Superb! A 'Must Read' for every Canadian. Also, the Provinces know that whining (victimhood) works since it is now the default disposition of the majority. Don't believe me, start a converstion with anyone, anywhere in the country and it should surface within minutes if not sooner.
Albertan provincial leaders have force fed resentment to their constituents for generations. It has been a tried and true technique to deflect from their own failings, and it's getting more extreme.
All of the West’s growing discontent would immediately evaporate if federal governments, particularly the liberals, would respect the constitutional rights of the provinces. We haven’t been force fed anything. We are just sick and tried of federal government overreach. Carney should try doing to Quebec what he is about to do to Alberta. Would your opinion change? When Quebec asserts their constitutional rights, the feds fall all over themselves to placate Quebec. When Alberta does this we are castigated as a bunch of whiny selfish assholes. We have finally had enough of this BS. Full stop!
Here is a newsflash: other provinces don’t necessarily want what Alberta wants. B.C. doesn’t necessarily want to endanger its major industries (tourism, fishing) by building ports for tankers. The Alberta government might choose to put its head in the oil sands and ignore climate change, but people all over Canada have to live with the ensuing costs. Heard of ice storms? Forest fires?
Alberta seems to expect the feds to override every other province. Imagine demanding access to tidewater ports, regardless of what any other province or First Nation territory feels? That would be federal overreach.
Here is a news flash or two for you: Read the IPCC report rather than repeating what you have heard about climate change and stop making the simple error of confusing weather and climate. What you are referencing is the IPCC’s climate change scenario RPC 8.4 , about extreme weather issues being caused by climate change and the IPCC give this scenario a low probability. Please read Steve Koonin’s book, “Science Unsettled”, for a balanced view of climate change issues. Koonin is a first rate scientist and not some hack scientist, politician or uneducated female teenager lecturing to the world proclaiming another imminent climate apocalypse. Remember Al Gore’s book, “An Inconvenient Truth”? The inconvenient truth is not a single dam prediction in his book even came close to reality and yet he wins a Nobel Peace Prize for what amounted to science fiction and millions believed it. If Alberta’s ethically produced fossil fuels were allowed to market world emissions would fall as we have emission standards while in major oil producing Russia particularly and in most of the Middle East they don’t give a shit about it. As well ifAlberta was able to get clean natural gas exports to both China and India the world’s total emission foot print would drop. That is the inconvenient truth of the matter, but apparently only Canadian are so dumb they would choose to import unethical oil from dictatorships at world prices creating an even bigger carbon footprint and think somehow they are being virtuous green and impoverishing Canada in doing so.
If a physicist can't be a climate scientist, then I guess your definition is limited to climate modellers, a.k.a. mathematicians and computer programmers.
From Scientific American “Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements”
Sadly, SciAm has abandoned its original function of making current scientific topics intelligible to educated non-specialists. It was wonderful to a high school or college science nerd a half century ago. Now it's degenerated into an only occasionally scientific but mostly political rag plumping for leftist climate alarmism. Its reputation is lost unless it undergoes a drastic change in management and editorial content. That's exactly why it disses Koonin.
From what I gather, the majority of Albertans don’t want to separate. Perhaps the compromise is that the Canada haters could move to a system more to your liking.
Koonin was Obama’s science advisor which included climate change. A first rate scientist, such as Koonin has credibility when calling out “ junk science”, which is what most of climate science has become today so it behoves us to give it critical notice and not just dismiss it on the basis of something one might have read in Scientific American. And there are many other credible scientific voices calling climate science out. You might want to start with the eminent climate scientist, Dr Judith Currey. She is a brave voice against the pervasive group think permeating climate science today and the resulting vitriol from climate dogma scientists is appalling. No other scientific voice must be heard! Haven’t you heard the science is settled! Just as a matter of interest - have you even read Koonin’s book?
Engagement and education. In Ontario high schools, a paltry half term (and half credit) is devoted to Civics at the Grade 10 level, 2 years before those students are even eligible to vote. By the comments posted on social media platforms across the country, it’s patently obvious that general knowledge of how our levels of government work is minimal. Blaming the federal government for everything has become a national pastime, while voter turnout at municipal and provincial elections is pathetic. In the 80 years since WWII, western society has become complacent, with so many enjoying a relatively high standard of living (compared to previous generations) and taking peacetime for granted, that they don’t even bother to get out and vote. Politics, for a significant segment of our population is a big yawn, while reality TV and violent or fantasy video games consume the attention of young people and even their parents’ generation, the very people who will inherit the results of our failure to educate and engage them in the maintenance of our hard-won democracy.
