Canada, it’s not racist or xenophobic to talk about immigration

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Joe Adam George

The sustained public antics post-October 7 has caused otherwise pro-immigrant Canadians to question the viability of our current policy

Since 1971, when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau officially adopted a policy of multiculturalism, Canada has enthusiastically promoted and celebrated cultural diversity as a fundamental element of our national identity.

Perhaps wanting to step out of his father’s shadow and create his own legacy, in 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau upped the multicultural ante by several notches, declaring to the world that Canada would become the “first post-national state”. In a now-infamous interview Trudeau claimed “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”

Last year, his government announced plans to welcome 500,000 new immigrants per year by 2025 and maintain those numbers annually in the subsequent years. Amidst growing public opposition to high immigration levels, Statistics Canada reported last month that Canada’s population grew by more than 430,000 during the third quarter of 2023 alone, marking the fastest pace of population growth since 1957 and pushing the country’s population past 40.5 million.

PM Trudeau’s pursuit of a post-national vision for Canada – through a blend of substantial hikes in immigration and a systemic push of woke progressivism that has effectively revised and erased Canadian history – has come at a significant cost to Canada’s national unity and security.

Examples of this disunity and lack of social integration have been particularly apparent in recent months. Following Hamas’ October 7 attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, the Jewish community in Canada have been subject to incessant acts of malice and violence by pro-Palestine protestors. Over the last three months, these dissenters have become a nuisance and a threat to all Canadians – from blocking traffic at major intersections and disrupting Christmas celebration events to intimidating businesses and shoppers, and in some extremely worrying instances, plotting to carry out terror attacks on Canadian soil.

Raging antisemitic and anti-Western speeches by controversial Muslim imams like Adil Charkaoui and Sheikh Younus Kathrada have added fuel to the fire (Charkaoui served jail time in 2003 on charges of terrorism and was later allowed a pathway to Canadian citizenship by a judge).

Predictably, questions about uncontrolled immigration and limited social integration have gained considerable prominence in the public square, so much so that the once-taboo topic of immigration could become a hot-button issue in the next federal election. The immigration discourse was already gaining traction on account of joint economic woes and the housing crisis, but the sustained public antics post-October 7 has caused otherwise pro-immigrant Canadians to question the viability of our current policy.

Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at the University of Buckingham and Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said to me in an interview, “A lot of the talk about integration misses the mark because it only takes into account integration indicators like people getting jobs, learning the language, voting, participating economically and politically, and even feeling a certain attachment to their adopted country, all of which I think are going reasonably well. The main driver for integration problems that we are currently seeing in Western countries is the degree of ethnocultural shifting that is taking place on account of mass immigration. This is bringing a much greater diversity of ethnic identities and religions and results in the importation of overseas conflicts into Western societies leading to inter-communal clashes between groups such as Sikh-Hindu, Muslim-Hindu or Muslim-Jew. The other factor is Islam and its perceived incompatibility with Western culture and values. All this contributes to the rise of populist movements across the globe, particularly in Europe.” Last month, an Angus Reid poll found that more than two-in-five (43%) Canadians believe Islam to be a “harmful presence” to their country.

Out of the over 1.3 million new immigrants who permanently settled in Canada from 2016 to 2021, approximately 1.14 million of them belonged to racialized communities, with most of them coming from South Asian, African and Arab countries. In a 2018 paper, Kaufmann and Matthew Goodwin argue that white Canadians will be a minority around the year 2050. It must be pointed out that this discussion is not about any deranged notion of preserving racial purity but about the effect of quick and massive ethnocultural change. Even with some mixing between cultures, geographic, marital and social patterns remain highly structured by ethnic identity in Canada; this is as true of the majority as of minorities, with white movers avoiding more diverse locations such as Richmond, BC or Brampton, ON. This attachment to one’s own group has been proven in the scholarly literature to be independent of any dislike of outgroups (except at times of violent conflict). Yet any mention of a sense of loss in the disruption of a previously dominant culture is immediately taken as hostility to outgroups and thus racist – a dishonest assessment.

