Need to Know: Pierre Poilievre earns his second chance

And so the byelection turned into a test of Poilievre’s political resilience and his ability to close the gap between being a national figure and a local MP. The Conservative Party of Canada found itself hustling for every vote, fanning out volunteers and MPs across the vast riding, and reportedly maxing out on the byelection’s expense limit. But the riding may have sharpened their leader, too. Poilievre’s recent focus on China’s steep tariff on canola seeds sounded less like a slogan and more like a grounded critique of Canada’s response. Hanging out with farmers can do that to a policy wonk. For now, he has what he came for: a seat, a microphone, and a second chance after April’s defeat. In the end, Poilievre captured 80.4 percent of the vote. Critchley was the runner-up with 9.9 percent. But Monday’s victory doesn’t automatically mean Poilievre can break through in tougher battlegrounds. How he fares in the upcoming leadership review will determine whether Conservatives believe this byelection was enough soul-searching, or just the start of it. Mandatory civil service for young Canadians is a terrible idea By Luke Smith, The Hub’s deputy editor You might have missed it last week, amongst the spittle-flecked braying from this country’s 10-cent totalitarians getting red-faced about the risks of spontaneously combusting during your afternoon walk in the woods, but recently released polling from the Angus Reid Institute was making the rounds: “A Year of Service? Canadians—including young adults—embrace the idea of civilian service for those under 30.” Young Canadians dedicating a year of service to their country. A benign enough idea, no? Indeed, as was highlighted in the headline, even plenty of young 18-29-year-olds themselves are apparently warm to it.1The service areas for those young adults include public health support, environmental support, youth services, civil protection, and military service. There is net support for compulsory obligation in each of these among all age cohorts, aside from, unsurprisingly, military service, which has a net negative level of support for the idea from every age cohort—every age cohort, that is, except those 60-plus. There is nothing that gets this country’s aged elite more excited than asking the young to sacrifice for their sake. But it’s a preposterous notion. And entirely because of one tricky word kept out of the headline but integral to the survey, one that starts with “m” and ends with “andatory.” A few other headlines also making the rounds recently: “Canada’s youth keep getting hammered in the job market” “Half of young Canadians spending more than 50% of earnings on rent” “Young Canadians falling behind payments as debt divide widens, report shows” Young Canadians, already bearing the brunt of our ever-worsening housing and affordability crises, are now running smack into a youth employment crisis. But the best Canada and the Brantford Boomers who pull the strings here can offer is two hairy-knuckled middle fingers and a year of enslavement? Because that is, to put it bluntly, what mandatory civil service entails. Canada’s youth are struggling to establish themselves, to find their way in a suddenly crowded jobs market, to gain their footing on the first rung of an increasingly slick employment ladder—so we’re going to steal a year from them so that they can donate their labour for free? Yes, increasing numbers of young people are drifting, listless and searching for work—so let’s take even those who have found a steady paycheque out of the market for an entire year? What’s the plan to fill the void this would leave—even more temporary foreign workers? Yes, in the end, this is just one poll and a relatively inconsequential discussion, but far too many discussions in this country find their framing in what the young can do for the old. Here’s a better idea: mandatory civil service for seniors. It’s time they took a graceful step back, gave up their jobs to make way for Canada’s youth, and exited the workforce, donating whatever time and energy they have left in service of bettering our society. Somehow, I don’t think that idea would poll as high. It’s worth examining why. The gerontocracy has its champion in charge, and the generational divide is going to keep on growing. But surely, young Canadians don’t need even more opportunities to sacrifice for the greater good. As Sabrina Maddeaux has detailed, they deserve far better than what we’re giving them. They need steady jobs, and better wages, and cheaper housing, and a political class actually motivated to prioritize their needs and preferences, their vision for the present, let alone their hope for the future. But I’m not holding my breath. The overlooked aspect of the TIFF controversy that still deserves attention By Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa The controversy over the Toronto International Film Festival’s decision to remove a Canadian-made October 7th documentary film from its lineup focused primarily on the absurd demand for copyright clearances of clips taken by Hamas terrorists on the day of the attack. While TIFF reversed its decision, given the enormous backlash over what many rightly perceived to be censorship, another aspect of TIFF’s demands remains in place. According to media reports, the initial title of the documentary was Out of Nowhere: The Ultimate Rescue. TIFF demanded that the name be changed in order to be included in the program, leading to the new title, The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue. TIFF staff apparently objected to the phrase “Out of Nowhere,” which suggests that staff believes both that 1) the October 7 attack was not out of nowhere, and 2) that it was appropriate to limit artistic freedom of expression by substituting its political views over those of the creator. TIFF’s decision to limit artistic expression sets a dangerous precedent that should be strongly condemned by creator groups and anyone who believes in freedom of expression. It should be obvious that “out of nowhere” was a perfectly appropriate title given the unexpected Hamas terror attack, but it should not matter what I think or what TIFF thinks. This is a suppression of artistic freedom of expression by a film festival that receives significant public funding from multiple layers of government and from numerous corporate supporters. Canada’s Status of the Artist Act is not designed for this situation, but the spirit of the law is clear: protection of the rights of artists to freedom of expression, free from pressure tactics. As far as I can tell, this type of name change is unprecedented. There have been voluntary name changes due to political developments (the film Z changed its name after Russia adopted the “Z” symbol in the Russia-Ukraine war), and the Venice International Film Festival sparked controversy when it changed the name of the origin of films from Taiwan to Chinese Taipei (though not the title of the films). But I am unable to find a public example of conditioning participation on a name change of the film due to political views. Indeed, the approach runs counter to TIFF’s professed mission that includes “defending artistic excellence and artistic freedom.” This violation of artistic freedom should not be ignored in the hope of moving beyond TIFF’s egregious now-reversed decision to remove the film from its lineup. The mandated name change remains, and with it, TIFF’s violation of its principles and those of Canadian law. Governments and funders should demand a full accounting of what occurred, and TIFF should reverse the name change decision so that filmmaker Barry Avrich can call the film whatever he wants without shameful interference from TIFF staff and executives. A version of this write-up was published at mgeist.substack.com.