1. How is the oil and gas sector heavily subsidized? What source do you rely upon for that claim?
2. How is o & g not doing its part to combat emissions? (I assume that you mean o & g is doing lesser than other sectors are?) What are your metrics for this?
The first report is the usual activist kitchen sink analysis calling everything a subsidy, including usual business expenses such as R&D and explorations costs, the ridiculous social cost of carbon estimates, etc. As for TMX, it is an investment,
The first report contains the usual activist kitchen sink view that everything is as a subsidy including normal business expenses such as R & D, the ridiculous social cost of carbon, etc. As for TMX, it is an investment providing a return of income and maybe eventually a return on capital. Had the private sector been allowed to complete it, you would not have called that a subsidy.
I believe the Globe editorial board has recently come to the same conclusion but cannot locate it off hand.
As for the second report, that merely shows that o & g has been marginally more prosperous over the decades, not that is not being asked to make an equivalent effort. Indeed the emissions cap is on top of a carbon tax and all emissions are equal. Why not an emissions cap on any other sectors? Why not on cement?
And the fact is that with the world energy mix consisting of coal, and wood and animal waste (2 billion people subsist on the latter), Canadian o & g not only is positive to counter world poverty, it also reduces planetary emissions. O and g is a plus and not a negative.
But heh, continue denigrating a great industry. We will see how that works out.
But heh, continue on denigrating a great industry and see how far you will centralize Canada.
Emmett,I read the article. I see very little in the article that supports the view that the oil and gas industry is receiving subsidies greater than any other industry in Canada. So if you are saying that the oil industry shouldn’t be receiving income offsets from depreciation, equipment replacement,operating and capital costs, the same argument could be made for any other industry in Canada. True the Liberal government purchased Trans Mountain, but only after they and the BC government created such regularly uncertainty and that the private company was unable to see the financial basis for the project. In addition, many of the subsidies for the energy industry are actually to consumers, rather than to energy companies. And as you point out, the energy industry in Canada is profitable enough, given it has a ready market for its products outside Canada, to enable it to pay its employees, contractors and suppliers from across Canada and contribute significantly both to federal coffers and to Canada’s balance of payments. Canada and Canadians are very fortunate to have the benefits that have accrued from the energy industry in Canada.
Having said all of that, I agree with you that we would be much better off if the federal government did a better job in fulfilling their responsibilities, including pushing back against provincial government nonsense. That the Liberal party has been unable for many years to gain a foothold in the western provinces, I think speaks to their tone deaf response to western aspirations and concerns. Hopefully they see the light and are able to convince westerners that the party is also prepared to act in the west’s best interests.
I guess, but like you can take the entire pipeline spending off the books by bundling the debt with the pipeline, then selling it. Because the pipeline's revenues will pay for the debt. Its not really subsidized if you can make a profit off it.
Nobody wanted to build it because it wouldn't make money -- and that was before costs went so high, and before oil dropped. I'm sure the government would love to sell it now, if there was a buyer.
If you want to centralize the federal government, the first thing you should do is move the federal government to a more central location. Winnipeg, perhaps. There are geographic reasons the west feels disconnected from Ottawa.
I think our federal government has been gutless for a long, long time. As a former Anglo from Quebec, I feel this deeply. The Provincial victimhood narrative has proven to be nearly 100% effective because they are never held accountable for their own poor policy choices, from housing to health care.
When I moved from Ottawa to BC, hubbie and I used to joke how funny it was that BC also used Canadian money. It really felt like we were living in a completely different country with very no connection to a federal entity.
So, while I agree with the central core of the sentiment expressed here, I inevitably think "what can I do". How can we achieve this goal of strengthening our federation? I am at a complete loss.
Really interesting perspective. Upon reading the headline, my knee-jerk was, "Whatever he says, I don't want Quebec and Ontario to make more decisions for me than they already do."
But your points about provincial governments refusing to take responsibility really resonated with me. I have grown extremely sick of listening to the premiers try to blame Ottawa for THEIR AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY. I think to myself, "If I were PM, I would cut all Federal health funding and lower taxes proportionately. Then I would invite provinces to fill the gap by raising taxes themselves. Then they would have no one to blame but themselves. No strings attached; do what you want."