Other countries that have traditionally welcomed a significant number of immigrants are now admitting that their immigration levels are out of control. Leaders (often privately) recognize that while linking immigration to job market needs, infrastructure capacity and economic growth opportunities is vital, greater value ought to be attached to encouraging immigrants to integrate and contribute to advancing a shared national vision. With elections looming in some of these countries, governments are taking belated measures to reduce the overall intake to appease their electorates.

The Danish government has advocated for a “zero refugee” policy. Australia announced new policies that are expected to cut down immigration by 50%. The UK Parliament passed a bill – dubbed “the toughest ever anti-illegal immigration legislation” – which aims to send illegal asylum-seekers to Rwanda. Germany approved legislation that would make it easier for authorities to quickly deport rejected asylum seekers. U.S. lawmakers are negotiating a deal to enforce security along its southern border with Mexico to combat illegal crossings.

It is worth highlighting that Denmark, Australia and Germany are run by left-wing or centre-left governments; mass immigration and social integration can be issues of concern to parties of all political stripes and not limited to “racist right-wing bigots” and “conservatives” as some might lazily portray. When asked which country Canada could take inspiration from to improve immigration controls, Kaufmann mentioned the Social Democrats in Denmark as exemplary.

“I think lowering numbers is absolutely at the heart of any successful immigration policy. I don’t think you can have high [immigration] numbers and not have a problem and you may even have different kinds of problems like antisemitism or anti-LGBTQ sentiments or communal conflicts or radicalization. Essentially, my view is that with high numbers and rapid cultural change, you simply get a loss of social connectedness. You have people in their bubbles moving around and that’s fine but when you get two groups that have an issue with each other, then you’re going to either have a conflict or you tend to get less civic-minded”, he said, citing renowned American political scientist, Robert Putnam’s thesis ‘E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century’. Putnam contends that sharp increases in immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital in the short run, meaning social trust (even of one’s own race) would be lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, and friends fewer, although on the flipside, it is likely to have long-term cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits.

When asked what continued mass immigration could mean for Canada, Kaufmann said, “I think Canada is moving in the direction of being a low-cohesion society. I mean, if that’s the choice they want to make, that’s fine. I think it’s partly because political correctness is stronger in Canada than almost anywhere else. So, it’s impossible to really have an honest debate about immigration which is one reason why the numbers are so high in Canada compared to other countries. It’s about what the elites will allow you to talk about in a democracy without labeling you a racist, which is completely dishonest, but that’s the way the debate has been conducted in Canada, as some sort of a sacred cow. It’s less sacred in Europe and so there’s more of a real debate around immigration numbers.”

Last month, fueled by concerns over growing antisemitism, the German state of Saxony-Anhalt made it mandatory for applicants wishing to live in the state to recognize Israel’s right to exist. In 2006, the Netherlands made it compulsory for prospective immigrants to watch a film with images of gay men kissing or topless women as part of the civic integration exam to test their readiness to participate in the Dutch liberal society.

When asked if such a values-based test or declaration for prospective immigrants was feasible, Kaufmann said, “People are allowed to have different opinions, even if they may be obnoxious. Even within the citizenry, there are people who don’t recognize the state of Israel and that’s an opinion you’re allowed to have. I think the test should probably focus on subjects like toleration of gays, Jews and women. However, I don’t think Canada is willing to consider qualitative culture-based criteria, such as assimilability to Canadian values, to assess potential immigrants, like they currently do in countries like Denmark, even though I think it would be a good idea. Canadian immigration is completely rooted in voodoo-based reasoning and there’s no economic or demographic rationale to it. The idea that immigration is a sustainable solution to the aging problem, for instance, has been comprehensively debunked. Somehow, it is a religion amongst Canadian elites and to some degree, across political parties. The Conservatives are too scared to touch it out of fear of being branded as racist and anti-immigrant by other parties and the media, even though most of their voters want a lot lower numbers. Regardless, you’ve got a cross-party consensus which is not based in reality.”

In 2016, federal Conservative leadership hopeful Kellie Leitch was heavily criticized, even by members of her own party, for floating the idea of screening out would-be immigrants to Canada, if they were openly intolerant or did not accept Canadian values and traditions such as respect and tolerance for other cultures, freedom of speech and equality.

