As The Hub’s David Polansky commented in a recent article, Canada’s institutions are broken, with their priorities flipped upside down.
The legal system often rewards the bad behaviour of criminals rather than helping the victims they have harmed.
Our law enforcement agencies appear to be more concerned with racism claims from minority groups, rather than protecting the rights of the majority of the population.
Even our business organizations, like the Chartered Professional Accountants and Institute of Corporate Directors, once part of the cornerstone of capitalism, business, and fiscal responsibility, now appear more focused on social justice and ESG (environmental, social, and governance) issues, to the point of promoting soft socialism concepts like stakeholder capitalism, as promoted in the 2022 Future of Governance Report issued by the Institute and the TMX.
Add to this our health system, which seems focused more on workers than the patients, or our education system, which favours teachers over students and their outcomes, and you begin to get the full picture.
Reaching our collective breaking point
As Earnest Hemingway presciently observed, bankruptcy happens “gradually, then suddenly.” Years ago, I dismissed many ideas as so silly that no one would dare believe or act on them, only to find a few years later they had become one of the narratives du jour and ingrained in our culture and institutions.
As I discuss in my recent book, Answers for Life, I now recognize that the often-silent majority must speak up loudly, or special interest minorities will promote their interests and dictate policy for all of us. Today, I think the majority is reaching its breaking point on a whole series of issues. I call it the “smoking moment.”
Remember 30 to 40 years ago when we sat quietly in non-smoking row 12 on that airplane, breathing the wafts of smoke coming from the passengers in smoking row 11, too shy to say something for fear we might hurt our smoking cabin mates’ feelings or restrict their rights? Then one day, we finally had enough. We overcame our pusillanimous nature and invoked common sense: “You can have your rights and smoke anywhere you want, so long as it is not in my face and impinging on my rights.”
Canadian institutions are failing, prioritizing special interests and social justice over core responsibilities. The legal system disservices victims, law enforcement focuses on perceived racism over public safety, and business organizations prioritize ESG over fiscal responsibility. Canadians ought to advocate for common-sense solutions in areas like health care, education, and government overreach. Citizen engagement to restore the country’s priorities is key.
The author suggests institutions are prioritizing the wrong things. What examples does he give, and what is the core issue?
The author invokes the '3.5 percent rule.' How does this concept relate to his call for Canadians to take action, and what changes does he suggest?
What economic concerns does the author raise, and how does he link them to government policy and the future well-being of Canada?
Comments (8)
I’m doubtful about how much change we will have without change in our electoral system.
Any system produces the behaviours and outcomes it incentivizes. The state of our institutions and society are the result of politicians adopting policies that they believed rightly would get them elected. You can view this negatively (to get power and money) or practically (if you don’t govern you can’t make changes). Regardless, getting elected is the prize.
Because we vote for a party, many issues are ignored. Which party do you like on critical issues? Others issues with less immediate impact are ignored/accepted. We need a more responsive and less internally stable political system if we want to see such “secondary” issues get attention. Proportional representation? Perhaps. Definitely we need elected MPs to become relevant again and not just chips for party leaders to collect on election night – the one with the most at the end of the night wins the game.