Interview requests

Stop the presses! Alan Dershowitz has become a Republican.

It’s true. The well-known U.S. lawyer, political commentator and longtime liberal Democrat has decided to join the GOP. While it’s no secret that his political views have changed in recent years, including the shift from being a critic of U.S. President Donald Trump to joining his defence team in the first impeachment trial in 2020, this is remarkably different.

Dershowitz explained his reasons for switching parties in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. It’s a fascinating example of a prominent individual coming to terms with a different political reality, similar to Whittaker Chambers, Sidney Hook, George F. Will, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and many others.

What led to his decision will interest many, and may not surprise some.

“I am a lifelong Democrat,” he wrote in his opening paragraph on April 21. “I started campaigning for the party’s local candidates as a teenager in Brooklyn, N.Y., have been a registered Democrat for 67 years, made speeches for John F. Kennedy as a college student, and can count on one hand the number of Republicans I’ve ever supported for any office.”

Dershowitz’s second paragraph contained a rather intriguing segue. “I still disagree strongly with the GOP on abortion, the separation of church and state, immigration, healthcare and taxes, among other things,” he noted. “Yet I’ve decided to bite the bullet and register as a Republican.”

The obvious question is why he opted to do this. It’s largely related to foreign policy, and more specifically, the way that Democrats think about Israel.

“The Democratic Party has become the most anti-Israel party in U.S. history. Last week all but seven Senate Democrats voted for an arms embargo against the Jewish state, and an avowed enemy of Israel, Abdul El-Sayed, is gaining ground in the Democratic campaign for U.S. senator from Michigan,” he stated forthrightly. Moreover, he believes there’s “no denying that the hard-left, anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party has moved from the fringe to the mainstream. Until recently there was an age gap, with younger voters more strongly opposing Israel, but recent polls suggest that the trend now includes Democrats of all ages. Republicans have their own antisemitic fringe, but for now it remains a fringe.”

He’s right. The Democrats were largely supportive of Israel when he was an active party member and supporter. That’s not the case today.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted between March 23 and 29 found that “60 per cent of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53 per cent last year.” While this figure can be explained by the war in Iran, the next figure can’t. “Eight in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents currently have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69 per cent last year and 53 per cent in 2022. Democrats under 50 are slightly more likely than older Democrats to say they have a very unfavorable view of Israel (47 per cent vs. 39 per cent).” As for Republicans, Pew Research found that “more Republicans and Republican leaners have a favorable than unfavorable view of Israel (58 per cent vs. 41 per cent).”

Dershowitz, who is pro-Israel and wrote a well-received book to this effect, would surely have been horrified by these numbers on the Democratic side. This doesn’t resemble the party he once knew and defended every chance he could. Pew Research’s findings either justified his position since he became an Independent in 2024 or confirmed his suspicions about the growing tide of anti-Israel sentiment. The Republicans are much closer to his way of thinking on this issue than the Democrats.

“I wish I could designate myself as a ‘foreign-policy Republican,’ but there’s no such option, so I have to go whole hog,” Dershowitz wrote in his Wall Street Journal op-ed. “By registering as a Republican rather than an independent, maybe I can have some influence on moving some Republican policies toward the centre. I have given up on trying to change the Democratic Party. My main goal is to send a message that many traditional Democratic voters can’t accept what it is becoming—a replica of left-wing European parties that are hurting their countries.”

Unsurprisingly, he left a caveat at the very end of his piece, but he’s realistic enough to know it won’t happen. “If the Democrats pay a heavy electoral price, perhaps they’ll wise up and move back to the centre, where I (and others) could rejoin it. I don’t know if that is a realistic possibility, but it’s worth a try.”

I don’t agree with Dershowitz’s unnecessarily negative view of certain Republican ideas and policies. I know that his liberal positions on everything from taxes to abortion have a very small, select and uninfluential audience in Republican circles. I strongly doubt that the professor emeritus at Harvard Law School will be able to shift the GOP in any desired direction.

That being said, I don’t think there’s any reason why Republicans shouldn’t welcome Dershowitz to the party and movement. There’s more than enough room for differences of opinion in the U.S. conservative political tent. He’ll find that most party members will agree to disagree with him on certain issues, support him when they find common cause, and won’t make him feel uncomfortable about domestic issues and foreign policy positions on Israel and around the world.

Alan Dershowitz, Republican. The impossible just became possible!

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.

