Connect with us

Opinion

Trudeau’s Winnipeg Whitewash – A Masterclass in Diversion and Disconnection

Published

12 minute read

From The Opposition with Dan Knight

As Canada grapples with soaring housing costs and a quality of life crisis, the Prime Minister’s narrative on immigration & multicultural success stories clashes with the lived realities of Canadians

As some of you enjoyed the comfort of Family Day, perhaps some of you noticed Justin Trudeau making the rounds in Winnipeg – (Justin Trudeau Fireside Chat at Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce – February 16, 2024), where he found quite the fan in Loren Remillard of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. It seems Remillard was all too eager to extend a metaphorical hand, fishing for tax dollars to prop up their projects.

Oh, let’s dissect the masterful art of political deflection and diversion, shall we? Justin Trudeau, spun a narrative so disconnected from the reality Canadians live in, it’s almost an art form. He lauds Toronto and Vancouver as paragons of multicultural success, cities thriving under the weight of their diversity. But here’s the catch folks—the reality on the ground, as reported by Stats Canada, tells a story that’s anything but rosy for the residents of these supposed utopias.

When we turn our gaze to the real impact of his government’s immigration policies on the ground, the picture is starkly different. Toronto and Vancouver, the benchmarks of Trudeau’s immigration success story, are in fact cities where residents report a lower quality of life than their provincial counterparts. Why? Because amidst the fanfare of diversity and inclusion, the basic needs of the citizens—like feeling a sense of belonging, life satisfaction, and mental health—are being sidelined.

Let’s not forget the elephant in the room Trudeau casually mentioned—2 million temporary residents flooding into Canada. This isn’t just a number; it’s a tsunami of demand in addition to the Liberal 500k target per year of permanent resident hitting a housing market already gasping for air, driving rents and shelter costs to astronomical heights. And Trudeau’s response? A shrug of the shoulders and a diversion to talk about measures with Mexico or the plight of international students. While these issues merit attention, they dance around the core issue: a government more obsessed with its global image than the welfare of its citizens.

The audacity to claim that Toronto and Vancouver are thriving under his policies, while Stats Canada directly contradicts this with evidence of declining quality of life, is nothing short of political theater. It’s a sleight of hand designed to distract from the harsh reality—that his government’s approach to immigration and temporary residents is contributing to a crisis of affordability and well-being in our major cities.

But amidst the spectacle, Trudeau touched on a subject that should raise eyebrows across the nation: On how his government is using immigration as a tool to “grow the economy.” Now, let’s pause for a moment to digest that, shall we?

Diving deeper, a fascinating exchange caught my ear during a Finance Committee meeting FINA-124 -February 1, 2024, where Tiff Macklem of the Bank of Canada offered some candid insights. When prodded by Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan, Macklem conceded that the government’s spending spree and the Bank’s efforts to stabilize our economy were essentially at loggerheads. Here we have the Trudeau administration, pushing fiscal policies that seem to sprint in the opposite direction of monetary sanity.

Macklem went on, outlining that yes, government spending is contributing to growth, but let’s be clear about the kind of growth we’re talking about here. It’s one that barely keeps pace with population increases, teetering on the edge of potential. And with government spending poised to climb even higher, we’re flirting dangerously close to exacerbating inflation, rather than reining it in.

Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers chimed in with a stark reminder of the housing market’s woes. Despite interest rate hikes, which traditionally cool down housing prices, Canada’s chronic housing shortage keeps prices stubbornly high. The result? A housing affordability crisis that’s squeezing Canadians tighter than ever, exacerbated by an immigration policy that is throwing fuel on the fire of demand without addressing the urgent need for supply.

This is the picture Trudeau’s policies paint for Canada: a nation where the cost of living climbs ever higher, where the dream of homeownership slips further away for the average citizen, and where economic growth strategies seem disconnected from the realities on the ground. It’s high time for a reality check, a moment to ask ourselves whether these policies truly serve the best interest of Canadians or merely the political agenda of those in power.

