One way Canada can prevent another backlog is to immediately waive the Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) requirement for Ukrainian citizens

Nick Krawetz
Troy Media

While the world has watched with horror the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Ukraine, the federal government launched last week the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (CUAET) – a special temporary residence pathway to welcome Ukrainians and their families to our country.

Although well-intentioned, the application process is deeply flawed, and it will prove to be a barrier to refuge, not the bridge it was designed to be. If Canada is to have a meaningful role in the temporary settlement picture for Ukrainians fleeing the ravages of war, we must up our game.

Applicants are expressing frustration over the amount of red tape and complicated application portal. Applicants are also asked to book an appointment to collect biometric data in a separate process from their initial application. And on the first day of this pathway being opened, there was already a multi-week wait for appointments, given the limited collection points in Ukraine’s neighbouring countries.

In normal times, the Canadian temporary visa application process can be extremely cumbersome as applicants are required to provide voluminous supporting documentation related to education, employment history, military service, residence and family status. Many of these requirements remain in the CUAET process, though most of those fleeing did so with only the clothes on their backs and bare essentials as Russian missiles rained down upon them.

The vast majority of the 3.5+ million Ukrainians who have fled to date are women, children and seniors. Our policies must recognize a high degree of trauma, and our processes must be adjusted for real-life circumstances. And for the 6.5+ million internally displaced in Ukraine who are deciding what to do and where to go, bureaucratic and unforgiving processes only dissuade them from attempting to apply altogether. Tragically, it is less onerous for many to simply remain hiding in makeshift bomb shelters. The longer Ukrainians are required to wait, the more vulnerable they become.

Processing times and delays will only grow as Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine continues.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has long been plagued by capacity issues and backlogs, which were further exacerbated by the pandemic. At the end of 2021, the total immigration backlog to Canada stood at 1.8 million applications – a problem acknowledged in the Liberal Party’s election platform last year. Thus, while IRCC claims they will be able to prioritize and expedite Ukrainian applications, the department’s track record tells a different story.

One way Canada can prevent another backlog is to immediately waive the Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) requirement for Ukrainian citizens. This would allow those seeking temporary refuge to come to our country in the fastest, safest and most efficient way, aligning with the federal government’s stated goal.

If Ukraine were added to the visa-exempt country list, Ukrainians would still be required to obtain an electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) – the same pathway used for other European nationals who come to Canada temporarily.

Our country’s approach stands in stark contrast to the European Union, which established a visa-free regime with Ukraine in 2017, and the Irish government, which announced on the first day of the invasion an immediate lifting of all visa requirements for Ukrainians. No legislation is required for Canada to follow suit – it only takes a ministerial signature and green light at the Cabinet table.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser has acknowledged this option was considered but rejected due to internal departmental IT demands. When the stakes are so high – life and death – our government should create the IT capacity.

What other horrors does the world need to witness in Ukraine before our government decides to do the right thing and create a system that is genuinely welcoming of Ukrainians seeking temporary shelter? Canada must provide an immediate lifeline to Ukrainians by waiving the temporary visa requirement.

Nick Krawetz is a long-time advocate for visa reform and volunteers within Manitoba’s Ukrainian community.

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

All eyes are on inflation these days, especially at the grocery store. Food is the one thing we need every day and the food choices we make matter a great deal to our budget.

To know what’s going on with food prices, we turn to Statistics Canada for details. But without fanfare, we just learned that the federal agency is changing how it monitors food prices. The change, which takes place in May, couldn’t have come at a worse time.

The year 2022 will likely be one for the record books. We’ve barely seen a quarter of the year and most of us already know that the cost to feed ourselves will increase dramatically. Traditionally, Statistics Canada told us how food prices have progressed over the years in order to have a better sense of how food inflation is affecting us. However, starting in May, that’s likely not going to be possible.

Statistics Canada posted a note to readers at the very bottom of its monthly Consumer Price Index report. Few people will have seen it, and it usually takes months and sometimes years for agencies like Statistics Canada to plan such a change.

Over the next few weeks, the database containing the average prices of 52 products sold in Canadian grocery stores will be completely removed by Statistics Canada. The agency is essentially turning the page on more than 25 years of data to establish an expanded list of products whose prices will be collected every month. This new list will likely be more reflective of the modern diet.