The post The Democrats’ war on Israel just cost them Alan Dershowitz first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

It’s one of the worst-kept secrets among teachers: Education courses offered by teacher training institutions are often worse than useless.

For example, as part of its Bachelor of Education program, York University offers questionable courses such as “Educating for Activism,” “The Politics of Social Transformation,” and “Situated Learning and Education.”

At the University of Ottawa, students can select from equally bizarre-sounding courses such as “Social Justice and Global Education,” “Holistic and Non-Traditional Approaches to Education,” and “Exploring Gender Diversity through a Critical Lens.” It’s hard to imagine what relevance any of these courses has to the day-to-day realities of teaching and learning.

Ontario education colleges have been able to get away with padding their programs with fluff courses in part because of a policy change that created the space for it. Back in 2015, the Liberal government under Kathleen Wynn doubled the length of teacher training programs from one year to two years.

While the intent behind this change was to slow down the influx of surplus teachers into the education system, the impact was profoundly negative. Not only did it contribute to the current shortage of certified teachers, but it also made it easier for education colleges to impose additional useless courses on prospective teachers.

Fortunately, the Ford government is finally reversing that error. Last week, Ontario Education Minister Paul Calandra announced that he was cutting the length of teachers’ college from two years back down to one year. Even better, Calandra stated that his government will increase the amount of time prospective teachers will spend in supervised teaching in front of students.

This extended practicum requirement is a welcome change, particularly since Ontario’s current 80-day practicum requirement is one of the lowest in the country. There’s no question that practical experience with real students along with excellent supervising teachers is key to ensuring that new teachers are prepared to take over their own classrooms once they graduate.

Taken together, these changes do more than tweak the system. By shortening the length of the Bachelor of Education program and extending the practicum requirement, Calandra has effectively cut education colleges off at the knees. No longer will education colleges have free rein to pad their programs with useless courses that promote ideology rather than good teaching practices.

Since time will be at a premium, education colleges will have no choice but to jettison their most useless courses in favour of courses that focus on meaningful teaching and learning. A one-year program where students spend much of their time in practicum working in public schools leaves little time for fluff courses. This is a good thing.

Interestingly, the Ontario Teachers’ Federation (OTF), the professional body which represents all 160,000 teachers in Ontario’s public schools, has expressed qualified support for these changes. In fact, the OTF has long advocated extending the practicum length and argued that the two-year Bachelor of Education college requirement exacerbated the teacher shortage.

Given the long history of strife between the Ford government and Ontario teachers’ unions, it’s striking that the two sides largely agree with a change of this magnitude. Obviously, teachers’ unions still have profound disagreements with the government. No one expects that this reform will magically change the relationship between the government and the teachers’ unions.

Nevertheless, the Ford government is to be commended for reversing a mistake made over a decade ago by the previous government. Doubling the length of the Bachelor of Education program might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but the negative effects of that change have, over the years, become obvious.

Since the Ford government is finally taking real action on teacher training, the next step should be to examine the fluff in the graduate programs offered by teacher colleges. Across Ontario, teachers are increasing their salaries by taking master’s degrees in education that consist of even worse courses than those offered in Bachelor of Education programs.

There’s no evidence that completing a master’s degree in education makes a teacher more effective. And yet, every year, hundreds of teachers across the province graduate with master’s degrees and move up the pay scale. Minister Calandra should order a full-scale review of this practice and ensure that if teachers are going to receive pay raises by taking courses, they should at least be expected to take rigorous courses in subjects that will improve their teaching.

Cutting useless education courses at the Bachelor of Education level is a good first step. Now it’s time to do the same thing at the graduate level.

Michael Zwaagstra is a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The post Ontario cuts education colleges off at the knees first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is pushing prices higher and cutting demand but, more importantly, forcing the global energy system to find alternative sources of supply.

People and businesses are already cutting back on energy use. The International Energy Agency says “demand destruction” is already underway. It shows up in reduced consumption, flight cancellations and policy measures, advisories and restrictions aimed at cutting fuel use.

Energy-rich Canada is no exception. Canadians are already feeling it at the pump. Even though Canada produces its own oil, global prices still largely determine what Canadians pay for gasoline and other fuels. Citing Heather Exner-Pirot of the McDonald Laurier Institute, Kiera Miller said that, despite being a major oil exporter, Canadians are not insulated from higher prices.