I also think we need our own version of the "Commerce Clause" like the Americans have (as well as the 1st amendment without carve-outs for "hate speech", but I digress).
I think one of the important benefits of federalism done right would be protection of individual liberties, free enterprise, and free movement of goods/labour/capital within Canada.
I find the idea of removing the notwithstanding clause VERY tempting (though practically impossible) except for the predecents set by the Supreme Court for extreme overreach by activist judges. Is there a way to have the Charter be supreme with greater deference paid by the courts to the elected representatives of the people?
Clearly you've got me thinking a lot! Great piece.
A long overdue analysis. I would add an extra dimension. Canada is also fragmented into competing segments of our ethnic mosaic; an unintended consequence of Trudeau senior's multicultural policy, originally intended to dilute the claims of a Quebecois culture by identifying and codifying many cultures in Canada. Political discourse consequently degenerates into a debate between the supposed grievances of various groups each claiming special treatment to address past injustices... not dissimilar to the complaints of provinces. Canadian unity will require the strengthening of a shared commitment to an un-hyphenated CANADIAN culture that values and incorporates the various strands in the ethnic mosaic, but weaves them into something new and quite different from what was "left behind" in the "mother country". Ultimately we must all become indigenous!!
This. Identity politics over civics and shared culture (in a broad sense) in the social media disinformation era is the death of democracy—take it from an American. The cultural unity is in fact a prerequisite to the more effective legal-political unity that Emmett is talking about
"None of this is to say that the Fed Govt never oversteps ". Yu think? To borrow a term from our southern neighbor, the Provinces have become our " checks and balances " to keep an isolated Laurentian centered Govt from completely running rough shod over the outlying regions. Sorry, but I am of the belief that the major divisions in this country have been sown by spineless, self interested Fed Govts that have done precious little to understand regional aspirations and problems, hoping that simply throwing money at everything will make the problems go away, or at least give them an excuse to blame the outcomes on the Provinces. The reality is that most Canadians identify first as ( insert Province here).
I completely disagree. I've lived in three provinces, and was born and raised in Alberta. From what I can see, it is the premiers -- in particular the Albertan ones -- who have perfected the art of deflecting from their own failures by blaming the feds. It has been going on for generations, and now Alberta's "victimization" is now accepted as truth, regardless of facts.
I agree with the general argument but I think your criticism of Quebec secularism laws is misguided. Minority rights are not oppressed because there is no right to impose your beliefs on others. Religion should have no place in government. All of Canada should follow.
What someone wears doesn't "impose" their beliefs on others. By contrast, dictating what other people can or cannot wear does exactly that, and is the opposite of state neutrality.
It is certainly a convenient position to take when the dominant religions aren't perceived as requiring any particular observance with regard to dress. The idea that a teacher or someone doling out driver's licenses wearing a head scarf 'undermines' the neutrality of the state is a mirage. And you know how I know? The rest of Canada is also secular, and the secular nature of Ontario, BC, or Canada is completely unaffected by such practices.
Phew, you said it. I’m too afraid of being labelled an “-ist” of some sort. People don’t understand the secularism laws here, they think they’re far more severe than they really are.
Superb! A 'Must Read' for every Canadian. Also, the Provinces know that whining (victimhood) works since it is now the default disposition of the majority. Don't believe me, start a converstion with anyone, anywhere in the country and it should surface within minutes if not sooner.
Albertan provincial leaders have force fed resentment to their constituents for generations. It has been a tried and true technique to deflect from their own failings, and it's getting more extreme.
All of the West’s growing discontent would immediately evaporate if federal governments, particularly the liberals, would respect the constitutional rights of the provinces. We haven’t been force fed anything. We are just sick and tried of federal government overreach. Carney should try doing to Quebec what he is about to do to Alberta. Would your opinion change? When Quebec asserts their constitutional rights, the feds fall all over themselves to placate Quebec. When Alberta does this we are castigated as a bunch of whiny selfish assholes. We have finally had enough of this BS. Full stop!
Here is a newsflash: other provinces don’t necessarily want what Alberta wants. B.C. doesn’t necessarily want to endanger its major industries (tourism, fishing) by building ports for tankers. The Alberta government might choose to put its head in the oil sands and ignore climate change, but people all over Canada have to live with the ensuing costs. Heard of ice storms? Forest fires?
