Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

The post-national cult of diversity promotes authoritarian intolerance

Published

12 months ago

9 minute read

From the Frontier Center for Public Policy

By William Brooks

“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. … Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state.” — Justin Trudeau, 2015.

Throughout history, populations with sufficient historical, geographic, linguistic, economic, religious, and cultural attachments have flourished within the borders of unified nation-states.

Few modern nation-states fit a uniform definition. In countries such as Canada and the United States, two or more nations, regions, colonies, and tribes learned to prosper together within a negotiated constitutional order.

Not all nations insist on total sovereignty as a condition of their existence. Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged this when he put forward a parliamentary motion recognizing that the Québécois form a historical “nation” within the united Dominion of Canada.

In 2006, Members of Parliament overwhelmingly supported Mr. Harper’s motion, but it was notable that Justin Trudeau, a rising star in the Liberal Party of Canada, regarded the recognition of a Quebec nation as an “old idea from the 19th century.” He said it was “based on a smallness of thought.”

After Canada’s 2015 election, Mr. Trudeau decided he had been selected to lead the world’s first “post-national state.” He said Canada had “no mainstream.” The new PM insisted that nationalist sentiments should be replaced by “shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice.” Canada’s doors were to be open to the world.
In March 2016, the Trudeau family received a warm welcome at the Obama White House. Forgetting years of reciprocal visits with the former PM, Mr. Harper, the U.S. president enthused that “Today, we are very proud to welcome the first official visit by a Canadian Prime Minister in nearly 20 years—it’s about time, eh?”

For the cosmopolitan left, the period between November 2015 and November 2016 was a pivotal moment in history. A U.S. president who had rejected the idea of “American exceptionalism” and a Canadian Prime Minister who said his country had “no core identity” were in perfect accord with a growing cabal of international plutocrats who disapproved of nationalism and looked forward to the emergence of a borderless, new world order.

Globalists were convinced that a higher form of humanity could be achieved through a new trifecta of values known as “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The only people standing in their way were pesky British Brexiters and Donald J. Trump.

Modern Origins of Anti-Nationalism

The post-modern left has always insisted that patriotism is a precursor to fascism. Since the late 1960s, Western intellectuals have deceptively linked nationalism and patriotism with the cultural values of Nazi Germany. For neo-Marxist intellectuals, affirming the merits of one’s nation is symptomatic of an authoritarian personality.

Following the fall of the Iron Curtain in the late 20th century, “global integration” became an increasingly popular vision among international policy experts. World Economic Forum patricians proposed a superior morality to be guided by a “Great Reset.”

The left insisted that problems such as climate change, inequality, racism, and poverty called for bold solutions. As a result, a “one-world government” paradigm came to occupy the center of academic thought. Universities in North America and Europe routinely advertised for positions in “global governance,” a term that few would have recognized a decade earlier.

Western literary elites rushed to defend the idea of post-nationalism. Writing in The Guardian in 2017, Canadian novelist Charles Foran said, “First and foremost, post-nationalism is a frame to understand our ongoing experiment in filling a vast yet unified geographic space with the diversity of the world.”

The presumed genius of leaders such as Mr. Trudeau and President Obama promised to usher in a new era of diversity and inclusion that would make our world a kinder and gentler place.

The Old Diversity and the New

Over recent years, several scholars have adopted a more skeptical view of the post-national bromides being passed off as “diversity and inclusion.”

For example, University of Kent emeritus professor of sociology Frank Furedi argues that “diversity” is not “a value in and of itself.” He regards the present-day version of diversity as the foundation for a new form of authoritarianism.

In a January Substack article, Mr. Furedi pointed out that the meaning of diversity has been fundamentally altered.

“In the past the affirmation of difference ran in parallel with the celebration of the organic bonds that tied communities to their ancestors,” he wrote.

This older form of diversity promised that the cultural freedom of local districts, tribes, races, religions, and immigrant communities could be respected within a justly established legal and constitutional order. It was a model that inspired the loyalty of citizens in modern nation-states such as the United States and Canada.

Post-national diversity means something entirely different. Mr. Furedi argues that “the current version of diversity is abstract and often administratively created. It is frequently imposed from above and affirmed through rules and procedure.”

He goes on to assert: “The artificial character of diversity is demonstrated by its reliance on legal and quasi-legal instruments. There is a veritable army of bureaucrats and inspectors who are assigned the role of enforcing diversity related rules. The unnatural and artificial character of diversity is illustrated by the fact that it must be taught.”

Dogmatic Diversity and the Decline of Freedom

Over the past 75 years, the left has promoted diversity as a remedy for discrimination. By the late 1960s, it had acquired a sacred importance. Mr. Furedi contends that “the main driver of this development was the politicisation of identity.”

He quotes the philosopher Christopher Lasch: “In practice, diversity turns out to legitimise a new dogmatism, in which rival minorities take shelter behind a set of beliefs impervious to rational discussion.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Furedi writes, “diversity has proved to be an enemy of tolerance.”

Radical proponents of diversity and inclusion reject debate and demand conformity. They have no qualms about limiting fundamental liberties, particularly free speech. The totalitarian temptations within this cult are akin to the impulses of an ancient creed or a communist dictatorship. No one is free to disagree, and there is little kindness in a dogma that has become the foundational value for 21st-century authoritarians.