The disruption exposes a weakness in how global oil is supplied and moved around the world. Global oil supply relies on maritime chokepoints and remains concentrated in the Middle East. When one is disrupted, the system starts to come under pressure. Confidence in the Strait of Hormuz has been shaken and producers and consumers alike are now being forced to look elsewhere for supply.

Alternative routes in the Middle East cannot make up the shortfall. Saudi Arabia can divert some crude to Yanbu Port on its Red Sea coast but most of its oil is produced in the east and normally shipped from Ras Tanura, its main export terminal on the Persian Gulf. Getting oil to Yanbu depends heavily on the East-West pipeline, which can carry up to seven million barrels per day, but not all of that capacity is available for export. The UAE’s Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline provides another bypass to the port of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman. Combined, these routes offer roughly 8.5 million barrels per day. That is insufficient to replace flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

Additional capacity from Iraq to the Eastern Mediterranean via Turkey exists, but it is underutilized and unlikely to expand quickly.

Some countries are moving to secure alternative suppliers, including the United States, as they look to replace disrupted Middle East flows. Canada’s ability to respond to increased demand is limited by years of constrained pipeline and export capacity, the result of policy and regulatory decisions made by the Liberal government over the last decade that have restricted access to global markets.

Others are using the disruption to start speeding up plans to diversify their energy sources. China, the world’s largest importer, is expanding renewable energy. Governments in Europe and Asia are pushing electrification in transport and heating. Investment in solar, wind and battery technologies is rising.

Shifts like this tend to stick. The oil shocks of the 1970s forced lasting improvements in energy efficiency and reduced oil demand per capita. This time, the effect is likely to be deeper because supply is more diversified and alternative sources of energy are already viable at scale. The cost of solar panels has fallen sharply, wind power has become more competitive and battery prices have declined to the point where substitution is realistic.

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a supply shock. It is cutting demand and forcing a shift away from Middle East supply. The adjustment is already underway, and it may not be easy to reverse.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

The post The Middle East stranglehold on oil is dead and it isn’t coming back first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

Once upon a time, a group of rising-star executives gathered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to take part in a special competitive event. Each was to present a business plan to be evaluated by the entire group. The best ideas would then be recommended to a team of venture capitalists for final evaluation. Participants saw this as a great opportunity to see how their ideas compared to those of others in an elite peer group.

If you had been one of those chosen executives, how would you have prepared for the event? Would you have concentrated on formulating a coherent description of your business plan? Developed a strategy for convincing others? Practiced your presentation skills?

The executives at the MIT event probably did all of these. But on the day of the competition, an additional component was added to the mix, one nobody had prepared for. Each presenter was outfitted with a specially-designed digital sensor, worn like an ID badge.

This device, called a “Sociometer,” would be taking notes on each presentation but not on the merits of what was being said. Unbeknownst to the presenters, the Sociometer would be recording what wasn’t being said: tonal variety, vocal nuance, physical activity, energy levels, even the number of smiles and nods exchanged between presenter and audience.

At the end of the meeting, the group selected the ideas they agreed would sell best. And, with no knowledge of any actual content, the Sociometer readings also predicted (with about 87 per cent accuracy) which business plans would be chosen. That’s because, while the group thought they were making rational choices, the researchers at the MIT Media Lab who had developed the digital device knew better. What convinced the executive group is the same set of signals that also predict the outcome of any business presentation you may give: body language and nonverbal interactions.

That doesn’t mean content doesn’t matter. It does. But if your delivery doesn’t support your message, the message rarely gets a fair hearing. That matters even more now. Those signals show up instantly and are judged just as quickly.

In my work as a leadership communication coach, I emphasize the importance of delivering a well-written speech that has an inspiring vision, engaging stories, self-deprecating humour, and personalized examples. But I also know that leaders can sabotage a great presentation if they underestimate or ignore the power of body language.

Here are seven of the most important tips for effective body language on stage and on screen, where many of your most important presentations now take place:

1. Manage your stress level

Notice the tension in your body as you wait to start your presentation. Some nervous energy is useful. Too much works against you.

Before you go on stage or turn on your camera, centre your weight. Look straight ahead with your chin level and relax your throat. Take several deep belly breaths. Count slowly to six as you inhale and tense your muscles. As you exhale, release and relax.

On screen, tension shows up quickly, especially on your face. If people see it, they read it and they start to question your confidence before you’ve even made your point.

2. Get emotional

Focus on the emotion behind your message, what you feel and what you want them to feel.

