Satire site The Babylon Bee recently ran the headline, ‘Canadian Healthcare System Introduces Punch Card Where On Your 10th Visit You Get Free Suicide.’ Sadly, the joke isn’t too far off from reality.
Earlier this year, I posted a meme on Facebook that brutally skewered Canada’s euthanasia regime. It showed an American doctor telling a patient his stitches would cost $58,000; a British doctor that the waitlist for stitches was 38 months; and a Canadian doctor solicitously inquiring: “Have you considered killing yourself?” (Another variation of the same meme has the doctor bluntly stating: “Kill yourself”—that’s because in Canada, we have the waitlistand the suicide.)
Facebook pulled the image and restricted my account. It violated their rules on the promotion of suicide. The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP), however, operates freely on Facebook despite the fact that facilitating suicide is their entire job.
I’ve noted before in this space that Canada’s euthanasia regime has turned us into an international cautionary tale—a country where we can, as it turns out, have the worst of all worlds. We can have a woke government that talks constantly about helping the poor, but implements euthanasia policies that victimize them (leading to headlines in the international press such as: “Why is Canada euthanizing the poor?”) The steady conveyer belt of horror stories as disabled, sick, and desperate Canadians seek lethal injections—often the only “treatment” they’re eligible for in our broken system—makes the old Mitchell and Webb sketch seem plausible:
Consider that in the midst of all of this, the Trudeau government is—for the moment—still hellbent on expanding assisted suicide to the mentally ill in March, despite desperate calls to halt these plans from the psychiatric community, Canadian medical schools, suicide prevention experts, the disability community, and virtually everyone but the suicide enthusiasts at Dying with Dignity. It actually boggles the mind—the prime minister’s own mother has written several memoirs describing her own struggled with mental illness which would, come March, make her eligible to die under the regime her son has introduced.
As Canada’s MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) system continues to alleviate the pain of patients and the financial strain on the nation’s healthcare system, a recent innovation is expected to further improve results: Parliament just announced a punch card that allows patients to receive a free suicide after 10 doctor visits.
‘From a small-scale maple syrup overdose to a full-blown moose attack, you receive a punch on your card every time you are admitted for an injury or sickness.’ The Canadian Healthcare website published a blog this week outlining the new program.
‘Filling out your punch card is mandatory, for data tracking purposes. No one sick person can be allowed to drain more than their share of the taxpayer’s dollars!’
Trudeau praised the new initiative, positioning it as a way to better engage citizens and prevent any one citizen from becoming a burden on the system. ‘Canadians are team players,’ said Trudeau. ‘It’s important for every citizen to make sure he’s not wasting taxpayer money to sustain a life that’s not worth living. And now with this punch card, they know that with each hospital visit they’re one step closer to the end!’
For anyone offended by this, I would remind them that Canadians right across the country have been pro-actively offered assisted suicide by doctors—including military veterans suffering from PTSD. Cancer patients have been told that treatment that might save their lives is not available—but assisted suicide is. A disabled man in a hospital in London recorded an ethicist telling him that he should consider assisted suicide because his care was costing the system so much money. One Canadian doctor told me that his colleagues feel obligated to present “MAiD” as an option—and that increasingly, sick and vulnerable Canadians will feel obligated to take it.
More from The Bee:
Critics have contended that the new approach preys on disabled and impoverished Canadians who may see assisted suicide as their only option, but the criticism has already been quieted since Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of anyone who spoke out against his regime’s policies in the comments section of the healthcare website’s blog, or on Twitter, or elsewhere. At publishing time, the burden on Canada’s healthcare system was further alleviated when Parliament announced that the policy would retroactively apply to people who had already been admitted for 10 prior hospital visits.
That sort of thing provokes what they call a “painful chuckle.” The truth is that, as Ross Douthat noted in the New York Times, Canada has already entered a truly dystopian period—when over 4% of recorded deaths are Canadians being lethally injected by doctors, we’re all the way down the slope and there’s a huge pile of corpses at the bottom. I really wish that article was more satirical than it is.
Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States.
He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.
Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
Senior Trump advisor Massad Boulos says the U.S. is brokering a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda that will be paired with “Ukraine-style” mineral agreements to stabilize the war-torn region.
Key Details:
The U.S. wants Congo and Rwanda to sign a peace treaty and, on the same day, finalize critical mineral supply deals with Washington. Boulos told Reuters that both deals are expected within two months.
Rwanda’s side of the treaty involves halting support for M23 insurgents, while the DRC has pledged to address Rwanda’s concerns about the Hutu-dominated FDLR militant group.
DRC President Tshisekedi has floated the idea of giving the U.S. exclusive access to Congolese minerals in exchange for help against M23. “Our partnership would provide the U.S. with a strategic advantage,” he wrote in a letter to President Trump.
Diving Deeper:
According to a Thursday report from Reuters, President Donald Trump’s administration is accelerating efforts to finalize a dual-track strategy in central Africa—pushing for a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, while simultaneously brokering “Ukraine-style” mineral deals with both nations.