The systematic dismantling and belittling of Canada’s history by our governments and institutions has left many immigrants seeing very little worth embracing in Canada, often resulting in a retention of their original values– some of which are contradictory to Canadian values and pose a hazard to the safety and security of vulnerable groups like LGBTQ, Jews, women and children.

While Kaufmann does not think Trudeau’s post-national comments have had an impact on the ground on their own, he said they reflect the mindset of the cultural left-dominated or progressive-dominated society.

“The media and the political culture in Canada are dominated by progressivism on any cultural issues, whether that be LGBTQ, religion, ethnicity or immigration. The longstanding narrative in Canadian academia about Canadian identity is that Canada’s just a multicultural country and the only thing it stands for is tolerance and diversity. In a way, multiculturalism is, more or less, a restatement of a post-national country that doesn’t really have a national identity and that’s what the elites want. It is a national identity that claims to have the moral high ground by proclaiming we don’t care about ethnicity or culture because we’re so virtuous and that is really what Trudeau implied. This is still a kind of national identity but based on pride in being holier than thou. His comments reflect an elitist philosophy that has led to record levels of immigration and poor integration.”

The Israel-Hamas war has highlighted the failure of integration inevitably resulting from rapid and uncontrolled mass immigration. Scenes of protestors disrupting Black Friday shopping and Christmas celebrations, or even threatening to kill people in the presence of police officers, were unimaginable in Canada not long ago.

First or second-generation immigrants like me – whether they be permanent residents, students, illegal aliens, or citizens – have immensely benefitted from the magnanimity of Western countries like Canada. In many cases we were offered refuge from the hatred, tyranny, racism, sexism, terrorism, and violence of our home countries. It should not be considered controversial or racist to point out instances of fellow immigrants treating Western generosity and tolerance as weaknesses to be manipulated, bragging about their growing numbers and the political clout they have amassed in liberal democracies (apparently without awareness of the hypocrisy apparent in their support for illiberal tyrannies whose violence drove them to take refuge in the West in the first place). Aaron Wudrick, Director of Domestic Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, encapsulates this view accurately in his tweet: “The important question isn’t how Canadians identify in terms of ethnicity. It’s whether they identify as *Canadian* and feel any attachment, belonging or commitment to our shared institutions.”

It is dishonest and irrational to label everyone concerned about out-of-control immigration numbers and the need for social cohesion as racist or xenophobic. The sooner we rid ourselves of fallacious name calling, the sooner we can start a serious debate about the best way forward for a compassionate and sustainable immigration policy that prioritizes Canada’s long-term national unity, security and economic interests.

Joe Adam George is a former foreign policy and national security research intern with the Washington, D.C.-based policy think tank, Hudson Institute, and a communications strategist.

Up Next

The change required to save the CBC from Pierre Poilievre: Peter Menzies

Don't Miss

The UN is Not What Many Canadians Think It Is. Or Ever Was

Todayville

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

Alberta court upholds conviction of Pastor Artur Pawlowski for preaching at Freedom Convoy protest

Opinion / 11 hours ago

Trudeau and Singh Scheme to Delay Election, Secure Payouts on the Taxpayer’s Dime

Health / 12 hours ago

Canadian Health Organizations Unite to Demand Truth on Vaccine Safety

Immigration

ISIS and its violent Central Asian chapter are threatening Canada and the West with jihad. Hussain Ehsani for Inside Policy

Published on October 22, 2024

Todayville

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Hussain Ehsani

Recent terrorism-related arrests in Canada and the wider West are evidence of the resurgence of ISIS, and especially its ultra-violent Afghanistan wing… recently revealed internal memos by Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC) highlighted ISIS’s growing role in inspiring domestic terrorism

Ten years ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria waged a holy war that threatened to engulf the wider Middle East. At its peak, ISIS conquered nearly 200,000-square-kilometres of Iraq and Syria, inspiring thousands of jihadis to join its crusade against the West.

It took a global coalition of 87 nations and groups, led by the United States and including Canada, to defeat Daesh for good. By December 2017, the damage was decisive: ISIS had lost more than 95 per cent of its territory. The coalition members celebrated the defeat of ISIS and thought it could no longer pose a threat, in the Middle East or anywhere else.

The moment lasted only a short time.