Flat delivery makes even a strong idea sound weak.

3. Make a confident entrance

Stay relaxed. Walk out with good posture, head held high, and a steady gait. When you reach centre stage, stop, smile, and look around the room.

In a virtual setting, your entrance happens the moment your camera turns on. Be ready. Look into the camera, not down at your notes. People decide quickly whether you are worth listening to—and it happens before you say a word.

4. Maintain eye contact

Maintain steady eye contact throughout your talk. Without it, you signal a lack of commitment or, worse, that you have something to hide.

Don’t scan the room aimlessly. Lock in on individuals or small groups, hold for a moment, then move on.

In virtual presentations, eye contact means looking into the camera lens not at the faces on your screen. It may feel unnatural, but it’s the only way your audience experiences real connection.

5. Ditch the podium

Get out from behind the podium. It hides your body and creates a barrier between you and your audience.

Know your material well enough that you don’t need to rely on notes. If you do use notes, keep them brief and off to the side.

If you’re reading from your screen, people can tell and they stop listening.

6. Talk with your hands

Your hands should tell the same story your words do. If they don’t, people believe the hands.

On camera, keep gestures visible and controlled within the frame.

7. Move

Move with a reason. If you’re just pacing, people notice and they tune out.

On stage, step toward the audience to emphasize a point. Stop and hold your ground when delivering something important.

On screen, movement is subtler. A slight shift in posture, a lean forward, or a deliberate pause can have the same effect.

Whether you are on a stage or on a screen, the fundamentals are the same. Your audience is always reading what you don’t say. And judging you on it.

Dr. Carol Kinsey Goman is an expert in nonverbal communication, body language, and leadership presence. She is a speaker, author, and executive coach who works with business leaders and organizations to improve their communication and leadership skills. Goman has written several books, including STAND OUT: How to Build Your Leadership Presence, which explores how nonverbal cues impact leadership effectiveness. With a background in psychology, she combines research in neuroscience with practical insights to help leaders understand the power of body language in building trust, influencing others, and fostering collaboration.

The post 7 body language tips to make sure people take you seriously first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

I don’t know if I have a knack for making people cry, but I’ve seen plenty of tears. I’ve had clients, members of a company where I was working and members of the basketball team I coach bawling their eyes out.

I’ve seen it all. Staff crying because they were happy, sad, angry, or being held accountable; shoplifters crying because they were caught; employees crying at the loss of a staff member. All of that came on top of the expected tears of kids and family.

As leaders, we’re bound to experience crying regularly. Nobody teaches you in business school how to handle it. So how do we deal with tears?

Crying 101 should be a mandatory course for business leaders, especially men like me. When I was in my early 20s, dealing with tears was difficult and awkward. As a young man, how was I to know why an older employee was crying or what to do about it?

My solution was to ask if they were okay, hand them a roll of toilet paper and head out the door to deal with some “emergency.” Why would anyone bring tears to work? I would always wonder.

That approach doesn’t work anymore. In fact, it probably never did. Walking away might make you feel less awkward, but it leaves the other person dealing with it alone. These days, you’re expected to stay present.

My wife, who has a degree in counselling, has since set me straight: tears are normal. She has encouraged me to show my emotions more and not bottle them up inside. It’s a hard concept to grasp for men like me, who were brought up in a society where men’s tears have been seen as a sign of weakness.

I get it. Yet dealing with tears in the workplace can still be unnerving. It feels awkward when a co-worker, client or employee starts crying. So what should we do?

I’m no expert, but over the years in business and coaching, I’ve learned a few things.

First, crying is often not about you. It might not even be related to the situation in front of you. Employees who are brought to tears in your presence might not be reacting to anything you’ve done or said. The client who was crying in front of me last week was dealing with financial stress and the pressure she was putting on herself.

Second, offer comfort and don’t expect the tears to stop immediately. Showing compassion and understanding can go a long way. Sometimes it’s as simple as passing a box of tissues, acknowledging what’s happening and asking if they want a few minutes or to step away. Sitting quietly or giving them time to take a short walk might be all you can do.

Third, don’t try to solve their problems. We don’t know what’s going on in other people’s lives any more than they understand what’s going on in ours. If a team member is crying and doesn’t want to talk about it, you don’t need to push. Let them know you’re available. That might be enough.

