Opinion
Left Turn: How Viet Nam War Resisters Changed Canada’s Political Compass
“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.
With the Americans winning the first game 3-1, a sense of panic crept over Canada as it headed to Game 2 in Boston. Losing a political battle with Trump was bad enough, but losing hockey bragging rights heading into a federal election was catastrophic for the Family Compact.
“It’s also more political than the (1972) Summit Series was, because Canada’s existence wasn’t on the line then, and it may be now. You’re damn right Canadians should boo the (U.S.) anthem.” Toronto Star columnist Bruce Arthur before Gm. 1 of USA/ Canada in The 4 Nations Cup.
The year 2025 is barely half over on Canada Day. There is much to go before we start assembling Best Of Lists for the year. But as Palestinian flags duel with the Maple Leaf for prominence on the 158th anniversary of Canada’s becoming a sovereign country it’s a fair guess that we will settle on Febuary 21 as the pivotal date of the year— and Canada’s destiny as well.
That was the date of Game 2 in the U.S./Canada rivalry at the Four Nations Tournament. Ostensibly created by the NHL to replace the moribund All Star format, the showdown of hockey nations in Boston became much more. Jolted by non-sports factors it became a pivotal moment in modern Canadian history.
Set against U.S. president Donald Trump’s bellicose talk of Canada as a U.S. state and the Mike Myers/ Mark Carney Elbows Up ad campaign, the gold-medal game evoked, for those of a certain age, memories of the famous 1972 Summit Series between Canada and the USSR. And somehow produced an unprecedented political reversal in Canadian elections.
As we wrote on Feb. 16 after Gm. 1 in Montreal, the Four Nations had been meant to be something far less incendiary. “Expecting a guys’ weekend like the concurrent NBA All Star game, the fraternal folks instead got a Pier Six brawl. It was the most stunning beginning to a game most could remember in 50 years. (Not least of all the rabid Canadian fanbase urging patriotism in the home of Quebec separation) Considering this Four Nations event was the NHL’s idea to replace the tame midseason All Star Game where players apologize for bumping into each other during a casual skate, the tumult as referees tried to start the game was shocking.
“Despite public calls for mutual respect, the sustained booing of the American national anthem and the Team Canada invocation by MMA legend Georges St. Pierre was answered by the Tkachuck brothers, Matthew and Brady, with a series of fights in the first nine seconds of the game. Three fights to be exact ,when former Canuck J.T. Miller squared up with Brandon Hagel. (All three U.S. players have either played on or now play for Canadian NHL teams.)
“Premeditated and nasty. To say nothing of the vicious mugging of Canada’s legend Sidney Crosby behind the U.S. net moments later by Charlie McEvoy.”
With the Americans winning the game 3-1 on Feb. 15, a sense of panic crept over Canada as it headed to Game 2 in Boston. Losing a political battle with Trump was bad enough, but losing hockey bragging rights heading into a federal election was catastrophic for the Family Compact. As we wrote in the aftermath, a slaughter was avoided.
“In the rematch for a title created just weeks before by the NHL the boys stuck to hockey. Anthem booing was restrained. Outside of an ill-advised appearance by Wayne Gretzky— now loathed for his Trump support— the emphasis was on skill. Playing largely without injured Matthew and Brady Tkachuk and McAvoy, the U.S. forced the game to OT where beleaguered goalie Craig Binnington held Canada in the game until Connor McDavid scored the game winner. “
The stunning turnaround in the series produced a similar turnaround in the Canadian federal election. Galvanized by Trump’s 51st State disrespect and exhilarated by the hockey team’s comeback, voters switched their votes in huge numbers to Carney, ignoring the abysmal record of the Liberals and their pathetic polling. From Pierre Poilievre having a 20-point lead in polls, hockey-besotted Canada flipped to award Carney a near-majority in the April 28 election.
The result stunned the Canadian political class and international critics who questioned how a single sporting event could have miraculously rescued the Liberals from themselves in such a short time.
While Canada soared because of the four Nations, a Canadian icon crashed to earth. “Perhaps the most public outcome was the now-demonization of Gretzky in Canada. Just as they had with Bobby Orr, another Canadian superstar living in America, Canadians wiped their hands of No. 99 over politics. Despite appeals from Orr, Don Cherry and others, the chance to make Gretzky a Trump proxy was too tempting.
We have been in several arguments on the subject among friends: Does Gretzky owe Canada something after carrying its hockey burden for so long? Could he have worn a Team Canada jersey? Shouldn’t he have made a statement that he backs Canada in its showdown with Trump? For now 99 is 0 in his homeland.”
