Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Left Turn: How Viet Nam War Resisters Changed Canada’s Political Compass

Published

9 minute read

Politics is downstream of culture”— Andrew Breitbart

Canada has long desired its own foreign policy independent of neighbouring America. So the news that Canada and communist China are the only partners in resisting Donald Trump’s call for tariff negotiations was good news indeed for Trudeaupia. With former RCMP officers alleging that nine Liberal members of Parliament were colluding with China, the pivot seems confirmed.

How average Canadians feel about this will largely depend on whether they are extremely gullible or, like the Norwegian Blue parrot, just resting. But if we use the current Liberal strategy of resurrecting Gordie Howe’s elbows as a rallying cry option one seems increasingly likely.

Norman Bethune notwithstanding, Canada wasn’t always passionate about aligning with the China of Mao or Zhao Enlai For most of its history until the 1960s, Canada was a small C conservative nation of resource development, small businesses and loyalty to the Crown (the Queen, not the TV show). Sure, it took in TV producers and hosts targeted by the 1950s Hollywood Black list. But as Mark Carney will tell you, Canada’s TV stars of the day were Mr. Dressup and Friendly Giant. Not radical.

Most Canadians sneered quietly at U.S. pretensions and their military. But Canadian politics suddenly pivoted left in the 1960s, from genial Mike Pearson to Pierre “The Rake” Trudeau. In Pearson’s day it was a national scandal that a Canadian cabinet minister slept with a German woman who also shared a pillow with a Soviet official. In Trudeau’s day it was a scandal if he didn’t sleep with Barbra Streisand after their date.

The main factors shoving Canada left were A) Quebec separation and  B) the Viet Nam War from 1963-1975. Quebec’s rejection of the Church in favour of a secular state got most of the ink, producing Trudeau himself, René Levêsque and an unending series of federal/ provincial dog piles. The result is a self-satisfied Quebec and a ROC whose attitude on Quebec has flipped from fraternal twin to very reluctant landlord.

But the impact of B) on Canada was profound and continues today with the leftward bias in Canada’s cultural and media outlook. Specifically, the total of American citizens who moved to Canada due to their opposition to the war ranges from 50,000 to 100,000— at a time when Canada’s population was approximately 20 million. The common denominator for almost all the emigrés was a defiant opposition to America’s compulsory draft system for young men that remained in place till 1972.

The most famous objector was probably boxer Muhammad Ali who demanded conscientious objector status, losing five years of his career while fighting prison as a draft dodger. At least Ali got to stay home.

Others headed north. Some of the new Canadians were draft dodgers, others were deserters. Many were educated middle-class to upper class young men who objected to the War. Chris Turner in the Walrus has described it as “the largest politically motivated migration from the United States since the United Empire Loyalists moved north to oppose the American Revolution.”

After initially rejecting deserters, Canada under Trudeau in 1969 agreed not to ask the draft status of the newcomers. They were allowed to reside in Canada, and many stayed permanently even when the U.S. declared clemency for them. As befits their political leaning in rejecting the War, many later became involved in progressive causes, academia and the arts.

If you hold with Breitbart’s theory that politics is downstream of culture you can see their progressive effect on Canada’s politics and culture. A sample of transplanted Americans includes author William Gibson, politician Jim Green, gay-rights advocate Michael Hendricks, author Keith Maillard, playwright John Murrell, television personality Eric Nagler, broadcaster Andy Barrie, film critic Jay Scott, sportswriter Jack Todd and musician Jesse Winchester. (In our own 1970s education several of our professors at U of T were prominent draft dodgers.)

When Viet Nam disappeared as a cause for Canadians, this leftist cohort championed progressive causes such as socialism, gay rights, feminism, race issues and social sciences. Their critical perspective on American conservative figures such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and now Donald Trump guided Canadian attitudes. Media increasingly tilted leftward.

Woke Canadians now think that if you give people safe places to inject their drugs they’ll eventually heal themselves. They also believe if you take away the legal guns in society this will protect them from random violence. They think that wishing to be female is enough to allow men to compete in women’s sports. It’s government by PBS. If you want to see the bias at work you needed only see the high dudgeon of Canada’s “approved media” when conservative social media sites peppered the leaders after the French language debate Wednesday.

The recent Liberal Party Team Canada propaganda war— featuring longtime U.S. exiles Mike Myers and Neil Young ripping Trump’s tariffs– is just the latest in a cultural war against America. However, there seems for the first time in a long time to be pushback against this entrenched attitude of privilege. The state’s patronage of CBC has been a popular element of Pierre Poilievre’s platform. The publication of polling favourable to Liberals— after legacy pollsters in the U.S. distorted the 2024 election— is being questioned.

One popular mainstream media narrative concerns how Pierre Poilievre “lost” a 20-point lead in the polls from last November— the insinuation being Canada is rejecting him. But a fair reading of the polls is that the NDP under Mr. Rolex, Jagmeet Singh, has bled as much as ten points to the Liberals. In addition the Bloq support in Quebec is dropping due to soft separatists fearing assimilation by Trump’s America.