Fourth, recognize when it’s not just a one-off. If someone is repeatedly breaking down, that’s something bigger. We’re not there to diagnose or play counsellor, but we do have a responsibility to point people toward support, whether that’s HR, time off, or professional help. At the same time, if emotions start to affect performance or the team, it has to be addressed directly. Compassion and accountability go together.

Finally, know where the line is. Being supportive doesn’t mean becoming someone’s therapist. You can listen and be present, but you still have a business to run.

Tears don’t always show up the way they used to. You won’t see someone crying across the desk. You’ll see them shut down on a video call, go quiet or start to disengage. The signs are different, but that’s when you need to step in.

Tears are part of working with people, especially in leadership roles. In many ways, the fact that people are willing to show emotion tells you something about the environment you’ve created. If people feel they have to hide everything, that’s a different problem.

If you’re a leader who is a jerk, you might have more employees crying, but you probably won’t even notice.

Being compassionate and empathetic will make a difference for your employees and those around you. It might even help you feel better about yourself.

Understanding how you feel about tears and having a plan to deal with them when they come will make it less awkward as you develop your leadership style and grow your organization.

David Fuller is a Commercial and Business Realtor with a strong reputation as an award-winning business coach and author of Profit Yourself Healthy: For Small Business Owners Who Want to Earn More and Worry Less.

The post Tears at work are inevitable, so learn how to deal with them first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

My husband and I once got into a mild argument over money.

It started with a simple plan: a trip east with friends to see a football game. Flights, tickets, hotels. It seemed manageable at first. Then we started adding up everything else—rent, groceries, utilities and the usual monthly bills. The quiet realization that there was no extra room in the budget for a trip like that.

What began as a conversation turned into tension. Not shouting. Not dramatic. Just that familiar, heavy feeling that settles in when the numbers don’t quite work.

That moment plays out in households across the country every day.

Money, or more precisely the financial pressure around it, remains one of the biggest sources of stress in otherwise stable relationships. Not because people are careless or irresponsible, but because the margin for error has shrunk. Costs are higher. Debt lasts longer. Interest rates have made borrowing more expensive. Even dual-income households can feel like they’re constantly catching up. Canadians now carry roughly $1.70 in debt for every dollar of disposable income, leaving little room for error.

My husband and I both work. Our bills get paid. But that doesn’t stop the sense of uncertainty from creeping in. It shows up in conversations that go sideways, in small spending decisions that start to feel loaded, and in the strain that builds long before a credit card statement arrives.

The stress isn’t coming from the numbers alone. It’s coming from not being clear about what those numbers allow us to do.

That uncertainty builds quietly. Over time, it starts to shape every decision.

That’s when money becomes more than numbers—when what you want and what you can afford stop lining up. People treat it like a solution. If only there were more of it, everything would settle down. More money doesn’t fix uncertainty. Without clear decisions and structure, it just makes the consequences bigger.

When people feel cornered financially, they avoid decisions, delay conversations or react impulsively. They spend to relieve pressure. Or they clamp down so tightly that every purchase becomes a source of conflict. Neither approach works for long.

Breaking that pattern starts with something simple but often avoided: knowing your numbers. Not in a vague sense, but clearly—what comes in each month, what is fixed, what can be adjusted month to month, and what debt is already committed. When those numbers are visible, decisions become clearer.

That pressure is real, and some of it is structural. Housing costs are high. Debt levels are elevated. Wages haven’t kept pace for many households. For some, the problem really is that there isn’t enough money coming in.

It also means facing a harder truth about how money works. In a high-cost environment, every financial decision is a trade-off. Saying yes to one thing means saying no to something else, whether it’s now or later. That might mean choosing between a trip and paying down debt, or between new purchases and building a small buffer.

As my husband used to say to me, “We can do anything you want. We just can’t do everything you want.”

That’s what those trade-offs look like in real life. On top of that, households are now spending about 14 to 15 per cent of their income just servicing debt before covering everything else.

Those trade-offs are harder to ignore. Housing, groceries and debt payments take up more of the budget. There’s less room to absorb mistakes. That makes clear decisions, not wishful thinking, more important than ever.

Even under that pressure, the same pattern shows up. The conflict doesn’t come from the numbers alone. It comes from how unclear those numbers are and how decisions get made around them.

That’s why numbers alone don’t fix the problem. How couples handle those decisions matters just as much.

Conversations tend to happen at the worst possible time—when a bill arrives, when something unexpected comes up or when frustration is already high. That’s when discussions turn into arguments.

