However, Alberta was usurped by Saskatchewan for the biggest drop in pride, which saw a 28-point decrease between 2016 and 2024.
“A pride that was expressed by at least four-in-five in every province in 2016 is now reported by at most two-thirds in any part of the country,” reads the report.
Pride was affected by income level. Canadians with lower incomes were the least likely to express pride in the nation, while those with the highest earnings demonstrated the most national pride
The time someone has been in Canada also directly correlates with their pride in the country.
Those who had been here less than ten years not only had the lowest amount of pride but also saw the biggest decrease in pride between 2016 and 2024.
In 2016, 75% of Canadians who had been in the country for less than 10 years were proud of the country. By 2024, this had fallen to 46%, a decrease of 29%. Those who lived in Canada for 20 years or more were the most prideful group in both years.
Newcomers are also the most likely to associate their pride with economic conditions.
Those in the country for a decade or less were more likely to tie their pride to the quality of life Canada provides. Long-term residents, by contrast, tend to feel a deeper emotional connection.
Younger Canadians are also the least likely to be proud that they are Canadian.
Less than half, 48% of males between 18 and 34, are proud to be Canadian. The percentage is even worse for women in that age group, at 41%.
There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.
It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.
This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.
Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.
But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.
First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”
Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).
But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.
Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”
And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.
Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,” according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”
But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.
In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”
Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.
(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)
Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”
This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.
While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.
As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.
Major Canadian oil producers, including Suncor Energy, Cenovus Energy, and Imperial Oil, have outlined ambitious production growth plans for 2025, driven by ongoing project expansions and increased market access.
However, the industry faces potential headwinds from promised trade tariffs from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.
Suncor projected 2025 production to reach between 810,000 and 840,000 barrels per day, a 4.4% increase from 2024 projections.
“Major economic investments planned or continuing in 2025 include the replacement of the Upgrader 1 coke drums at Base Plant, the development of the Mildred Lake West Mine Extension and West White Rose projects, and the execution of our Petro-Canada retail network improvement plan,” wrote Suncor in its 2025 corporate guidance.
Meanwhile, Cenovus Energy anticipates a similar growth trajectory, with crude output expected to climb to 805,000 to 845,000 barrels per day, primarily fueled by the development of the Narrows Lake oil sands project.
Imperial Oil also forecasts production gains, projecting a 3.1% increase in 2025 output.
These optimistic projections come amidst a backdrop of improving market conditions. U.S. fuel demand is expected to rise in 2024, driven by increased industrial activity benefiting from lower borrowing costs.
Furthermore, the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline has significantly enhanced Canadian crude oil exports, providing access to new markets on the Pacific Coast and boosting domestic crude prices.
However, the potential for trade disputes with the United States overshadows the industry’s optimism. The threat of a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, stemming from border security concerns, could significantly impact oil exports to the U.S. market.
Despite this uncertainty, investment banks remain bullish on the sector. BMO Capital Markets, for instance, has expressed confidence in Suncor’s ability to surpass its 2024 production targets, setting the stage for strong performance in the coming year.
After decades on the outs with environmentalists and regulators, nuclear power is being heralded as a key component for a “net zero” future of clean, reliable energy. Its promise is likely to fall short, however, due to some hard realities. As North America grapples with the challenge of providing secure, affordable and sustainable energy amidst soaring electricity demand, it is time to accept this fact: natural gas remains the most practical solution for powering our grid and economy.
Nuclear power’s limitations are rooted in its costs, risks and delays. Even under ideal circumstances, building or restarting a nuclear facility is arduous. Consider Microsoft’s much-publicized plan torestart the long-dormant Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. This project is lauded as proof of an incipient “nuclear revival”, but despite leveraging existing infrastructure it will cost US$1.6 billion and take four years to bring online.
This is not a unique case. Across North America, nuclear energy projects face monumental lead times. The new generation of small modular reactors (SMRs), often touted as a game-changer, is still largely theoretical. In Canada – Alberta in particular – discussions around SMRs have been ongoing for years, with no concrete progress. The most optimistic projections estimate the first SMR in Western Canada might be operational by 2034.
The reality is that nuclear energy cannot scale quickly enough to meet urgent electricity needs.Canada’s power grid is already strained, and electricity demand is set to grow significantly, driven by electric vehicles and enormous data centres for AI applications. Nuclear power, even if expanded aggressively, cannot fill the gap within the necessary timeframes.
Natural gas, by contrast, is abundant, flexible, low-risk – and highly affordable. It accounts for 40 percent of U.S. electricity generation and plays a critical role in Canada’s energy mix. Unlike nuclear, natural gas infrastructure can be built rapidly, ensuring that new capacity comes online when it’s needed – not decades later. Gas-fired plants are cost-effective and capable of providing consistent, large-scale power while being capable of rapid starts and shut-downs, making them suitable for meeting both base-load and “peaking” power demands.
