The Trudeau Liberal government is a tower of Babel with all the Liberal elites facing inward in a tight circle babbling to one another. The members of this circle have no understanding of or interest in other Canadians. Sagely nodding their heads and murmuring approval, they are in complete agreement with all the government’s progressive left-wing policies.
From time to time, they widen their circle to admit some other select individuals, such as the Kielburger brothers of WE Charity, family members, and special friends, such as feminist and homosexual activists. Money flows easily and frequently among these individuals who believe they are entitled, since they are the ruling elites.
They believe their opinions and beliefs are enlightened and always right. The opposing views of those outside their select circle are regarded as baseless and ignorant. Should any non-progressive views be publicly expressed, such as those made by Conservative leadership candidate MP Derek Sloan, who publically expressed his opposition to abortion and homosexual special interests, the elite Liberals react with shock and dismay. They believe such views must be suppressed as being an intolerant affront to decency.
This is not something new for the Trudeau government. Such reaction is an integral part of its governing process. For example, the government refuses to accept nominations for Liberal candidates who are pro-life, and awards grants for the Summer Jobs Program only to those who agree with its leftist, progressive policies.
This pattern of behaviour emerged again when Liberal Member of Parliament Pam Damoff (Oakville North-Burlington) recently demanded that Mr. Sloan be removed from the Conservative caucus for expressing “offensive” opinions. MP Damoff’s interpretation of “diversity” apparently does not extend to diversity of opinion.
This is not the first time that Liberal MP Damoff has attempted to suppress opposing views. In 2017 she was instrumental in barring pro-life conservative MP Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, AB) from chairing the Parliamentary Committee on the Status of Women because of Ms. Harder’s pro-life views.
MP Damoff has obvious difficulty in working and associating with those whose views are different from hers. This must create a serious handicap when serving her constituents, who may not all agree with her party’s policies.
It appears that the attack on Mr. Sloan for his opposition to abortion and the homosexual agenda has now become a pattern set by the Liberal party. Other Liberal MPs have also attacked Mr. Sloan for his statements. These include Liberal MP Chris Bittle (St. Catharines) and Liberal MP Mark Gerretson (Kingston and the Islands). In effect, the Liberal Party is now demanding that not only its own supporters, but all Canadians, be forced to accept Liberal policies.
Disaster for Canadians Lies Ahead
On September 23, 2020 in the Speech from the Throne, Prime Minister Trudeau and his newly-minted Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland have proposed a blueprint for progressive, left-wing economic policies, such as investing in renewable energy and other green initiatives, national universal daycare plan, and pharmacare. Why did they include these latter expensive items? How did they reach this conclusion? Did they consult the provincial governments, businesses, or the public? No, they did not. The plans that they have devised to address the economic recovery after the devastation by COVID-19 are based mainly on consultation only within their inner circle in their tower of Babel.
The throne speech was a repeat of what the Liberals do – spend, spend, spend. They show little concern that Canada’s deficit for this year is going to hit $343 billion. Trudeau and Freeland’s plans will add billions more to the federal debt, now at $886 billion, for our children and grandchildren to pay. This is of little concern to Trudeau and Freeland since they will not be around to deal with the problem they are creating.
Universal Childcare Plan
The ears of feminists certainly pricked up when they heard the magical words in the throne speech that there would be “significant, long-term sustained investment to create a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system”. According to the throne speech, it was necessary to provide high quality spaces for children to ensure that women would be able to return to the workforce. The real purpose of this is to provide further tax dollars from women’s paid employment so that Trudeau will have more money to throw around to his friends and supporters. In short, the value of women to Trudeau is the amount of money they can contribute to the GDP, not their value as mothers to the next generation. Expensive daycare should not be provided for the purpose of improving the economy, but rather should be for the benefit of children. According to numerous studies, the daycare offered by Quebec, for example, has not benefitted most children. If Trudeau really respected women, he would have increased the childcare benefits and let the family itself decide how it will spend it on childcare.
The throne speech did not put a price tag on daycare, but back in 1999, a leaked federal discussion paper from the Department of Health concluded that such a program would cost, at that time, $12 to $15 billion annually. Inflation alone would raise this to $18 to $22 billion a year in 2020.
Another problem with this grandiose plan for a universal daycare system is that it falls under provincial jurisdiction and the provinces have to come onside with the plan before it is feasible. While provinces are always eager for more money from Ottawa, they tend to be less interested when Ottawa proposes a “Canada-wide system” in an area of unambiguous provincial jurisdiction.
Significantly, much of the pressure for a national plan comes not from parents, but from childcare lobbyists who have been heavily funded by the Status of Women since they were formed in 1982 to research and lobby for a national daycare plan. These lobby groups have the most to gain from a national plan, since it will guarantee them financial security for their working lives by placing them on the government’s payroll with secure income and benefits.
Feminists have used the pandemic to loudly demand that women require government-funded universal daycare, otherwise they will not be able to return to work. On the contrary, women want flexibility and choices in the workplace and home, not government authoritarian policies.
The NDP Will Endorse Trudeau’s Plans
Trudeau’s minority government needs the support of the opposition NDP in Parliament. There is little doubt that NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, will provide this support since his left-wing party has long advocated for this move to the left. Singh will be only too willing to support Trudeau’s throne speech, believing his party will share the “glory” of these huge, expensive programs. An added incentive to the NDP is that the party is broke and in debt, and does not want another election at this time. The NDP lost half its seats in the 2019 election, and another election would be too risky.
What Do Canadians Do About This Financial Travesty?
Every thoughtful Canadian must do what he/she can to resist Trudeau’s self-serving plans. Writing to our MPs, regardless of party, about this disaster is a must. We should also write to our provincial premiers protesting Trudeau’s abuse of power by intruding into provincial matters, such as childcare, which intrusion evidently will only lead to a further concentration of power in Trudeau’s inept hands. Our letters to the editor resisting this should be featured in all our newspapers. We should use our individual initiative to do what we can do in this time of national disaster, which under the circumstances, is not too inflammatory an expression.
In the end, if we cannot stop Trudeau’s plans, we know there will be a federal election within the next year, and we do know what to do about that.