It works better to take the pressure out of it. Set aside a short, regular check-in—once a month is often enough—before bills pile up. Look at what’s coming in, what’s going out and what expenses and choices are coming up. Keep those conversations focused on planning, not blame.

It also helps to decide what matters most right now. Is it reducing debt, building savings or spending on experiences? The answer doesn’t have to be permanent, but having one makes decisions clearer when they come up.

The argument my husband and I had wasn’t really about a trip. It was about uncertainty. About what we could afford, what we were willing to give up and how clear we actually were about our finances.

Once that becomes clear, the tone changes.

That doesn’t remove the pressure. Bills still come. Costs still rise. Trade-offs still have to be made.

But with clearer habits and better decisions, those moments don’t have to spiral. They become choices instead of conflicts.

And the next time a simple plan turns into a difficult conversation, the issue is easier to see for what it is—not a lack of money, but a lack of clarity about how to use it.

Faith Wood is a professional speaker, author, and certified professional behaviour analyst. Before her career in speaking and writing, she served in law enforcement, which gave her a unique perspective on human behaviour and motivations. Faith is also known for her work as a novelist, with a focus on thrillers and suspense. Her background in law enforcement and understanding of human behaviour often play a significant role in her writing.

The post The trouble with money isn’t money. It’s not knowing what you can afford first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

The Roman Catholic Church is pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to portray military force as morally justified and, for the first time in decades, is acting as a clear moral check on political power.

As a Catholic who believes that every person is a sacred child of God, I have long been disillusioned by the failures of Church officials to confront political power when it justifies violence.

One defining moment of Pope John Paul II’s papacy was when he took a stand against the Soviet Empire in the 1980s. His message—“Be not afraid”—resonated first with people in his native Poland and became a significant factor contributing to the eventual demise of the Soviet Union.

However, that legacy of moral pushback has often been replaced by a quiet compliance, allowing modern political leaders to co-opt religious imagery for their own ends. For example, American Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has used language invoking divine justification to frame military action, citing scripture about God who “trains my hands for war,” while also using the military doctrine term “overwhelming violence of action” to describe how that force should be applied.

What has been missing is a Church willing to confront that justification directly and publicly.

That is now changing.

Like John Paul before him, Pope Leo XIV understands how political messaging works. As an American, he understands the culture he is challenging. In his Palm Sunday sermon, he rejected the idea that violence can be justified through religious language.

Timothy Broglio, who oversees Catholic ministry to U.S. armed forces, has also raised concerns about whether the conflict in Iran meets just war criteria. He advised Catholics involved in the fighting to minimize harm and preserve innocent lives.

And the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has reiterated that Catholic teaching allows war only in self-defence and as a last resort.

U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance personally delivered an invitation from Donald Trump to Pope Leo for the 250th anniversary of the founding of their country this year. The Pope rejected the offer, choosing instead to spend July 4 with people on the Italian island of Lampedusa, a key transit point for migrants crossing the Mediterranean.

That clarity has not been universal. Pope Leo, like his predecessor Pope Francis, has been outspoken in support of the rights of Palestinians. The current war in Gaza followed the October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel, in which civilians were killed and hostages taken, triggering a large-scale Israeli military response that has included sustained military operations in Gaza. Nearly two years later, the scale of human suffering in Gaza is undeniable. The Catholic Church in Canada took far too long to speak with the same clarity.

The Church will no longer lend moral cover to political power when it believes that power is being misused. When political leaders frame violence as righteous and necessary, and no major institution challenges that framing, it becomes easier to expand, justify, and normalize. That is how limits disappear. That is how civilians become collateral.

Now the Catholic Church is doing so, clearly, publicly and without apology.

Gerry Chidiac specializes in languages and genocide studies and works with at-risk students. He received an award from the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre for excellence in teaching about the Holocaust.

The post The Church is done being a PR tool for the White House first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Sitting at the head of my dining room table, my preferred place to write, and looking out across thousands of acres of early spring farmland bordering my southern Alberta ranch, I’m reminded of a truth that too many Canadians have forgotten.

These vast fields, still brown from winter but already humming with potential, are not just scenery. They are the foundation of every modern freedom we take for granted.

When I speak of industrial-scale agriculture, I’m referring to the extraordinary leap in productivity that began with Thomas Savery’s 1698 steam engine and continued through the Otto and Diesel cycles of the late 19th century, culminating in today’s modern tractor, my own capable of doing the work of 75 horses.