Even now, months later, the events of late February have an air of disbelief around them, a shift so dramatic and so impactful on the nation that many still shake their heads. Sure, hockey wasn’t the device that blew up Canada’s politics. But it was the fuse that created a crater in the country.
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 . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
It’s now more than four years since the federal Liberal government pledged $30 billion in spending over five years for $10-per-day national child care, and more than three years since Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government signed a $13.2 billion deal with the federal government to deliver this child-care plan.
Not surprisingly, with massive government funding came massive government control. While demand for child care has increased due to the government subsidies and lower out-of-pocket costs for parents, the plan significantly restricts how child-care centres operate (including what items participating centres may purchase), and crucially, caps the proportion of government funds available to private for-profit providers.
What have families and taxpayers got for this enormous government effort? Widespread child-care shortages across Ontario.
For example, according to the City of Ottawa, the number of children (aged 0 to 5 years) on child-care waitlists has ballooned by more than 300 per cent since 2019, there are significant disparities in affordable child-care access “with nearly half of neighbourhoods underserved, and limited access in suburban and rural areas,” and families face “significantly higher” costs for before-and-after-school care for school-age children.
In addition, Ottawa families find the system “complex and difficult to navigate” and “fewer child care options exist for children with special needs.” And while 42 per cent of surveyed parents need flexible child care (weekends, evenings, part-time care), only one per cent of child-care centres offer these flexible options. These are clearly not encouraging statistics, and show that a government-knows-best approach does not properly anticipate the diverse needs of diverse families.
Moreover, according to the Peel Region’s 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government (essentially, a list of asks and recommendations), it “has maximized its for-profit allocation, leaving 1,460 for-profit spaces on a waitlist.” In other words, families can’t access $10-per-day child care—the central promise of the plan—because the government has capped the number of for-profit centres.
Similarly, according to Halton Region’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government, “no additional families can be supported with affordable child care” because, under current provincial rules, government funding can only be used to reduce child-care fees for families already in the program.
And according to a March 2025 Oxford County report, the municipality is experiencing a shortage of child-care staff and access challenges for low-income families and children with special needs. The report includes a grim bureaucratic predication that “provincial expansion targets do not reflect anticipated child care demand.”
Child-care access is also a problem provincewide. In Stratford, which has a population of roughly 33,000, the municipal government reports that more than 1,000 children are on a child-care waitlist. Similarly in Port Colborne (population 20,000), the city’s chief administrative officer told city council in April 2025 there were almost 500 children on daycare waitlists at the beginning of the school term. As of the end of last year, Guelph and Wellington County reportedly had a total of 2,569 full-day child-care spaces for children up to age four, versus a waitlist of 4,559 children—in other words, nearly two times as many children on a waitlist compared to the number of child-care spaces.
More examples. In Prince Edward County, population around 26,000, there are more than 400 children waitlisted for licensed daycare. In Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton County, the child-care waitlist is about 1,500 children long and the average wait time is four years. And in St. Mary’s, there are more than 600 children waitlisted for child care, but in recent years town staff have only been able to move 25 to 30 children off the wait list annually.
The numbers speak for themselves. Massive government spending and control over child care has created havoc for Ontario families and made child-care access worse. This cannot be a surprise. Quebec’s child-care system has been largely government controlled for decades, with poor results. Why would Ontario be any different? And how long will Premier Ford allow this debacle to continue before he asks the new prime minister to rethink the child-care policy of his predecessor?
Matthew Lau
Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute
So Alberta, what’s next?
The Physics Behind The Spanish Blackout
Trump warns Russia not to give Iran nukes after US bombing run
War over after 12 days? Ceasefire reached between Israel, Iran
Canada should already be an economic superpower. Why is Canada not doing better?
Alberta Next Takes A Look At Alberta Provincial Police Force
‘Transgender’ males have 51% higher death rate than general population: study
-
Brownstone Institute2 days agoFDA Exposed: Hundreds of Drugs Approved without Proof They Work
-
Energy1 day agoChina undermining American energy independence, report says
-
Business1 day agoTrump on Canada tariff deadline: ‘We can do whatever we want’
-
Automotive1 day agoElectric vehicle sales are falling hard in BC, and it is time to recognize reality.
-
Business1 day agoEurope backs off greenwashing rules — Canada should take note
-
Automotive1 day agoPower Struggle: Electric vehicles and reality
-
Business7 hours agoCanada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump
-
Bruce Dowbiggin6 hours ago
The Game That Let Canadians Forgive The Liberals — Again