Indeed, the root of the issue is staring us right in the face—supply problems are driving costs through the roof. Yet, it seems as though there’s a conspiracy of silence in the House of Commons; no one dares to utter the truth that unchecked immigration is exacerbating these supply woes, sending shelter costs soaring. Let’s dive into the latest from Stats Canada to unravel the narrative everyone is thriving under Justin Trudeau.

First off, let’s talk about renters. According to this report, if you’re renting, your quality of life isn’t just on the lower rung; it’s plummeting. Renters are staggering under the weight of financial pressures unheard of for homeowners, feeling the pinch of record-low vacancy rates and rent hikes that would make your head spin. Over 15 percentage points more likely to struggle financially and over 11 points less likely to experience life satisfaction.

But the plot thickens when we look at the younger Canadians, those aged 15 to 54. They’re caught in a vise, with life satisfaction and mental health scores that trail behind their older counterparts. The dream of home ownership? A mirage for many, as they navigate a landscape where the very idea of paying off a mortgage seems like a relic of a bygone era. And let’s not even get started on the economic tightrope walked by residents of Toronto and Vancouver, cities where the cost of living soars as high as the skyscrapers dotting their skylines.

Now, Trudeau’s government might have you believe that policies are in place to bridge these divides, to bolster the quality of life for all Canadians. But let’s be real—the evidence suggests otherwise. With renters and younger generations buckling under financial strains and cities like Toronto and Vancouver becoming enclaves of the unaffordable, the narrative being spun by the current administration seems more fiction than fact.

Consider the financial strain laid bare by these statistics: a significant portion of Canadians are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their financial needs, with shelter costs consuming a lion’s share of their income.

In a landscape marked by disparities in quality of life we’re left with a pressing question: where does the path forward lie?

 

Let’s cut to the chase, folks. The latest 338 polling data isn’t just a blip on the political radar; it’s a resounding bell tolling for the end of the Liberals’ reign, inching closer to losing their official party status. Why, you might ask? It’s simple: Justin Trudeau’s legacy is one of profound ineptitude, a legacy that has systematically failed Canadians at every turn. When Trudeau touts his housing policies, claiming to increase rentals, remember the cold, hard facts from Stats Canada—he’s not building homes; he’s crafting a nation with a diminished quality of life. That’s the Trudeau vision for Canada.

And let’s not overlook the audacity of his actions—jetting off to Jamaica with a hefty $162,000 bill footed by you, the taxpayer. It seems Trudeau’s concern for your quality of life evaporates faster than a Liberal MP can devour lobster in Malaysia. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians are left to scrounge at food banks. But hey, as long as the political elite get their fill, right?

SNC-Lavalin was just the beginning, the canary in the coal mine signaling the avalanche of corruption set to spill out from Trudeau’s government. WE Charity, the Trudeau Foundation, Chinese interference, ArriveScam… the list of scandals under Trudeau’s watch is as long as it is disgraceful. These aren’t mere footnotes in history; they’re the defining features of his tenure.

Remember the uproar over a $16 orange juice under Harper? That was considered the height of scandal, a benchmark of accountability. Fast forward to today, and this government can’t even spell ‘ethics,’ let alone practice it.

So, my fellow Canadians, as we look ahead to the next election, we’re presented with a golden opportunity—a chance to reset the narrative and send a clear message to the liberal elites that we’ve had enough of their disdain for the average citizen. I, for one, will be cheering on the red wedding of Canadian politics because the liberal standard is not just detrimental to your well-being; it’s an affront to all of Canada. It’s time to say enough is enough and reclaim the Canada we know and love—a Canada of integrity, accountability, and true north strong and free.

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.

Follow Author

Fraser Institute

Bill Maher is right about Canadian health care

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir

Recently, popular American comedian and talk show host, Bill Maher, took aim at some of Canada’s public policy failings in one of his monologues. In entertaining fashion, Maher highlighted our high housing costs, unemployment rates and “vaunted” health-care system.

Indeed, citing work published by the Fraser Institute, he explained that after adjusting for age, Canada spends 13.3 per cent of our economy on health care (2020), the highest level of spending by a developed country with universal coverage that year. And that Canada has some of the poorest access to timely appointments with family doctors when compared to our peers.

Unfortunately, while that’s where his segment on health care ended, the bad news for the Canadian system doesn’t stop there.