There’s no doubt this change was needed as the existing list of products was quite dated. In fact, even if you go back 25 years, the list was quite immaterial to most of us.

For example, the only fish on the list was canned salmon. The fish and seafood industry is huge in Canada, but canned salmon was the only fish Statistics Canada monitored over the last 25 years.

The produce category also had just a handful of options and juice had one option: orange. The vegetable protein category wasn’t represented at all. But vegetable proteins are consumed by a growing number of Canadians.

In addition, the updated Canada’s Food Guide is more than three years old.

According to Statistics Canada’s note, once the new list is posted, we won’t be able to go back beyond March 2022 to access food prices. So getting any historical perspective on the new food basket won’t be possible.

Removing this historical perspective essentially eliminates the ability to better understand how food costs have impacted our lives over the years. Money spent on food influences lifestyles, and our socio-economic status and historical points of reference have always been helpful to us all, including other government branches, economists and researchers.

That makes Statistics Canada’s change quite disappointing.

Oddly, it appears the agency won’t even create two food baskets in parallel so data can overlap. In the United States and elsewhere, federal agencies typically don’t erase entire databases. At the very least, they don’t make them inaccessible to the public.

Statistics Canada has been criticized over the years for its inaccuracy when it comes to mapping inflation, especially food inflation. This change raises questions about motive and why the announcement was so quiet.

But the agency also said it would be adding more data points. A larger database is good news.

However, this move is generally not great news for Canadians. We can only believe StatsCan is admitting its reading of food inflation over the last few years has been inaccurate and that its approach needed a complete overhaul.

But Statistics Canada won’t necessarily admit it – and it can’t, really, given how such an announcement would be received.

Nevertheless, Canadians want to know how current food prices compare with last year and even two years ago. I suggest you keep your weekly flyers, which may be the only way you’ll now have to know what’s happening to food prices in Canada.Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Alireza Nader
Troy Media
Canada’s treatment of Iranian immigrants demonstrates the Trudeau government’s double standards on Iran. On the one hand, Ottawa allows Islamic Republic officials to live openly in cities such as Toronto. On the other hand, it deports innocent Iranian residents back to Iran, where they could face imprisonment or even execution.
Morteza Talaei, Tehran’s police chief from 2001 to 2006, was recently spotted exercising at a Toronto-area gym, enjoying the perks of Canadian life. Talaei has presided over numerous human rights abuses, including the imprisonment and torture of pro-democracy dissidents and the enforcement of a draconian dress code on Iranian women. Yet Ottawa granted him entry into (and possibly) residency in Canada. He seems to feel safe enough to appear in public. At the same time, the Canadian government recently deported an elderly Iranian man from Canada back to Iran, where he is likely to face imprisonment, torture, and possibly execution. The 85-year-old Mizraali Vaezaddeh had been living in Canada since 1997, but Ottawa denied him permanent residency due to his work for the SAVAK, the Shah’s secret police and intelligence service, which engaged in human rights abuses during the Shah’s rule. Yet Vaezaddeh’s family claims that his work for the intelligence agency was short and that he did not engage in torture. According to his lawyer, his workfor SAVAK was “decades ago, and he did have an extremely insignificant and short-term role.” Whatever the nature of his work for SAVAK, Vaezaddeh’s deportation will spell doom for him. The ruling Islamic Republic is deeply hostile toward the Shah and SAVAK and routinely imprisons, tortures, and executes young and old opponents alike. It is unlikely to show any mercy to Vaezaddeh. Ottawa’s policy is cruel and disappointing to Canada’s émigré Iranian community, whose members have consistently pressured Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to adopt tougher policies against the regime. In particular, Canadian-Iranians are still waiting for Trudeau to deliver on his pledge to find downing of Ukrainian flight PS752 by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which resulted in the deaths of 158 Canadian-Iranian citizens and permanent residents. To date, Canada has failed to take any punitive actions against the regime, such as sanctioning the IRGC, an action recommended by the Association of Families of Flight PS752 Victims. The Canadian government has also been slow to investigate the regime’s network and illicit activities, including money laundering and regime investments in Canada. Some Canadian-Iranians, including family members of the victims of flight PS752, have received threats of physical harm from the regime for their vocal criticism of Tehran. Though they are mostly opposed to the Islamic Republic, Canadian-Iranians nevertheless include pro-regime elements who have openly rallied for the Islamic Republic on Canadian city streets. Trudeau’s government must carefully review its Iran policy to ensure similar deportations do not occur in the future. Ottawa should judge each case on its individual merits rather than subject them to blanket immigration laws that produce more harm than good. Separating an old man from his family to go to certain death or torture in Iran serves no one justice. Rather than deport men like Vaezaddeh, Canada should prevent former regime officials like Talaei from entering the country. Canadian-Iranians must hold Trudeau accountable for his promises, including finding justice for the PS752 families. He can reassure them by being tough on the regime. Alireza Nader is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies(FDD). Follow Alireza on Twitter @AlirezaNader. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