Recent terrorism-related arrests in Canada and the wider West are evidence of the resurgence of ISIS, and especially its ultra-violent Afghanistan wing. At the same time, recently revealed internal memos by Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC) highlighted ISIS’s growing role in inspiring domestic terrorism, and in particular, potential “lone Wolf” attacks against Canada’s Jewish community.

The memos – issued on June 24 and July 10, 2024, and later obtained by media – were prescient: On July 31, Canadian police detained two alleged ISIS-affiliated men in Richmond Hill, Toronto, apparently based on a tip from French intelligence. In September, the RCMP in Quebec – working with the FBI – arrested a Pakistani national on a student visa for allegedly plotting an attack on a Jewish centre in Brooklyn, New York. These events were especially shocking since it was widely believed that ISIS was confined to Iraq and Syria. But ISIS is clearly influencing a new generation of terrorists around the world. Indeed, it’s suspected that ISIS inspired, and possibly directed, a plot to attack the Jewish community in Ottawa last February. Police arrested two Ottawa youths in relation to the alleged plot and charged them with attempted murder.

American authorities have also thwarted ISIS schemes, resulting in the arrest of ISIS-Tajiki operatives in the US earlier this year. The arrests continue: On October 7, the FBI apprehended an Afghan national and a juvenile co-conspirator for allegedly planning an attack under the Islamic State banner on November 5 – the day of the US presidential elections.

These US arrests point to a new trend: the rise and global reach of the Afghan branch of ISIS, known as the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP). Some background is necessary. ISIS officially emerged in 2014, following rapid territorial gains in eastern Syria and northwestern Iraq. Rooted in the ideology of Salafi Jihadism, ISIS sought to establish a “Caliphate” governed by a strict interpretation of Sharia law. The group declared its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as Caliph in June 2014 after capturing Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. This marked the height of ISIS’s power, controlling large swaths of Syria and Iraq.

As ISIS entrenched itself, it began expanding its influence beyond Iraq and Syria. Various affiliates, known as “provinces” or “wilayat,” emerged worldwide. Pledging allegiance to the central ISIS leadership, these groups dedicated themselves to establishing a global Islamic State.

That is one reason for the group’s resilience and recent resurgence. The ISKP was one of the most deadly branches to emerge. Founded in southeastern Afghanistan in 2015 on the border with Pakistan, ISKP immediately sought closer ties with the core ISIS group in Syria and Iraq to gain legitimacy and embolden its fighters and middle-rank commanders to conquer more territory. Those efforts came up short, and ISKP failed in its first years to win ISIS’s support.

Since then, ISKP has redoubled its efforts to impress its ISIS masters – and in many ways, it has succeeded. The group is now among the strongest of ISIS’s adherents.

Turning Point

The collapse of the former Afghan Government on August 15, 2021, was the turning point, when a host of transnational extremist fighters were released from prisons of Afghanistan. Aside from rejoicing about the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, they prepared to take up their “holy duty” to expand ISIS’s regime. ISKP initially in 2015 drew its fighters from disaffected and wayward elements of the Taliban, Haqqani network, and Pakistani Taliban. The release of an additional cohort of Salafists (Sunni fundamentalists) aided its recruitment.

ISKP moved quickly to expand its influence and operations. The first attack in this new era was devastating: it stormed the Abbey Gate of the Kabul Airport on August 26, 2021, killing 170 Afghan civilians and 13 US soldiers. The US Department of Defense later released a report that Abdul Rahman al-Logari, one of the prisoners released on the day of Kabul collapse, was behind the Abbey Gate attack.

The message was clear – ISKP was on the march.

ISKP on the International Stage

To gain “formal” admission to the ranks of ISIS’s provinces, ISKP would have to show initiative and capability, not just in Afghanistan but in the wider territory of Khorasan: Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and the eastern part of Turkmenistan.

To do so, it had to find new targets. Traditionally, the Hazara community, the most persecuted ethnicity in Afghanistan, was the main target for Islamist groups, along with former Afghan security forces. They remain primary victims. However, ISKP’s range of targets and ability to strike them has grown. It added new targets in Afghanistan, attacking the Russian embassy in Kabul in September 2022, and a Chinese facility in December of the same year. Then it started reaching beyond the borders of Afghanistan: ISKP has carried out terrorist attacks in Central Asia and plotted a number of them in Pakistan.