Massad Boulos, Trump’s senior adviser on Africa, told Reuters that the administration expects the mineral agreement with Congo to be signed on the same day as the peace treaty, followed shortly by a separate deal with Rwanda. “The [agreement] with the DRC is at a much bigger scale, because it’s a much bigger country and it has much more resources,” Boulos explained, while noting Rwanda’s potential in refining and trading minerals is also significant.
The DRC and Rwanda have set a tight timetable, agreeing to exchange draft treaty proposals on May 2nd and finalize the accord by mid-May. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to preside over the next round of negotiations in Washington.
Rwanda’s cooperation hinges on its withdrawal of support for M23 rebels, who have taken over key territories in eastern Congo. These insurgents have even paraded through captured towns alongside Rwandan troops, prompting international condemnation. In return, Congo has committed to addressing Rwanda’s longstanding concern over the presence of the FDLR—a militant group composed largely of Hutu fighters accused of plotting to overthrow Rwanda’s Tutsi-led government. The FDLR has been active in the region for years and remains a major point of contention.
The instability in eastern Congo—home to over a hundred armed groups—has prevented investors from tapping into the country’s vast mineral wealth. The DRC holds an estimated $24 trillion in untapped resources, including cobalt, copper, lithium, and tantalum, all essential for advanced electronics, renewable energy systems, and defense applications. Boulos emphasized that no deal will go forward unless the region is pacified: “Investors want security before they invest billions.”
Reports suggest M23 has seized control of major mining operations, funneling stolen minerals into Rwanda’s supply chain. Though the UN’s peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO, was designed to stabilize the region, it has been ineffective during this latest wave of violence. President Tshisekedi asked the mission to withdraw last year, and several countries—including South Africa, Malawi, and Tanzania—are now pulling their peacekeepers after M23 captured the regional capital of Goma in January.
Red Cross teams began evacuating trapped Congolese soldiers and their families from rebel-held areas on Wednesday. At least 17 UN peacekeepers have been killed so far this year.
In a March letter to President Trump, President Tshisekedi made his case for a strategic partnership, offering exclusive U.S. access to Congo’s mineral wealth in exchange for American support against the insurgency. “Your election has ushered in the golden age for America,” he wrote, describing the proposed deal as a “strategic advantage” for the United States.
Boulos, who has longstanding business ties in Africa, quickly visited the DRC following the letter and began working to finalize the terms of the proposed agreement.
Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.
All Canadians should care about government transparency. In Ottawa, the federal government must provide timely and comprehensible reporting on federal finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. And yet, the Carney government’s new spending framework—which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget—will actually reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.
The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: the operating budget and the capital budget. Spending on government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces (for health care, for example) and to people (e.g. Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will fall within the capital budget. Prime Minister Carney plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 while increasing spending within the capital budget (which will be funded by more borrowing).
According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” But in reality, it will muddy the waters and make it harder to evaluate the state of federal finances.
First off, the change will make it more difficult to recognize the actual size of the deficit. While the Carney government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29, this does not mean it plans to stop borrowing money. In fact, it will continue to borrow to finance increased capital spending, and as a result, after accounting for both operating and capital spending, will increase planned deficits over the next four years by a projected $93.4 billion compared to the Trudeau government’s last spending plan. You read that right—Carney’s deficit-spending plan over the next four years dwarfs the plan from Justin Trudeau, the biggest spender (per-person, inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history, and will add many more billions to Canada’s mountain of federal debt. Yet Prime Minister Carney has tried to sell his plan as more responsible than his predecessor’s.
In addition to obscuring the amount of borrowing, splitting the budget allows the government to get creative with its accounting. Certain types of spending clearly fall into one category or another. For example, salaries for bureaucrats clearly represent day-to-day operations while funding for long-term infrastructure projects are clearly capital investments. But Carney’s definition of “capital spending” remains vague. Instead of limiting this spending category to direct investments in long-term assets such as roads, ports or military equipment, the government will also include in the capital budget new “incentives” that “support the formation of private sector capital (e.g. patents, plants, and technology) or which meaningfully raise private sector productivity.” In other words, corporate welfare.
Indeed, based on the government’s definition of capital spending, government subsidies to corporations—as long as they somehow relate to creating an asset—could potentially land in the same spending category as new infrastructure spending. Not only would this be inaccurate, but this broad definition means the government could potentially balance the operating budget simply by shifting spending over to the capital budget, as opposed to reducing spending. This would add to the debt but allow the government to maneuver under the guise of “responsible” budgeting.
Finally, rather than split federal spending into two budgets, to increase transparency the Carney government could give Canadians a better idea of how their tax dollars are spent by providing additional breakdowns of line items about operating and capital spending within the existing budget framework.
Clearly, Carney’s new spending framework, as laid out in the Liberal election platform, will only further complicate government finances and make it harder for Canadians to hold their government accountable.
MxM News