As the world’s oil supply is being squeezed by war, the importance of unleashing Canada’s enormous oil resources has never been clearer

Gwyn Morgan
Troy Media
Oil prices have risen to a staggering $US120 per barrel in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But that’s not a record in real-dollar terms.
Inflation-adjusted oil prices reached the same level in 2013, driving a supply response that temporarily lowered prices. World oil demand steadily increased, reaching a record 100 million barrels per day before the COVID-19 collapse.
Demand has since come roaring back and, despite all the “net-zero” rhetoric, the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that world oil demand will continue to grow.
The big question is: who will supply all that oil?
Middle Eastern countries, led by Saudi Arabia, will be major contributors and, despite U.S. and United Kingdom bravado in banning Russian imports, current and forecast world oil demand can’t be met without Russian oil.
The disparate list of countries controlling world oil supply may soon include Iran if, as news reports suggest, U.S. President Joe Biden is naïve enough to remove oil export sanctions in return for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s pledge to suspend uranium enrichment.
That would leave world oil supply security in the hands of one country that subjugates women, another led by a murderous psychopath and a third developing a nuclear bomb with the avowed objective of annihilating Israel.
Meanwhile, with the world’s third-largest oil reserves, Canada is sacrificing hundreds of billions of dollars per year in revenues and new capital investment and tens of thousands of well-paying jobs on the net-zero altar by pursuing policies that make building new oil export pipelines virtually impossible.
Even a proposed transnational pipeline that would have delivered Canadian oil to eastern refineries was deliberately stymied by the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. As a result, tankers carry Saudi Arabian and African oil, which emits far more greenhouse gases than domestic oil, up the ecologically fragile Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Speaking in London in July 2006 before departing for a Vladimir Putin-hosted G8 Summit in Saint Petersburg, then-prime minister Stephen Harper called Canada “a new energy superpower.” Oil and gas industry capital investment rose sharply, doubling from $30 billion to $60 billion before the Conservative government’s defeat in 2015.
By 2019, Trudeau’s anti-oil and gas policies had seen the industry’s capital spending collapse to less than half of 2006 levels.
Many Canadians may not know that history. But if there’s one thing that does get their attention, it’s the price at the pump.
Anti-fossil-fuel ideologues worshiping at the net-zero altar may be delighted by the recent runup in gas prices. But not real-world working Canadians. On March 4, gas prices in B.C. hit $2 per litre, taking the cost of filling up the family sedan to as much as $140. Given the sprawling nature of Canadian cities, commuting to work takes at least one fill-up per week. That can amount to more than $600 a month for a single car.
Along with gas prices, food and other necessities have also risen to record levels across the country. A recent Angus Reid survey found that 53 per cent of Canadians surveyed were already unable to keep up with the rising cost of living.
The 11-cents-per-litre federal carbon tax doesn’t seem like much compared with current total pump prices. But it’s just the beginning. The federal Liberal government plans to progressively increase the tax to 38 cents a litre by 2030. Adding the nine-cent-per-litre B.C. carbon tax means drivers in that province will pay carbon taxes of 47 cents a litre.
The theory behind carbon taxes is that higher prices will reduce consumption. But that only applies if there’s a viable alternative. For cost-stressed real-world Canadians, driving a vehicle that’s needed for business or getting to work, a carbon tax on fuel is simply impoverishing.
At a time when the world’s oil supply is being squeezed by war, the importance of unleashing Canada’s enormous oil resources has never been clearer.
During Trudeau’s recent trip to Latvia, a reporter asked whether Canada could help make up the oil supply shortage. His answer illustrated the fanatical depth of our leader’s worship at the net-zero altar: “We will be there to support, as the world moves beyond Russian oil and indeed, beyond fossil fuels, to have more renewables in our mix.”
This incredible answer comes at a time when innocent Ukrainians and their beautiful country are being ravaged by a megalomaniac who threatens the world with nuclear Armageddon.
No doubt Russian President Putin is grateful to Trudeau for helping him control world oil markets by having hamstrung Canada’s “energy superpower” potential. It was Putin’s predecessor, Vladimir Lenin, who coined the phrase “useful idiots.”
Never before have I been ashamed of being a Canadian. I pray for new political leadership that will make me and millions of other dispirited Canadians proud of our country again.
Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Calls for substantial health care reform have been ringing across the province of Quebec and the country. It’s time to answer those calls