Targets even farther away have now been hit. In January 2024, ISKP executed a complex attack in Kerman, Iran, at an event commemorating Qasem Sulaimani, the former commander of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force, killed by US forces in 2020. On March 22, 2024, it hit a concert hall in Moscow – an operation that took the international community by complete surprise.

These operational successes mattered, but ISIS’s core leaders in Syria and Iraq demanded signs of ideological subservience as well. Under the leadership of Sanaullah Ghafari (also known as Dr. Shahab al-Muhajir), ISKP worked hard to prove that its propaganda machine is an engine of ISIS Salafist ideology.

ISKP uses fluency in a variety of languages, including Urdu, Russian, Tajiki, Uzbeki, Turkish, English, and Pashto, to spread its message. It seeks to extend its ideology to other fighters in the region in order to recruit transnational Salafi Jihadists. It has already recruited a vast number of terrorists from the ranks of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in the north of Afghanistan. ISKP also exploited propaganda and demand from the diaspora of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to plot attacks against Western countries.

The attacks and ideological efforts seem to have worked. ISKP now appears to have become the operational wing of the core ISIS group. After the ISKP attack on Moscow, an ISIS spokesman released a 41-minute audio message praising the attack by “Mujahidin” and called on other “dormant” provinces of the “Caliphate” to rise up and follow ISKP’s example.

The terror spreads

ISIS leader Abu Hafs al-Hashimi al-Quraishi has more work in mind for his prized ISKP group. His priorities include freeing jihadists detained in Syria and attacking targets in Europe and North America.

In Syria, Al-Quraishi has encouraged ISIS terrorists to redouble efforts to attack the Syrian Democratic Forces, a US-backed Kurdish militia in the country’s northeast, and try to break detained comrades out of SDF-run prisons. These facilities host thousands of ISIS fighters, including women and children. Given the success of ISKP’s operations and recruitment, ISIS is likely trying to implement the same tactic of jailbreaks in Kurdish territory in Syria and Iraq, to replenish its ranks.

ISIS spokesmen have also called for all Muslims to attack Christians and Jews in the broader West.

In September 2024, Türkiye’s domestic security agency (MIT) arrested Abuzar Al Shishani, who allegedly was plotting an attack on Santa Maria Italian Church in Istanbul in early January 2025. According to MIT, ISKP recruited him in 2021. The arrests in Canada, the US, and Türkiye are proof that ISKP’s reach is growing.

How can Canada fight back?

Canada and its allies in the West must act now to counter the terrorist threat posed by ISKP and ISIS. Fortunately, the RCMP and other Canadian police forces halted the recent spate of planned domestic terror attacks. However, stringent immigration screening is also crucial to keeping Canada and its allies safe. The Canada Border Services Agency needs to be ready to deal with the ISIS/ISKP threat.

To that end, Public Safety Canada should examine ways to enhance inter-agency targeting and intelligence sharing. A task force consisting of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada, Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Revenue Agency, and FINTRAC – given their respective roles in immigration processing, countering disinformation and anti-terrorist financing – could help to ensure maximum coordination against the group.

Canada must also guard against the threat ISKP/ISIS poses to religious and minority communities in the country. ISIS’s call to target Jewish and Christian communities presents a special challenge. The Jewish community is particularly vulnerable due to the rampant antisemitism seen at pro-Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran rallies across Canada. But Christian sites, like churches, are also vulnerable. ISKP/ISIS are also likely to target Muslim groups that speak against its violent ideology.

Canada should collaborate with international partners to support communities and groups opposed to ISKP/ISIS. These include the Hazara, Kurdish, and Yazidi communities in Afghanistan and Kurdistan, as well as allies in the Kurdistan Regional government, and the Syrian Democratic Forces. Canada should also support initiatives led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council countries to strengthen the voice of moderate Islam in the Middle East and Central Asia. Such initiatives require careful diplomacy with allies and a range of partners. That is what Canada will require to counter the evolving threat of ISIS and ISKP.