Ten years ago, post-nationalist politicians such as President Obama and Mr. Trudeau found it easy to sell woke elites the same unfounded assumptions they had already acquired in university.

Today, free-thinking common folks are becoming considerably tired of serving the appetites of false prophets.

William Brooks is a Senior Fellow at Frontier Centre For Public Policy. This commentary was first published in The Epoch Times here.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 8 hours ago

Biden’s Dumb LNG Pause Has Rightfully Met Its End

Agriculture / 8 hours ago

USDA reveals plan to combat surging egg prices

Business / 8 hours ago

“The insanity is ending”: USDA cancels $600k grant to study transgender men’s menstruation

Agriculture

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Published on March 6, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Dr. Sylvain Charlebois

Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts

Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.

While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.

Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.

Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.

Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.

One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.

The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.

A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.

Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.

Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.

That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.

Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.

The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s Aging Population Is Creating A Fiscal Crisis

Published on March 6, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Rising OAS and GIS costs outpacing economic growth, straining the federal budget

Canada’s aging population is creating a financial crisis that policymakers cannot afford to ignore. The rising costs of Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) pose a growing risk to federal finances, yet no dedicated funding has been established to ensure their long-term viability.

The numbers are staggering. The 2024 Financial Accounts (Public Accounts of Canada, Volume I, p. 43) show that spending on elderly benefits rose at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.24 per cent between 2015 and 2024, climbing from $44.1 billion to $76.04 billion. Over the same period, total federal program spending increased at a CAGR of 7.24 per cent, from $248.7 billion to $466.7 billion.

Although elderly benefits made up 17.7 per cent of total program spending in 2015, they now account for 16.3 per cent. This decline is not due to reduced spending but rather a surge in pandemic-related government expenditures, which temporarily outpaced OAS-GIS growth. Nevertheless, the trajectory is clear: elderly benefits are now the federal government’s third-largest expense, behind only ‘Other Transfer Payments’ and ‘Operating Expenses.’

While these figures already indicate a growing fiscal challenge, government projections suggest the problem will only get worse. According to the federal Fall Economic Statement (Table A1.11, p. 211), economic growth is expected to average four per cent annually until 2029-30. Yet OAS-GIS costs are projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 6.5 per cent, outpacing both GDP growth and other program spending. By 2029-30, spending on elderly benefits is expected to reach $104.4 billion, or 18.3 per cent of all program expenditures.

Government projections highlight the rapid growth in elderly benefits over the next six years, as shown in the table below:

Fiscal Year                  Elderly Benefits ($B)                Total Program Expenses ($B)              Percentage of Total Program Expenses
2023-24                       76.0                                          466.7                                                   16.2 per cent
2024-25                       80.9                                          485.7                                                   16.7 per cent
2025-26                       85.5                                          500.3                                                   17.1 per cent
2026-27                       90.1                                          509.3                                                   17.7 per cent
2027-28                       94.6                                          529.7                                                   17.9 per cent
2028-29                       99.5                                          549.7                                                   18.1 per cent
2029-30                       104.4                                        570.3                                                   18.3 per cent

As the table shows, OAS-GIS spending is rising as a proportion of total government expenditures. This mirrors the original crisis in the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), when benefits outpaced contributions as the population aged.

The CPP once faced a similar sustainability crisis, and its reform in 1997 offers a potential model for addressing the challenges of OAS-GIS today. The federal government overhauled the CPP by creating the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), which now manages $570 billion in assets. At the time, CPP benefits were paid through general government revenues rather than dedicated investments.

The solution involved higher contribution rates and the creation of an independent investment board to manage the fund sustainably.

These changes secured the CPP’s future, but OAS-GIS remains entirely dependent on government revenue, with no financial backing of its own. That makes it even more vulnerable to economic downturns and demographic shifts.

Policymakers must take decisive action to secure its future. One option is to tighten eligibility criteria to curb uncontrolled spending. Cost-of-living adjustments should also be limited to official inflation measures, ensuring sustainability without unfairly burdening low-income seniors.

The federal government must acknowledge the problem before it becomes unmanageable. The next finance minister should seek input from actuaries, investment professionals, economists and the public to explore feasible long-term solutions. A dedicated OAS-GIS Investment Board, similar to the CPPIB, could help ensure the program’s sustainability. The government already expanded CPP in 2019—there is precedent for such an approach.

Since OAS-GIS has no existing assets, the government will need to inject capital into the program. This could be done through annual surpluses deemed excessive for current needs or through long-term debt financing. Issuing 30-, 40- or even 50-year bonds specifically designed to fund OAS-GIS could provide a market-friendly, fiscally responsible path to solvency. If properly structured, such a plan could improve Canada’s credit rating rather than weaken it, ultimately reducing borrowing costs.

Even today, OAS-GIS spending exceeds the annual federal deficit, a clear warning sign that this issue can no longer be ignored. If no action is taken, Canada will face soaring elderly benefits with no sustainable way to fund them.

The time to act is now. Delaying reform will only make the crisis worse, burdening future generations with an unsustainable system. Policymakers have a choice: build a sustainable future for OAS-GIS or allow it to become a fiscal disaster.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X