Maria Lily Shaw Troy Media Calls for substantial health care reform have been ringing across the province of Quebec. It’s time to answer those calls and transform our monopolistic health care system into a mixed, universal system that embraces the value of parallel resources to improve both access and quality of care for patients. The good news is these solutions have already been tested and adopted in other countries with universal health systems, such as the United Kingdom and Sweden. All that remains is to learn from their experiences and add our own personal touch to the recipe where necessary. The proposed recipe for success is composed of ingredients, or reforms, that mix well with the Canada Health Act and have proven beneficial to patients. But like any successful recipe, the order in which the ingredients are mixed is just as important as the ingredients themselves. The first step: electronic patient records and expanded access to health data. Handwritten records and fax-based communication between institutions, archaic practices still present across the province, must make way for the technologies of the present. Taking this step first will enable evidence-based health care planning and facilitate access to patients’ health profiles, among other benefits. Next, the prohibition on duplicate health insurance has to go, closely followed by the ban on dual practice for physicians. Allowing Quebecers to purchase duplicate insurance without restriction would expand the number of options available to patients seeking medically necessary care. Once dual practice is permitted, health care professionals will be able to work in both the independent sector and the government-run system simultaneously and no longer have to jump through administrative hoops to opt-in or -out of the public system. Some may fear that mixing these two ingredients will reduce the available resources in the public system. They can rest easy. The recipe calls for an increase in the supply of medical professionals with three straightforward measures: streamlining the application process for foreign-trained doctors, eliminating medical school quotas, and adopting national licensure to allow medical professionals to practise across the country. Without such additional human resources, access to health services will remain suboptimal, and our health care system will perpetually lack resources. After completing these steps, the ideal conditions would be in place to adopt activity-based funding for Quebec hospitals. Historical budgets, still used today, provide little incentive to innovate or improve the quality or efficiency of care. Activity-based budgets, on the other hand, fund hospitals according to the actual volume of patients they treat and the severity of the patients’ conditions. This ingredient is crucial to the recipe’s success, as it allows the money to follow the patients, making them a source of revenue for hospitals rather than a cost, and consequently removing the need for rationing through long waiting lists. The final step is to delegate the management of some hospitals to entrepreneurs, all while maintaining public funding. This would in no way undermine the universality of our system because care would remain free at point of use. Rather, by increasing competition to attract patients (a source of revenue, remember), operational efficiency would increase, to the benefit of patients. Our health care professionals give their all to care for patients, and they have taken centre stage for the past two years, but the current system is stacked against them. These brave individuals deserve to work in an environment that is flexible and responsive to their patients’ needs. With a dash of political will and a pinch of hard work, this set of reforms could finally drag Quebec’s health care system into the 21st century and place the efficiency of institutions and the well-being of patients among the top priorities, where they have always belonged. Maria Lily Shaw is an Economist at the Montreal Economic Institute and the author of “Real Solutions for What Ails Canada’s Health Care Systems – Lessons from Sweden and the United Kingdom.”

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

With war comes economic sanctions. Instead of sending troops to fight the old-fashioned way, wars are fought with money, and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is no exception.

The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, the European Union, Turkey and a few more have sanctioned Russia in one way or another.

Canada has targeted the banking system and barred Russian airlines from using its airspace. It has also cancelled all export permits and halted new ones, primarily affecting the aerospace industry.