Hussain Ehsani is a Middle East affairs analyst with expertise on the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is currently exploring the foreign policy relationship between Saudi Arabia and Canada. In addition to MLI, he also contributes to the Jerusalem Post, BBC Persian, and The Hill.

MacDonald Laurier Institute

British Columbians have long reveled in their political uniqueness, but in 2024 they are providing a preview of the next national election.

Published on October 12, 2024

Todayville

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Ken Coates

Electoral warning signs from the West Coast: Ken Coates for Inside Policy

The upcoming election in bitterly divided British Columbia, long an outlier in federal politics, has emerged as a critical test run of the intense, polarized and highly emotional national political contest that looms ahead.

When British Columbians go to the polls on Oct. 19, they can choose between an activist NDP government and the Lazarus-like Conservative Party of B.C. that now dominates the political agenda with a “common sense” platform.

As on the national scene, the B.C. vote is more than a classic “left versus right” contest, although the different approaches to the role of government, public spending, state intervention, and social and identity concerns are evident.

The NDP government shares a lot in common with the federal Liberals, including an increasingly unpopular leader in David Eby, a positive and creative approach to Indigenous affairs, an environmentally activist agenda that is seemingly blind to economic dislocations, and now a wavering position on the province’s long-standing climate change and carbon tax policies.

John Rustad revived the moribund Conservative Party of B.C. by bringing conservative fiscal values back into the mainstream and took strong and previously unpopular positions on Indigenous and environmental matters. Along the way, he dismantled the BC United Party, formerly the BC Liberal Party.

Recent polls suggest the election will be close, likely defined by a deep rift between the Vancouver and Victoria urban support for the NDP and the Interior and small-town flirtation with the Conservatives.

The NDP government has spent generously but not always wisely, running up sizeable deficits that undercut the province’s reputation for fiscal reliability. It stood strongly with the Canadian government on the “safe supply” approach to excessive drug use and has failed, like the federal Liberals, to manage the housing crisis in major cities.

Eby’s government took a cautious approach on natural gas development and pipeline construction, leaving the government several billion dollars short in revenues.

On Indigenous matters, the Eby government became a world leader, particularly in its efforts to implement and respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It walked while the federal government has mostly talked.

The recognition of Indigenous title on Haida Gwaii outside the treaty process establishes a new model for engagement with First Nations. Strong and consistent concessions to Indigenous communities on resource development (which have not, incidentally, stopped activities as critics forecast) empowered First Nations and set the groundwork for improved relationships.

Echoing the national popularity of the federal Conservatives, the B.C. Conservatives’ “common sense” platform outlines support for small-town economic development, fiscal restraint, lower taxes (including carbon pricing), expanding LNG production, promoting resource development, constraining the interventions of activists, and reforming education and health care.

Rustad offers a dramatically different approach to the regulation of hard drugs, a tough approach on crime, opposition to identity politics, a promise to eliminate tent cities and a commitment to walk back support for UNDRIP.

The Green party, once the key power broker and partner with previous premier John Horgan’s NDP government, seems to be in sharp decline. Andrew Weaver, former Green leader, has been highly critical of Eby and the current NDP and professed his support for Rustad, based largely on his concern over the premier’s approach to governing.

The Conservatives’ positions, like their federal counterparts, can be summarized simply: government has gone much too far on many fronts, has amassed an unsustainable deficit, and has undermined the core work of government.

The B.C. NDP, like the Trudeau government, leaves the impression that “you ain’t seen nothing yet” in both government activism and spending.

British Columbians have long reveled in their political uniqueness, but in 2024 they are providing a preview of the next national election.

The resurgent B.C. Conservative party has many policy similarities to the Conservative Party of Canada, with a powerful commitment to economic development and a desire to put identity politics in the rearview mirror.

The B.C. NDP, like their federal counterparts, has turned soft on carbon taxes, leaving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as one of the few political leaders who have tied their political fortunes to this increasingly unpopular policy.

Should Eby lose or win narrowly, it would reinforce the rise of the right in the country. Perhaps most importantly, the B.C. electorate would signal it has lost enthusiasm for an activist provincial leader with a willingness to spend freely on social programs, build large deficits, and pays little attention to building the economy. Sound familiar?

Ken Coates is a distinguished fellow and Director of Indigenous Affairs at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.