At the six-month mark before the federal election, it presented a study in contrasts at the annual legislative conference of Canada’s Building Trades Unions.
Both sides have a choice: politicize and drive wedges, or lower the temperature and bring people together. Weaponize the debate or bring more people on to the side of combating division, supremacy, and phobias.
At the end of the day, if the Liberals are on the side of the scientists, the angels and the gods, but the majority of voters think otherwise, the other side will win.
Hillary Clinton offers an important, even if controversial warning that it is time to slow down and take stock of the progressive agenda. Time to be more strategic.
Canada and the Commonwealth didn’t end apartheid, but they certainly played a major role in world sanctions and the condemnation of it, writes Andrew Cardozo.
In this extreme information age, all communicators get less time than ever before. Clear messages rise to the top. PhDs sink deep.
Here’s what’s at stake: climate change policies, pharmacare, basic income or a living wage, housing and homelessness, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and multilateralism on the world stage.
•Critics of the Liberal government's national strategy to combat racism should also understand the context.
•In the Canadian quest for harmony, here are a few milestones and policies to keep in mind: we've had an official bilingual policy since 1969 (Trudeau), a multiculturalism policy since 1971 (Trudeau) and a Multiculturalism Act since 1988 (Mulroney). A Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1983 (Trudeau), a Canadian Race Relations Foundation since 1988 (Mulroney). We welcomed Vietnamese boat people in 1979-80 (Clark), recognized the Quebecois as a nation in 2006 (Harper) and issued an apology for residential schools in 2008 (Harper). And then we have the Indian Act which pre-dates Confederation and is still in effect today. These are just a few, and none happened without their supporters and their critics.