Nobody knows for sure if these sanctions will work, but both the energy and food sectors have been spared so far by all sanctioning nations.

Sanctions are designed to affect President Vladimir Putin’s regime, not Russia’s people, recognizing that many Russians may not be supportive of the invasion of Ukraine.

Corporations are also potentially affected, as some Canadian companies in the food sector have invested in Russia over the years. American corporate giants Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Starbucks have now pulled out of Russia.

Canadian corporation McCain Foods – which was building a $200-million plant in the Russian Tula region – opted to halt its construction for now. The company may decide to pull its project out in the coming days. But it’s been reported that McCain is still conducting business in Russia.

Meanwhile, McCain has announced it will donate $200,000 to relief efforts in Ukraine, making clear that it condemns Putin’s actions.

On the other hand, Maple Leaf Foods doesn’t have any operations in Russia and has given $500,000 in relief funds to help Ukrainians. Good on them.

Convenience store giant Alimentation Couche-Tard also operates stores in Russia and could be affected by sanctions. The company just announced it was suspending operations in Russia. The company, which controls the Circle K chain, only has 38 stores and more than 320 employees in Russia. It was present in Russia by way of Norway’s Statoil Fuel and Retail.

Some Canadians made calls for a boycott of Canada-based Mac’s and Circle K stores operated by Alimentation Couche-Tard until the Quebec-based company made a clear decision to cease its operations in Russia. That’s likely why it did. The company also donated US$1.5 million to the Red Cross in recent days.

Another major Canadian food player in Russia is Restaurant Brands International, the parent company of Tim Hortons. It also owns Burger King and the chain operates 800 stores in Russia. Other than a corporate statement registering concerns about the invasion, no clear decision has been made. Many people recently took to social media to ask the chain to stop conducting business in Russia.

Asking these companies to pull out and stop doing business with Russia is the easiest and most obvious thing to do. The atrocity of the invasion is simply inexcusable.

But we also need to keep in mind that these Canadian companies are very much part of the food security fabric for the Russian people. On the surface, closing convenience stores or fast food joints or not selling French fries could be seen as trivial. But any corporate decision to pull out or cease doing business in the country would compromise Russia’s access to food, thus penalizing its people.

It’s truly a delicate balancing act between reputational risks and food security. The stakes are different when compared with other economic sectors.

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was vague and non-committal about whether his government would compensate Canadian companies hurt by sanctions imposed on Russia. Compensating companies conducting business abroad affected by wartime sanctions would set a very dangerous precedent.

The federal government should not compensate Canadian companies hurt by sanctions imposed on Russia, including companies in the agri-food sector. Geopolitical risks are always in the mix when investing abroad, and these companies, not the Canadian people, took on these risks when they opted to invest in Russia.

Moreover, many of these companies have insurance against such sanctions. And sanctions against Russia were actually started more than eight years ago when Russia invaded Crimea.

Canadian companies shouldn’t be surprised by how things are unfolding, and Canadian taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for their choices.Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

For two years, governments in Canada have been implementing policies that violate the Charter relating to individual rights and freedom

Now is the time for a regroup, a refresh.

The fight over the removal of the vaccine mandates is just one battle, not the war.

The war is that the mandates were and are unconstitutional.

They must be found to have been unconstitutional, that they have all violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Otherwise, our democracy is diminished – we will not be fully free as a nation of individuals.

We have perhaps 20 or 30 judges who will decide – judges of the courts of appeal of the provinces, the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada.

For those who may have forgotten and those new to the cause, let’s review.

Written constitutional entrenchment of individual rights and freedoms was late coming to Canada – not until they appeared in the Constitution Act of 1982. The act was authorized by the Patriation Agreement of 1981 after 17 months of talks – 114 years after the nation was founded. In the United States, the time between the country’s founding and an entrenched bill of rights was 15 years.

Pierre Trudeau, prime minister of Canada in 1981, broke off talks and tried to unilaterally patriate the Constitution and add his version of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Eight provinces opposed this move and took the federal government to court. In September 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that what the prime minister and his government were trying to do was unconstitutional. Any such changes, the court said, must involve the provinces.