Alberta seems to expect the feds to override every other province. Imagine demanding access to tidewater ports, regardless of what any other province or First Nation territory feels? That would be federal overreach.
Here is a news flash or two for you: Read the IPCC report rather than repeating what you have heard about climate change and stop making the simple error of confusing weather and climate. What you are referencing is the IPCC’s climate change scenario RPC 8.4 , about extreme weather issues being caused by climate change and the IPCC give this scenario a low probability. Please read Steve Koonin’s book, “Science Unsettled”, for a balanced view of climate change issues. Koonin is a first rate scientist and not some hack scientist, politician or uneducated female teenager lecturing to the world proclaiming another imminent climate apocalypse. Remember Al Gore’s book, “An Inconvenient Truth”? The inconvenient truth is not a single dam prediction in his book even came close to reality and yet he wins a Nobel Peace Prize for what amounted to science fiction and millions believed it. If Alberta’s ethically produced fossil fuels were allowed to market world emissions would fall as we have emission standards while in major oil producing Russia particularly and in most of the Middle East they don’t give a shit about it. As well ifAlberta was able to get clean natural gas exports to both China and India the world’s total emission foot print would drop. That is the inconvenient truth of the matter, but apparently only Canadian are so dumb they would choose to import unethical oil from dictatorships at world prices creating an even bigger carbon footprint and think somehow they are being virtuous green and impoverishing Canada in doing so.
Also, he is a physicist. Not a climate scientist. I don’t go to a dentist if I need an oncologist.
If a physicist can't be a climate scientist, then I guess your definition is limited to climate modellers, a.k.a. mathematicians and computer programmers.
Also, from Nasa https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
From Scientific American “Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements”
Sadly, SciAm has abandoned its original function of making current scientific topics intelligible to educated non-specialists. It was wonderful to a high school or college science nerd a half century ago. Now it's degenerated into an only occasionally scientific but mostly political rag plumping for leftist climate alarmism. Its reputation is lost unless it undergoes a drastic change in management and editorial content. That's exactly why it disses Koonin.
From what I gather, the majority of Albertans don’t want to separate. Perhaps the compromise is that the Canada haters could move to a system more to your liking.
Koonin was Obama’s science advisor which included climate change. A first rate scientist, such as Koonin has credibility when calling out “ junk science”, which is what most of climate science has become today so it behoves us to give it critical notice and not just dismiss it on the basis of something one might have read in Scientific American. And there are many other credible scientific voices calling climate science out. You might want to start with the eminent climate scientist, Dr Judith Currey. She is a brave voice against the pervasive group think permeating climate science today and the resulting vitriol from climate dogma scientists is appalling. No other scientific voice must be heard! Haven’t you heard the science is settled! Just as a matter of interest - have you even read Koonin’s book?
It’s not victimhood when you are a victim!
I agree we need to make Canadians more aware of how Canada works...more citizen engagement would help, no?
Engagement and education. In Ontario high schools, a paltry half term (and half credit) is devoted to Civics at the Grade 10 level, 2 years before those students are even eligible to vote. By the comments posted on social media platforms across the country, it’s patently obvious that general knowledge of how our levels of government work is minimal. Blaming the federal government for everything has become a national pastime, while voter turnout at municipal and provincial elections is pathetic. In the 80 years since WWII, western society has become complacent, with so many enjoying a relatively high standard of living (compared to previous generations) and taking peacetime for granted, that they don’t even bother to get out and vote. Politics, for a significant segment of our population is a big yawn, while reality TV and violent or fantasy video games consume the attention of young people and even their parents’ generation, the very people who will inherit the results of our failure to educate and engage them in the maintenance of our hard-won democracy.
brilliant
terrific timely piece
Two questions:
1. How is the oil and gas sector heavily subsidized? What source do you rely upon for that claim?
2. How is o & g not doing its part to combat emissions? (I assume that you mean o & g is doing lesser than other sectors are?) What are your metrics for this?