Climate-related concerns surrounding natural gas need to be put in perspective. Natural gas is the lowest-emission fossil fuel and produces less than half the carbon dioxide of coal per unit of energy output. It is also highly adaptable, supporting renewable energy integration by compensating for the intermittency of wind and solar power.
Nuclear energy advocates frequently highlight its zero-emission credentials, yet they overlook its immense challenges, not just the front-end problems of high cost and long lead times, but ongoing waste disposal and future decommissioning.
Natural gas, by comparison, presents fewer risks. Its production and distribution systems are well-established, and North America is uniquely positioned to benefit from the vast reserves underlying all three countries on the continent. Despite low prices and ever-increasing regulatory obstacles, Canada’s natural gas production has been setting new records. Streamlining regulatory processes and expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity would help revive Canada’s battered economy, with plenty of natural gas left over to help meet growing domestic electricity needs.
Critics argue that investing in natural gas is at odds with the “energy transition” to a glorious net zero future, but this oversimplifies the related challenges and ignores hard realities. By reducing reliance on dirtier fuels like coal, natural gas can help lower a country’s greenhouse gas emissions while providing the reliability needed to support economic growth and renewable energy integration.
Europe’s energy crisis following the recent reduction of Russian gas imports underscores natural gas’s vital role in maintaining reliable electricity supplies. As nations like Germany still phase out nuclear power due to the sheer blind ideology of their left-wing parties, they’re growing more dependent on natural gas to keep the lights (mostly) on and the factories (partially) humming.
Europe is already a destination for LNG exported from the U.S. Gulf Coast, and American LNG exports will soon resume growth under the incoming Trump Administration. Canada has the resources and know-how to similarly scale up its LNG exports; all we need is a supportive federal government.
For all its theoretical benefits, nuclear power remains impractical for meeting immediate and medium-term energy demands. Its high costs, lengthy timelines and significant remaining public opposition make it unlikely to serve as North America’s energy backbone.
Natural gas, on the other hand, is affordable, scalable and reliable. It is the fuel that powers industries, keeps homes warm and provides the stability our electricity grid needs – whether or not we ever transition to “net zero”. By prioritizing investment in natural gas infrastructure and expanding its use, we can meet today’s energy challenges head-on while laying the groundwork for tomorrow’s innovations.
Two former Toronto Blue Jays players won their case against the Canada Revenue Agency over a dispute regarding their additional income while playing for the baseball team.
First reported by the National Post, former all-stars Josh Donaldson and Russell Martin won the precedent-setting case after it was proven that they earned far less in taxable income during their years in Canada than what the federal agency had claimed.
Tax Court of Canada judge Jean-Marc Gagnon ruled that the CRA’s income calculation of the two players was “faulty” in his decision published last week.
Martin’s income was reduced to roughly $4 million for the 2015-2-17 seasons and Donaldson’s was dropped by nearly $2.6 million for 2016 and 2017.
The CRA had challenged how much income the two could deduct from their taxes by way of making contributions to a form of pension plan called a Retirement Compensation Agreement.
High-earning athletes frequently use RCAs, particularly when recruited to Canadian teams from outside the country as they are not subjected to the same contribution limits as an RRSP.
Taxpayers are permitted to contribute a “reasonable” amount annually for their retirement, however, the CRA withholds half of the amount in a separate fund until the person retires.
Once the RCA holder retires, or if they lose their job, the pension will begin paying out at which point the finances will be taxed but generally, the recipient will be in a lower tax bracket at that point.
The dispute between the CRA and the two athletes was regarding how the players’ contributions to the fund should be deducted from their income tax while they played for the Toronto Blue Jays.
Both Russell and Donaldson spent 60% of their time residing in the U.S. and only 40% in Canada in what the CRA considers “duty days”, with their taxes split accordingly.
The CRA claimed that their retirement contributions should be deducted ahead of the 60/40 American-Canadian split calculation, effectively charging the athletes far more for their Canadian portion.
However, the Tax Court ruled in favour of the players, who argued the calculation should be made after.
“The RCA regime is meant to be applied solely to Canadian-source income of non-residents. A non-resident’s foreign-source income is not subject to Canadian RCA rules, as it does not fall within the jurisdiction of Canada,” wrote Gagnon in his ruling.
The judge went on to say that the CRA’s interpretation, “could not have been what Parliament intended when it created the RCA regime.”
Among the reasons for ruling in favour of Russell and Donaldson, Gagnon said that the Income Tax Act is “very clear that income earned in two places, whether that income is earned by a resident or a non-resident without distinction, must be calculated as two distinct sources.”