Here’s what the court said: “We have reached the conclusion that the agreement of the provinces of Canada, no views being expressed as to its quantification, is constitutional­ly required for the passing of the ‘Proposed Reso­lution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada’ and that the passing of this Resolution without such agreement would be unconstitutional in the con­ventional sense.”

A last-ditch effort was made in early November 1981 to accomplish patriation, a charter and other changes (Indigenous rights, equalization, etc.).

On Nov. 5, a deal was struck based on a Newfoundland proposal presented the night before to some provinces. Nine provinces and the federal government agreed. Only Quebec did not sign.

Today, and for two years, governments in Canada have been implementing policies that violate the provisions of the Charter related to individual rights and freedoms, particularly Sections 2, 6, 7 and 15.

These involve freedoms of assembly, association, religion, conscience, expression and the press. They involve the right to travel throughout Canada and leave Canada, the right to a livelihood, rights of life, liberty and security of the person and equality before the law.

Those are rather precious rights, one would think.

Governments have attempted to ignore or, in some cases, give passing notice to the Charter in their policies, even though their policies are subject to the Charter. The audacity is astounding.

And in other cases, they try to invoke Section 1 of the Charter as their saviour.

But Section 1 was intended to be used only in times of war, insurrection and perils to the state. The past two years of manufactured emergencies hardly apply.

Just a few sections below Section 1, Section 4(2) states: “In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.”

This clearly shows how we were thinking at the time. Does one think those of us who were drafting this would not treat removing individual freedoms and rights under the same circumstances as extending the life of a Parliament?

And even for argument’s sake, if Section 1 did apply, the four tests in that section haven’t been met by the governments, so Section 1 could apply – especially the tests of “demonstrably justify,” and “free and democratic society.”

No Canadian government has demonstrably justified any of its mandates, let alone conducted them within the values and practices of a free and democratic society. The former would involve an objective cost-benefit analysis and the latter a continuing involvement of Parliament and/or the people.

All of this is most shocking when one considers Section 52 of the Constitution Act 1982, which says: “The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

The beginning of the Charter also says: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

Every Canadian of thinking age needs to become knowledgeable concerning our Constitution and realize that if we’re to keep it, we must defend it in every way we can within the law. Brian Peckford is a former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the last living first minister who helped craft the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Constantine Passaris

Troy Media

As a new Canadian, I was fortunate to have had the guidance and mentorship of many outstanding Canadian role models. They helped pave my integration into a new society and provided me with invaluable advice for my professional career.

There’s an important lesson here for nation-building in Canada. Bringing immigrants to Canada is only half of a successful strategy to grow our workforce and population. The other half is making sure we have welcoming communities to facilitate their successful integration into the social, cultural and economic aspects of our civil society.

As a young man who left his old and celebrated country of Greece to live in a new country full of promise and potential, I was immediately struck by remarkable comparisons. I was leaving a country with limited economic potential and settling in a country with tremendous economic opportunity. I was also leaving a country that had invented democracy to embrace a country that was fully committed to practising democracy.

However, Canada was a different country, with a different language and a very different way of doing things.

Most immigrants are deeply aware of the challenges and hardships of moving to a new country. That’s when immigrants see the value and benefits of mentorship which offers a clear pathway toward their successful integration in new social and economic environments.

Having outstanding mentors was a foundational trajectory toward my social integration, supporting my first steps in Canada and directing my career to a successful outcome. Two of my early mentors stand out in my memory. The first was Joey Smallwood and the other was George Stanley. Both left an indelible imprint in my personal life and professional career.

As an international graduate student at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, the significance of being in the presence of Smallwood, the only living father of Confederation, was lost on me. But over time, I became more appreciative of this period being foundational in shaping my love for Canadian politics, informing my public speaking and teaching capabilities, and sharpening my understanding of Canadian public policy.

I spent many afternoons at the Newfoundland legislature, sitting in the legislature’s public bleachers watching Smallwood in action. He was amazing: a seasoned Newfoundland politician who led his province to join the Canadian Confederation. At a professional level, Smallwood helped me take my first baby steps in Canadian public policy.

One of the take-aways from my exposure to Smallwood was his oratorial strategy to repeat important points three times, using different words and phrases. It’s a tactic that I practise to the present day in my lectures, with much success.