These are both laughably true statements, and not even directly relevant to the core argument of this post, but I'll entertain you here:
1. Depending on measures used, data from OECD, the IMF, etc. can range dramatically, but the subsidies are significant regardless of measure. Include direct public expenditures on pipelines like TransMountain, and the numbers explode. https://climateemergency.ubc.ca/how-much-are-taxpayers-really-subsidizing-canadas-fossil-fuel-industry/
2. Page 8 of this report has emissions broken down by sector. Page 9 shows how the oil sands in particular is a leading source of emission *increases* https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/cesindicators/ghg-emissions/2025/greenhouse-gas-emissions-en.pdf
The first report is the usual activist kitchen sink analysis calling everything a subsidy, including usual business expenses such as R&D and explorations costs, the ridiculous social cost of carbon estimates, etc. As for TMX, it is an investment,
The first report contains the usual activist kitchen sink view that everything is as a subsidy including normal business expenses such as R & D, the ridiculous social cost of carbon, etc. As for TMX, it is an investment providing a return of income and maybe eventually a return on capital. Had the private sector been allowed to complete it, you would not have called that a subsidy.
The better view can be seen here:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-when-it-comes-to-fossil-fuel-subsidies-canada-is-not-the-problem/
I believe the Globe editorial board has recently come to the same conclusion but cannot locate it off hand.
As for the second report, that merely shows that o & g has been marginally more prosperous over the decades, not that is not being asked to make an equivalent effort. Indeed the emissions cap is on top of a carbon tax and all emissions are equal. Why not an emissions cap on any other sectors? Why not on cement?
And the fact is that with the world energy mix consisting of coal, and wood and animal waste (2 billion people subsist on the latter), Canadian o & g not only is positive to counter world poverty, it also reduces planetary emissions. O and g is a plus and not a negative.
But heh, continue denigrating a great industry. We will see how that works out.
But heh, continue on denigrating a great industry and see how far you will centralize Canada.
"denigrating a great industry".... lol. OK, that's a normal thing normal people definitely say about a sector of the economy.
Thanks for the referral to the Globe article. Perhaps Emmett needs to read it.
Emmett,I read the article. I see very little in the article that supports the view that the oil and gas industry is receiving subsidies greater than any other industry in Canada. So if you are saying that the oil industry shouldn’t be receiving income offsets from depreciation, equipment replacement,operating and capital costs, the same argument could be made for any other industry in Canada. True the Liberal government purchased Trans Mountain, but only after they and the BC government created such regularly uncertainty and that the private company was unable to see the financial basis for the project. In addition, many of the subsidies for the energy industry are actually to consumers, rather than to energy companies. And as you point out, the energy industry in Canada is profitable enough, given it has a ready market for its products outside Canada, to enable it to pay its employees, contractors and suppliers from across Canada and contribute significantly both to federal coffers and to Canada’s balance of payments. Canada and Canadians are very fortunate to have the benefits that have accrued from the energy industry in Canada.
Having said all of that, I agree with you that we would be much better off if the federal government did a better job in fulfilling their responsibilities, including pushing back against provincial government nonsense. That the Liberal party has been unable for many years to gain a foothold in the western provinces, I think speaks to their tone deaf response to western aspirations and concerns. Hopefully they see the light and are able to convince westerners that the party is also prepared to act in the west’s best interests.
Perhaps Emmett would care to comment on the billions spent on now defunct EV and battery plants.
I guess, but like you can take the entire pipeline spending off the books by bundling the debt with the pipeline, then selling it. Because the pipeline's revenues will pay for the debt. Its not really subsidized if you can make a profit off it.
Nobody wanted to build it because it wouldn't make money -- and that was before costs went so high, and before oil dropped. I'm sure the government would love to sell it now, if there was a buyer.
Bravo! Factual, well-articulated and long overdue. Provincial misuse of health transfers is especially resonant and unaddressed.
If you want to centralize the federal government, the first thing you should do is move the federal government to a more central location. Winnipeg, perhaps. There are geographic reasons the west feels disconnected from Ottawa.
I like that idea. The Laurentian elite would freak and start their own septickism movement. Toronto the good and all that.
As Alex says, below, brilliant and terrifically timely!
This is a great article.
People in Canada have no idea what areas the municipality or the provincial or the federal governments do. And who is responsible for us Canadians.
I think our federal government has been gutless for a long, long time. As a former Anglo from Quebec, I feel this deeply. The Provincial victimhood narrative has proven to be nearly 100% effective because they are never held accountable for their own poor policy choices, from housing to health care.