The debates of the past two nights show just how desperately the Laurentian elites are clinging to power when around the western world their pals are being booted. They’ll support the anodyne banker and court more years of Liberal chaos if it buys them peace in their gated suburbs. And deny that any of this pleases the ruling class back in China.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster. His new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed Hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org. You can see all his books at brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

BRUCE DOWBIGGIN Award-winning Author and Broadcaster Bruce Dowbiggin's career is unmatched in Canada for its diversity and breadth of experience . He is currently the editor and publisher of Not The Public Broadcaster website and is also a contributor to SiriusXM Canada Talks. His new book Cap In Hand was released in the fall of 2018. Bruce's career has included successful stints in television, radio and print. A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada's top television sports broadcaster for his work with CBC-TV, Mr. Dowbiggin is also the best-selling author of "Money Players" (finalist for the 2004 National Business Book Award) and two new books-- Ice Storm: The Rise and Fall of the Greatest Vancouver Canucks Team Ever for Greystone Press and Grant Fuhr: Portrait of a Champion for Random House. His ground-breaking investigations into the life and times of Alan Eagleson led to his selection as the winner of the Gemini for Canada's top sportscaster in 1993 and again in 1996. This work earned him the reputation as one of Canada's top investigative journalists in any field. He was a featured columnist for the Calgary Herald (1998-2009) and the Globe & Mail (2009-2013) where his incisive style and wit on sports media and business won him many readers.

Follow Author

National

Ontario school board reverses suspension of parent who objected to land acknowledgments

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (Board) has reversed its suspension of Catherine Kronas from her position as elected School Councillor in a significant victory for freedom of expression.

On July 16, 2025, following a review by the Board’s Human Rights Office, the Board informed Ms. Kronas in writing that her personal statement had not breached its Code of Conduct. She is now free to resume her elected role on the school council.

However, the Board stated that there remains “a concern around the school council climate,” but did not provide any additional details. The Board also reaffirmed its intention to continue opening meetings with land acknowledgements.

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir said, “We are pleased to see that the Board has lifted its unconstitutional and unfair suspension of Ms. Kronas’ participation in her child’s school council.”

“The suspension should never have been imposed in the first place, but it is good to see it brought to an end,” he added.

Ms. Kronas responded to the decision by noting that the outcome vindicated her position.

“The Board has acknowledged I did not violate any Code of Conduct and has lifted my suspension. Nevertheless, the Board chose not to respect the council’s bylaws and conflict resolution process, and continues to impose a land acknowledgment,” she said.

“School councils must be free to determine their own meeting content; denying that freedom undermines the autonomy of parent-led governance,” she added.

There are no further legal proceedings expected, and the matter is considered closed.

Continue Reading

Business

Carney should rethink ‘carbon capture’ climate cure

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

In case you missed it amid the din of Trump’s trade war, Prime Minister Carney is a big believer in “carbon capture and storage.” And his energy minister, Tim Hodgson, who said it’s “critical to build carbon capture systems for the oilsands,” wants the Smith government and oilsands companies to get behind a proposed project (which hasn’t been unable to raise sufficient private investment) in Cold Lake, Alberta.

The term “carbon capture and storage” (or CCS) essentially refers to technology that separates carbon dioxide (CO2) from emissions and either stores it or uses it for other products. Proponents claim that CCS could replace other more ham-handed climate regulations such as carbon taxes, emission caps, etc. The problem is, like many (or most) proposed climate panaceas, CCS is oversold. While it’s a real technology currently in use around the world (primarily to produce more oil and gas from depleting reservoirs), jurisdictions will likely be unable to affordably scale up CCS enough to capture and store enough greenhouse gas to meaningfully reduce the risks of predicted climate change.

Why? Because while you get energy out of converting methane (natural gas) to CO2 by burning it in a power plant to generate electricity, you have to put quite a lot of energy into the process if you want to capture, compress, transport and store the attendant CO2 emissions. Again, carbon capture can be profitable (on net) for use in producing more oil and gas from depleting reservoirs, and it has a long and respected role in oil and gas production, but it’s unclear that the technology has utility outside of private for-profit use.

And in fact, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), most CCS happening in Canada is less about storing carbon to avert climate change and more about stimulating oil production from existing operations. While there are “seven CCS projects currently operating in Canada, mostly in the oil and gas sector, capturing about 0.5% of national emissions,” CCS in oil and gas production does not address emissions from “downstream uses of those fuels” and will, perversely, lead to more CO2 emissions on net. The IISD also notes that CCS is expensive, costing up to C$200 per tonne for current projects. (For reference, today’s government-set minimum carbon market price to emit a tonne of CO2 emissions is C$95.) IISD concludes CCS is “energy intensive, slow to implement, and unproven at scale, making it a poor strategy for decarbonizing oil and gas production.”

Another article in Scientific American observes that industrial carbon capture projects are “too small to matter” and that “today’s largest carbon capture projects only remove a few seconds’ worth of our yearly greenhouse gas emissions” and that this is “costing thousands of dollars for every ton of CO2 removed.” And as a way to capture massive volumes of CO2 (from industrial emission streams of out the air) and sequestering it to forestall atmospheric warming (climate change), the prospects are not good. Perhaps this is why the article’s author characterizes CCS as a “figleaf” for the fossil fuel industry (and now, apparently, the Carney government) to pretend they are reducing GHG emissions.

Prime Minister Carney should sharpen his thinking on CCS. While real and profitable when used in oil and gas production, it’s unlikely to be useful in combatting climate change. Best to avoid yet another costly climate change “solution” that is overpromised, overpriced and has historically underperformed.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X