True North contacted the CRA for comment, however, a spokesperson said that the agency does “not comment on the specific details of court cases.”
What is known is that the CRA wanted to tax US $7 million of the US $20 million from Martin’s taxable portion of his Canadian earnings for 2017.
Ultimately, he paid US $5.5 million.
“If the government spent a fraction of the time looking for ways to save money as it does trying to squeeze more money from taxpayers, we’d be much better off. We have way too many tax bureaucrats in Canada looking for ways to take more money out of peoples’ pockets,” executive director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Franco Terrazzano told True North.
“The government needs to cut spending and the place it should start is by cutting the number of tax bureaucrats at the CRA.”
Despite abysmal approval ratings and the bungling of various files, Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek was awarded “Mayor of the Year” by an Ontario-based municipal magazine. Seriously.
Plus, a shark has made its way to Alberta as the province is welcoming a project led by Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary for a massive artificial intelligence data centre.
And former Alberta NDP premier Rachel Notley ended her nearly years-long political career after announcing her official resignation as the MLA for Edmonton-Strathcona.
These stories and more on The Alberta Roundup with Isaac Lamoureux!
Canadians are now waiting longer than ever for medical care.
A new study by the Fraser Institute found that the median wait time between a referral from a general practitioner and receiving treatment reached a record 30 weeks nationally. In contrast, the same survey found that Canadians waited 27.7 weeks on average last year.
Canadians today wait 222% longer than the 9.3 median weeks wait time recorded in 1993.
The study uses an annual survey the Fraser Institute has been conducting for over 30 years. It asks specialists across 12 specialties and 10 provinces about the wait times their patients face.
“Canada’s healthcare system is struggling to provide timely care,” Mackenzie Moir, a study co-author, told True North in an interview. “Long delays for care can result in increased and prolonged suffering for patients, alongside a decreased quality of life.”
He said long wait times for medical care could also lead to a loss of productivity and, in the worst cases, disability or death.
Another Fraser Institute study in May found that long wait times for surgeries and medical treatment cost the 1.2 million Canadians waiting for medically necessary treatment an average of $2,871 worth of time they could have spent working.
The most recent study examined two measures: the time between a general practitioner’s consultation with a specialist and the time from specialist consultations to receiving treatment, also at an average of 15 weeks.
The wait time between receiving a referral from a general practitioner and consulting a specialist was found to increase from 14.6 weeks in 2023 to 15 weeks in 2024. This wait time is over four times longer than the 3.7 weeks reported in 1993.
From specialist consultation to the time a patient receives treatment, the wait time increased from 13.1 weeks to 15 weeks over the last year. That’s 167% longer than it was in 1993 and 6.3 weeks longer than the 8.6-week wait time physicians consider “clinically reasonable.”
The Atlantic provinces had the highest wait times and most measured the largest increases from the previous year.
Prince Edward Island, which the study indicated had low numbers of survey respondents, reported a 22.2-week increase in average wait times from last year. It went from reporting 55.2-week wait times from a referral to receiving treatment in 2023 to reporting a 77.4-week wait. This is up from the just 17.1-week wait time recorded in 1993.
Nova Scotia, on the other hand, had the lowest wait times of the Atlantic provinces, though still higher than the rest of the provinces. NS was the only province to record a decrease in the overall wait time for patients. NS practitioners reported an average wait time of 39.1 weeks in total for 2024, down 17.6 weeks from the 56.7 weeks reported in 2023.
Ontario reported the shortest total wait time of 23.6 weeks in 2024, still up by two weeks when compared to 2023 and a far cry from the average 9.1 weeks it recorded in 1993.
The study also compared wait times for various types of referrals and specialists.
Canadians waiting for orthopaedic surgery faced the longest total wait times, averaging 57.5 weeks. For neurosurgeries, an average of 46.2 weeks across the provinces. The shortest wait times were reported for radiation and medical oncology treatments at 4.5 and 4.7 weeks, respectively.
For those needing medical services involving diagnostic technology, the wait times varied. Specialists reported an 8.1-week average for those needing a CT scan appointment, MRIs clocked in at a median of 16.2 weeks, and ultrasounds had Canadians waiting an average of 5.2 weeks.
This comes after a November poll found that nearly half of Canadians avoided visiting healthcare providers due to long wait times.
Though the study did not examine the factors leading to record-breaking wait times in Canada, Moir told True North that governments could take short-term action to tackle the issue. He said governments could hire private clinics for specialist procedures, as Saskatchewan successfully implemented lowering its wait times.
The newest film from a Vancouver director known for his biting critiques of China’s communist government is a work of fiction, but only barely.