When I moved from Ottawa to BC, hubbie and I used to joke how funny it was that BC also used Canadian money. It really felt like we were living in a completely different country with very no connection to a federal entity.
So, while I agree with the central core of the sentiment expressed here, I inevitably think "what can I do". How can we achieve this goal of strengthening our federation? I am at a complete loss.
Really interesting perspective. Upon reading the headline, my knee-jerk was, "Whatever he says, I don't want Quebec and Ontario to make more decisions for me than they already do."
But your points about provincial governments refusing to take responsibility really resonated with me. I have grown extremely sick of listening to the premiers try to blame Ottawa for THEIR AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY. I think to myself, "If I were PM, I would cut all Federal health funding and lower taxes proportionately. Then I would invite provinces to fill the gap by raising taxes themselves. Then they would have no one to blame but themselves. No strings attached; do what you want."
I also think we need our own version of the "Commerce Clause" like the Americans have (as well as the 1st amendment without carve-outs for "hate speech", but I digress).
I think one of the important benefits of federalism done right would be protection of individual liberties, free enterprise, and free movement of goods/labour/capital within Canada.
I find the idea of removing the notwithstanding clause VERY tempting (though practically impossible) except for the predecents set by the Supreme Court for extreme overreach by activist judges. Is there a way to have the Charter be supreme with greater deference paid by the courts to the elected representatives of the people?
Clearly you've got me thinking a lot! Great piece.
A long overdue analysis. I would add an extra dimension. Canada is also fragmented into competing segments of our ethnic mosaic; an unintended consequence of Trudeau senior's multicultural policy, originally intended to dilute the claims of a Quebecois culture by identifying and codifying many cultures in Canada. Political discourse consequently degenerates into a debate between the supposed grievances of various groups each claiming special treatment to address past injustices... not dissimilar to the complaints of provinces. Canadian unity will require the strengthening of a shared commitment to an un-hyphenated CANADIAN culture that values and incorporates the various strands in the ethnic mosaic, but weaves them into something new and quite different from what was "left behind" in the "mother country". Ultimately we must all become indigenous!!
This. Identity politics over civics and shared culture (in a broad sense) in the social media disinformation era is the death of democracy—take it from an American. The cultural unity is in fact a prerequisite to the more effective legal-political unity that Emmett is talking about
Every a Canadian should read and consider carefully the ramifications of this article. So well said and so very true!! A must read!!
The ideal complement in my mind for a stronger federal government is a more representative federal government via mixed member proportional.
Good point!
Excellent piece, thorough argument. It should be read by every provincial “leader” as well as by all MPs. Thank you for being so direct.
"None of this is to say that the Fed Govt never oversteps ". Yu think? To borrow a term from our southern neighbor, the Provinces have become our " checks and balances " to keep an isolated Laurentian centered Govt from completely running rough shod over the outlying regions. Sorry, but I am of the belief that the major divisions in this country have been sown by spineless, self interested Fed Govts that have done precious little to understand regional aspirations and problems, hoping that simply throwing money at everything will make the problems go away, or at least give them an excuse to blame the outcomes on the Provinces. The reality is that most Canadians identify first as ( insert Province here).
I completely disagree. I've lived in three provinces, and was born and raised in Alberta. From what I can see, it is the premiers -- in particular the Albertan ones -- who have perfected the art of deflecting from their own failures by blaming the feds. It has been going on for generations, and now Alberta's "victimization" is now accepted as truth, regardless of facts.
I agree with the general argument but I think your criticism of Quebec secularism laws is misguided. Minority rights are not oppressed because there is no right to impose your beliefs on others. Religion should have no place in government. All of Canada should follow.
What someone wears doesn't "impose" their beliefs on others. By contrast, dictating what other people can or cannot wear does exactly that, and is the opposite of state neutrality.
Totally disagree. A public servant should present an image of neutrality. And displaying your religious or tribal affiliation undermines that.
It is certainly a convenient position to take when the dominant religions aren't perceived as requiring any particular observance with regard to dress. The idea that a teacher or someone doling out driver's licenses wearing a head scarf 'undermines' the neutrality of the state is a mirage. And you know how I know? The rest of Canada is also secular, and the secular nature of Ontario, BC, or Canada is completely unaffected by such practices.
Phew, you said it. I’m too afraid of being labelled an “-ist” of some sort. People don’t understand the secularism laws here, they think they’re far more severe than they really are.