Every February, when the anniversary of the Canadian flag is celebrated, my thoughts turn to my friend and mentor George Stanley, who designed the flag. Stanley served for many decades as a professor of history and dean at the Royal Military College in Kingston. Upon his retirement, he served as New Brunswick’s 25th lieutenant-governor.

During Stanley’s tenure as lieutenant-governor, one of his official duties was to sign new legislation into law. In that capacity, he would drive deputy ministers crazy. Always the professor, he would carefully read the submitted legislative text. After that, he would circle inappropriate words with a red pen and suggest alternate sentence structures on the margins. Most of the legislative acts that reached his desk were returned to the responsible deputy minister awash in red ink and extensive corrections.

Stanley taught me the power of history. He was an eloquent advocate that history can explain the present and serve as an inspirational compass for the future. This was evident in his ceremonial uniform, his inspiring speeches, and how he defined his role as the Queen’s representative in New Brunswick.

Few new Canadians have had the honour and the privilege to have fallen in love with Canadian politics because they were inspired by the only living father of Confederation. And even fewer have experienced the thrill of shaking the hand of the man who designed the Canadian flag.

As a new Canadian, I was indeed fortunate to have been guided by the very best mentors and role models Canada had to offer.Dr. Constantine Passaris is a professor of Economics at the University of New Brunswick and a recipient of the Order of New Brunswick.

Renaud Brossard

Troy Media

Julie Payette must feel like she won the lottery.

Despite resigning in shame from her posting as governor general amidst allegations of creating a toxic workplace, she is still entitled to the Cadillac of all retirement packages, courtesy of all of us taxpayers.

First off, there’s the pension. At $150,000 per year, it’s generous enough to put any former governor general amongst the top five per cent of income earners in the country. And that’s not accounting for any other income they might get from any other work or investment they may have.

It’s not like governors general have to work long and hard to be eligible for it either. A governor general’s mandate is typically five years. Payette served for a bit more than three and she still gets a full pension.

That’s because the very second a governor general steps down, they become eligible for the full $150,000 per year taxpayer-funded pension, no matter how long they stay in office. Even if they resign within their first day on the job, they get the total amount in perpetuity.

Even by government standards, this is rich. A federal bureaucrat earning $309,000 per year – the same level as a governor general – would have to wait 27 years to get a similar pension. And unlike governors general, they have to contribute to their pension funds.

Then, there’s the expense accounts. Even in their retirement, governors general can keep billing taxpayers up to $206,000 per year each for travel, hotel and a private office.

And as if a lifetime expense account wasn’t enough, documents obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation show a governor general’s estate can keep submitting receipts for up to six months after their death.

And they do so with very little transparency. The only reason Canadians found out about the policy is because former governor general Adrienne Clarkson spent over $100,000 some years, which required its very own line in the public accounts. Since leaving office in 2004, Clarkson has asked us to cover over $1.1 million in expenses.

Canadians are understandably outraged by this policy. A recent Léger poll commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation shows nearly eight in 10 Canadians want the policy scrapped.

Even federal bureaucrats found it a bit rich. A report prepared for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in October 2019 recommended the entitlements “end after a defined number of years of leaving office rather than the current for-life regime.”

What has Trudeau done with those recommendations in the last two years? Nothing. They have been gathering dust somewhere in the Prime Minister’s Office.

Let’s be clear; it’s not like changing this policy would require extensive debates or weeks of hard work by highly paid policy advisors.

Post-retirement expense accounts for governors general are not enshrined in law. They’re an administrative policy that stems from a cabinet decision in 1979.

As such, getting rid of it doesn’t involve lengthy debates and readings in Parliament but rather a quick decision from government ministers to scrap it. It shouldn’t take much more than two minutes in the next cabinet meeting.

The fact is, when the country is dealing with a $144.5 billion deficit, our government should do its utmost to identify places where it can save money.

Reining in the entitlements we give to former governors general should be one of those easy decisions. We know it’s popular – eight in 10 Canadians want it. We know the bureaucrats that looked into it find it to be out of whack. It also happens to be something Trudeau promised to review back in 2018.

The only thing we’re left wondering is what’s the holdup in cabinet?

Renaud Brossard is the Quebec Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.