Filmmaker Leon Lee’s new tech thriller, “Mind Wave”, follows a Chinese-Canadian cybersecurity expert falsely accused of a devastating cyberattack on China.
The film was released on Dec. 6, with screenings at select theatres and availability on streaming platforms such as Apple TV.
As the protagonist fights to clear his name, a series of unexpected events unfold. His wife mysteriously vanishes, leaving behind a trail of cryptic clues that lead him down a rabbit hole of political intrigue and a far-reaching conspiracy.
“Mind Wave” promises to be a gripping suspenseful ride that explores timely themes of global tech dominance, surveillance, data privacy, and the insidious influence of political manipulation.
Lee’s previous work, “Unsilenced,” explored the Chinese Communist Party’s persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and has garnered significant attention in the U.S.
This film, based on true events, highlighted the CCP’s suppression of dissent and its impact on individual freedoms.
Lee’s latest film blends suspense, intrigue, and social commentary on surveillance technology and how the Chinese government treats dissidents abroad.
“Mind Wave” stars actors Harry Han as Clint Wu, as well as Liz Cha, Steve Thackray, Ian Kim and James Lew.
Director Lee won the Peabody Award for past work. Lee has also produced documentaries including Human Harvest and Letter from Masanjia highlighting China’s practice of illegal organ harvesting and forced labour camps.
Lee’s production company, Flying Cloud Productions is based in Vancouver, B.C.
Canada is often hailed as a beacon of hope for individuals seeking a better life. It attracts immigrants from around the world, including those fleeing tyranny, political persecution, human rights abuses, and other dire circumstances. For instance, the “Arab Spring” prompted many to leave their home countries in search of stability and opportunities.
While Canada’s immigration policy admirably strives to balance humanitarian aid with economic labor market needs, it overlooks a critical factor: the alignment of immigrants’ values with foundational Western principles.
This missing criterion—an immigrant’s approach to Western values—is crucial. In a world increasingly divided by competing ideologies, it is essential for Canada to ensure that newcomers share, or are at least open to, the democratic ideals, human rights principles, and social norms that underpin Canadian society. Failure to address this gap could lead to long-term social and security challenges.
Recent events highlight the risks of neglecting this issue. Demonstrations across Canadian cities have included chants of “Death to Canada,” “Death to Israel,” and “Death to America.” These incidents were not isolated. For example, protests in Toronto and Montreal in late 2023 drew attention for inflammatory rhetoric and displays of hatred, some involving individuals from immigrant backgrounds. Social media further amplifies this sentiment, with posts from individuals who have benefited from Canada’s generosity yet openly call for the dismantling of Western values.
The problem is not unique to Canada. European nations provide cautionary examples. Countries such as France, Germany, and Sweden have faced significant challenges integrating certain immigrant populations. In some cases, cultural and ideological clashes have resulted in parallel societies where immigrants reject the values of their host nations. For instance, no-go zones in parts of Europe—areas where state authorities struggle to enforce laws—highlight the consequences of failing to ensure value alignment during the immigration process. Tensions over issues such as women’s rights, freedom of speech, and secular governance illustrate the potential for conflict when integration efforts falter.
Canada can learn from these experiences. A comprehensive immigration policy must go beyond economic and humanitarian considerations to include an evaluation of prospective immigrants’ willingness to embrace Canadian values. While this may seem controversial or invasive, it is a fundamental right and responsibility of any nation to preserve its cultural and social framework. By addressing this gap, Canada would not only protect its democratic principles but also foster more cohesive communities.
Practical steps could include requiring immigrants to declare their stance on key social values during the application process. This might involve affirming support for gender equality, freedom of speech, and the rule of law. Additionally, Canada could implement mandatory orientation programs for newcomers, emphasizing the country’s core principles and expectations. Such measures would not only aid integration but also reassure Canadians that their government is taking proactive steps to safeguard the nation’s identity.
Critics may argue that introducing value-based criteria risks alienating or excluding deserving applicants. However, this is not about rejecting those in need; rather, it is about ensuring that immigrants are prepared to contribute positively to Canadian society. A values-based approach would also provide an opportunity for honest dialogue, helping to identify areas where newcomers may need support in adapting to their new environment.
Canada’s history as a welcoming and diverse nation is one of its greatest strengths. To preserve this legacy, the government must address the blind spot in its immigration policy. The long-term social harmony and security of the nation depend on it. As immigration continues to shape Canada’s future, integrating a values-based criterion is not only reasonable but essential for the country to thrive in an increasingly divided world.
Dotan Rousso was born and raised in Israel and holds a Ph.D. in Law. He is a former criminal prosecutor in Israel. He currently lives in Alberta and teaches Philosophy at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT).