On top of Canada continuing to be one of the most expensive universal health-care systems in the world, we get little in return when it comes to both available medical resources and wait times. For example, among high-income countries with universal health care, Canada has some of the lowest numbers of physicians, hospital beds, MRI machines and CT scanners.

And in Canada, only 38 per cent of patients report seeing a specialist within four weeks (compared to 69 per cent in the Netherlands) and only 62 per cent report receiving non-emergency surgery within four months (compared to 99 per cent in Germany).

Unfortunately, wait times in Canada aren’t simply long compared to other countries, they’re the longest they’ve ever been. Last year the median wait for a Canadian patient seeking non-emergency care reached 27.7 weeks—nearly three times longer than the 9.3 week-wait Canadians experienced three decades ago.

This raises the obvious question. How do other countries outperform Canada’s health-care system while also often spending less as a share of their economies? In short, their approach to universal health care, and in particular their relationship with the private sector, departs drastically from the approach here at home.

Australia, for example, partners with private hospitals to deliver the majority (58.6 per cent) of all non-emergency surgeries within its universal health-care system. Australia also spends less of its total economy (i.e. GDP) on health care but outperforms Canada on every measure of timely care.

Even with restrictions on the private sector, Canada has some limited experience that should encourage policymakers to embrace greater private-sector involvement. Saskatchewan, for example, contracted with private surgical clinics starting in 2010 to deliver publicly-funded services as part of a four-year initiative to reduce wait times, which were among the longest in the country. Between 2010 and 2014, wait times in the province fell from 26.5 weeks to 14.2 weeks. After the initiative ended, the province’s wait times began to grow.

More recently, Quebec, which has some of the shortest wait times for medical services in the country, contracts out one out of every six day-surgeries to private clinics within the publicly-funded health-care system.

Maher’s monologue, which was viewed by millions online, highlighted the key failings of Canada’s health-care system. If policymakers in Ottawa and the provinces want to fix Canadian health care, they must learn from other countries that deliver universal health-care at the same or even lower cost, often with better access and results for patients.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Now We Are Supposed to Cheer Government Surveillance?

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Jeffrey A. TuckerJEFFREY A. TUCKER 

The powers that be are leading us from the Declaration of Internet Freedom from simpler times (2012), to the  Declaration on the Future of the Internet. Do we need to say more than the word “freedom” has been left out of the future?

They are wearing us down with shocking headlines and opinions. They come daily these days, with increasingly implausible claims that leave your jaw on the floor. The rest of the text is perfunctory. The headline is the takeaway, and the part designed to demoralize, deconstruct, and disorient.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times told us that “As It Turns Out, the Deep State Is Pretty Awesome.” These are the same people who claim that Trump is trying to get rid of democracy. The Deep State is the opposite of democracy, unelected and unaccountable in every way, impervious to elections and the will of the people. Now we have the NYT celebrating this.

And the latest bears notice too: “Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe.” The authors are classic Deep Staters associated with Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush. They assure us that having an Orwellian state is good for us. You can trust them, promise. The rest of the content of the article doesn’t matter much. The message is in the headline.

Amazing isn’t it? You have to check your memory and your sanity. These are the people who have rightly warned about government infringements on privacy and free speech for many decades dating way back.

And now we have aggressive and open advocacy of exactly that, mainly because the Biden administration is in charge and has only months to put the final touches on the revolution in law and liberty that has come to America. They want to make it all permanent and are working furiously to make it so.

Along with routine warrantless surveillance, not only of possible bad guys but everyone, comes of course censorship. A few years ago, this seemed to be intermittent, like the biased and arbitrary actions of rogue executives. We objected and denounced but generally assumed that it was aberrant and going away over time.

Back then, we had no idea of the scale and the ambition of the censors. The more information that is coming out, the more the full goal is coming into view. The power elite want the Internet to operate like the controlled media of the 1970s. Any opinion that runs contrary to regime priorities will be blocked. Websites that distribute alternative outlooks will be lucky to survive at all.

