Economic Recovery in the USA and Canada A Business Perspective

So, politics and the Constitution aside, Poilievre's shrug is exactly what we would expect from a sociological standpoint.Many people in English Canada have been outraged by the reporter's question's illiberalism. But I am not startled, and neither should you be. Quebec is not—and does not want to be—a very liberal province right now. And this isn't only because Quebec has the lowest religious commitment in Canada. Only 6% of Quebeckers are spiritually uncertain, whereas more than 57% regard themselves to be so—the lowest and greatest numbers in Canada, respectively. But it's more than just personal; it's political. After all, this is the province where wearing a hijab will get you fired as a public school teacher. It is a place where pupils enrolled in state schools are legally prohibited from praying in classroom rooms. You cannot be a judge while wearing a yarmulke or a police officer while wearing a turban. This was not an accident. The reporter is simply asking questions in accordance with political authorities who have declared—and a public that is largely supportive of—the explicit exclusion of religion from state-owned properties. As my buddy Dr. Robert Joustra wrote when Bill 21 was still an embryonic concept:

This is, without a doubt, a form of secularism.

but it is not the best kind, and it is not one that Canada should be identified with. Laïcité is a reimported civil religion that prioritizes the state over all other identities, religious or otherwise.For the record, I believe laïcité is a poor policy. It is misguided not only for legal reasons, not only because there are other, better ways for the state to take a principled and structural stance on religious freedom and its limits, not only because it is profoundly dehumanizing, but also, practically, because it is likely to exacerbate the very divisions and radicalism it seeks to prevent. But it has one thing going for it: honesty. Unlike many in English Canada, Quebeckers are forthright about their distrust of religion in public places. In this, they differ from many (not all!) English Canadians. Many of the responses to the reporter's query, as well as Bill 21, reflect a theoretical commitment to religious freedom in the English-speaking regions of the country. Many people are religious; they pray and wear weird hats; it does not harm anyone, so why should I care? In some ways, the collective reaction to the reporters' inquiry is a great case study in what Robertson Davies calls a "sort of Canadian conventionality, which keeps religion strictly in its place, where it must not be knocked, but need not be heeded, either."

But when it comes to actual attempts to live out their. 

deepest convictions in public life (peacefully, as citizens), many religious people are acutely aware that the self-perceptions of English-speaking Canadians' tolerance of religion is often more of a veneer that is quick to block participation, dissolve basic freedoms in administrative language of faux liberalism, or to publicly shame religion when its adherents want to move beyond fashion and articulate in institution.I said Quebec was more honest, but they are also, to their credit, more aware of the fact that religion is powerful. That power, it must be admitted, has been the source of enormous evil in our country, but it has also been the source of great good, the long-term benefits of which we continue to feel and do not frequently appreciate. Our country has for far too long assumed, rather than sought to answer in a deliberate and considered manner, the proper role of not only prayer, but also religion as a force for social and political change. And too often, that assumption is minimalist.Poilievre's shrug was an appropriate reaction to the question at hand. But if we are to completely embrace our Canadian identity, we cannot ignore the fundamental question. Perhaps, like a troubled heart, a small shock will allow us to live more fully together.The Centre for Substance Use and Addiction's (CCSA) study, which suggests radical modifications to alcohol health recommendations, has already sparked much discussion.

The International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research. 

(ISFAR) described it as "a pseudo-scientific amalgamation of selected studies of low scientific validity that fit their preconceived notions," and 16 prominent Quebec-based harm reduction experts, professors, and researchers have recently stated that the CCSA's report misleads consumers with statements such as "even in small doses, alcohol has consequences for everyone."Despite the criticism the CCSA has gotten from individuals working in the field of alcohol research, there is a previously unknown link between researchers who consistently advocate for neo-temperance policy change and international temperance organizations such as Movendi.Movendi is an international temperance organization that advocates for abstaining from alcohol entirely. Movendi was created in the 1800s as "The Order of Good Templars," but rebranded in 2020, maybe because the former name sounded like it came from a Dan Brown novel. Surprisingly, Movendi funds its neo-temperance lobbying efforts around the world by operating a lottery in Sweden. Now, there is nothing ethically wrong with running a lottery or gambling in general, but running a lottery that has been sued by Sweden's Consumer Agency for utilizing misleading marketing tactics and scamming consumers is certainly dubious and deserving of scrutiny. Not to add that they fund their puritanical battle on one "sin" with the proceeds from another.