To understand what’s going on, see the White House document called Declaration on the Future of the Internet. Freedom is barely a footnote, and free speech is not part of it. Instead it is to be a “rules-based digital economy” governed “through the multistakeholder approach, whereby governments and relevant authorities partner with academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others.”

This whole document is an Orwellian replacement of the Declaration of Internet Freedom from 2012, which was signed by Amnesty International, the ACLU, and major corporations and banks. The first principle of this Declaration was free speech: don’t censor the Internet. That was 12 years ago and the principle is long forgotten. Even the original website has been dead since 2018. It is now replaced with one word: “Forbidden.”

Yes, that’s chilling but it is also perfectly descriptive. In all mainline Internet venues, from search to shopping to social, freedom is no longer the practice. Censorship has been normalized. And it is taking place with the direct involvement of the federal government and third-party organizations and research centers paid for by tax dollars. This is very clearly a violation of the First Amendment but the new orthodoxy in elite circles is that the First Amendment simply does not apply to the Internet.

This issue is making its way through litigation. There was a time when the decision would not be in question. No more. Several or more Supreme Court Justices do not seem to understand even the meaning of free speech.

The Prime Minister of Australia made the new view clear in his statement in defense of fining Elon Musk. He said that social media has a “social responsibility.” In today’s parlance, this means they must obey the government, which is the only proper interpreter of the public interest. In this view, you simply cannot allow people to post and say things that are contrary to regime priorities.

If the regime cannot manage public culture, and manipulate the public mind, what’s it there for? If it cannot control the Internet, its managers believe, it will lose control of the whole of society.

The crackdown is intensifying by the day. Representative Thomas Massie shot a video after the Ukraine vote for a total foreign aid package of an astonishing $95 billion. Vast numbers of Democrats on the House floor waved Ukrainian flags, which you might suppose smacks of treason. The Sergeant-at-Arms wrote Massey directly to tell him to take down the video or get a $500 fine.

True, the rules say you cannot film in a way that “impairs decorum,” but he simply took out his phone. The decorum was disturbed by masses of lawmakers waving a foreign flag. So Massie refused. After all, the entire disgraceful scene was on C-SPAN but the presumption is that no one watches that but everyone reads X, which is probably true.

Clearly, GOP speaker Mike Johnson doesn’t want his perfidy this well-advertised. After all, it was he who shepherded the authorization of spying on the American people using Section 702 of FISA, which 99 percent of GOP voters opposed. Just who do these people think they are there to represent?

It’s actually astonishing to do a conjectural history in which Elon did not buy Twitter. The regime monopoly on social media today would be 99.5 percent. Then the handful of alternative venues could be shut down one by one, just as with Parler a few years ago. Under this scenario, closing the social end of the Internet would not be that difficult. The domains are another matter but those could be banned gradually over time.

But with X rising in a meteoric way since Elon’s takeover, that is now far more difficult. He has made it his mission to remind the world of core principles. This is why he told the boycotting advertisers to jump in a lake and why he refused to comply with every dictate by the despotic head of the Brazilian Supreme Court. Daily he is showing what it means to stand up for principle in extremely hard times.

Glenn Beck puts it well: “What Elon Musk is doing in both Brazil and Australia is this: He is simply standing where the Free world used to stand. They have moved, not him. They are the radicals not him. HAVE THE COURAGE to remain standing, unmovable in the truth that can never change and you will be targeted and eventually change the world.”

Censorship is not an end unto itself. The purpose is control of the people. That is also the purpose of surveillance. It is not, rather obviously, to protect the public. It is to protect the state and its industrial partners against the people. Of course, just as in every dystopian film, they always pretend otherwise.

Somehow – call me naive – I just didn’t expect the New York Times to be all-in on the immediate establishment of the surveillance state and universal censorship by the “awesome” Deep State. But think of this. If the NYT can be fully captured by this ideology, and probably captured by the money that goes with it, so can any other institution. You have probably noticed a similar editorial line being pushed by WiredMother JonesRolling StoneSalonSlate, and other venues, including the entire suite of publications owned by Conde Nast including Vogue and GQ magazine.

“Don’t bother me with your crazed conspiracy theory, Tucker.”

I get the point. What is your explanation?

Author

  • Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading

Trending

X