This mechanization didn’t merely make farming easier. It transformed how society functions.

Before the steam engine, it took roughly four farmworkers to produce enough surplus calories to support a single non-farmer. By the late 1800s and after a century of steam engine progress, one farmer could feed six to 10 others. Today, a modern farmer with their diesel-powered tractor feeds more than 100. This ratio makes possible every surgeon, engineer, teacher, software developer, and policy analyst in this country.

Anyone who has ever winter camped in the Rockies or lived a subsistence lifestyle knows the truth: without energy available on demand, such as oil, natural gas, or hydroelectric power, every minute of the day is consumed by the search for food and warmth. There is no time for social media, writing poetry, or medical school. Civilization begins where surplus energy begins.

That surplus arrived when a barrel of oil replaced a farmhand.

The internal combustion engine didn’t just transform agriculture; it transformed the human mind.

When machines took over the brute labour of survival, people were free to think about justice, rights, and dignity because fewer people were required to produce food, freeing others to pursue education, law, medicine, and public life. It is no coincidence that the mechanization of labour in the 18th and 19th centuries coincided with the rise of abolitionism, universal education, and the end of child labour in Britain.

From the Factory Act of 1802 to the Education Acts of the 1870s and finally the 1918 Education Act, Britain systematically dismantled child labour as a normal economic practice. While George Fox and the Quakers fought for equality, it was Savery’s steam engine and the cascade of mechanization that followed that made it possible. A society trapped in subsistence cannot afford moral ambition.

And yet, the very system that liberated humanity from unending toil is now treated with suspicion. Industrial agriculture is blamed for everything from climate change to the decline of rural communities. Some activists and politicians even claim Canadian farmers are as significant a climate threat as oil sands operators, a comparison so weak it would be laughable if it weren’t gaining political traction.

To be clear, industrial agriculture does have downsides, including the loss of traditional skills that once defined everyday life and the disappearance of many small diversified family farms across much of North America. Urban Canadians, many of whom have never planted a seed, have developed the belief that farmers are environmental villains.

But none of these changes alter the central fact: without industrial agriculture, modern life collapses.

That is why the modern climate debate often misses the point. Without hydrocarbons, the world would need billions more farm workers and billions fewer doctors, engineers, and teachers.

Mechanization didn’t just feed us. It freed us.

So when critics romanticize pre-industrial agriculture or demand policies that would shrink farm productivity in the name of climate virtue, they are not merely misunderstanding history. They are proposing to reduce the very surplus that makes modern freedom possible.

Canada should reject that vision.

Instead, we should build a new rural renaissance grounded in even greater productivity. That means strengthening technology, mechanization, and energy, the forces that created the surplus modern life depends on.

Canada’s rural renaissance reflects a broader North American shift since 2020 to rebuild rural economies by restoring local industry and producing more of our own food and resources. It emphasizes skilled trades, reliable energy, and modern infrastructure as the backbone of national resilience.

Rather than romanticizing a return to pre-industrial farming, it embraces advanced technology, mechanization, precision agriculture, and reliable energy to expand output and strengthen the systems that sustain modern life.

At its core, the rural renaissance argues that Canada’s future prosperity depends on increasing the productivity of the places that feed, fuel, and build the nation, a point reinforced during COVID-19, when supply chain disruptions exposed the risks of relying too heavily on distant production.

As I look out across these fields, I’m reminded that every acre represents a triumph of human ingenuity over scarcity.

Industrial agriculture is not a problem to be solved. The tractor in my yard does more than pull a plough. It pulls the entire weight of modern Canada.

Joseph Fournier is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The post Without agriculture, modern life collapses first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Interview requests

The oil industry in Canada made $6 billion in the first month of the war in Iran, three times more than it made in the month before the war started.

It is a textbook case of war profiteering. The cost of producing oil in Canada did not go up, nor did the industry get any more efficient or productive. It is simply raking in the proceeds of a global oil supply shock triggered by U.S. and Israeli aggression in the Middle East.

The situation is unlikely to return to normal any time soon, which means oil prices may stay high for months. At this rate, the industry will pocket $90 billion in profits over the next year, with much of it flowing to American shareholders.

Where is that money coming from? Over the next year, Canadians are on track to spend an extra $12 billion on gasoline alone, not to mention increased costs for home heating, groceries and other goods that depend on oil.

In other words, skyrocketing oil prices do not create profits out of thin air. They redistribute money away from consumers and businesses and into the pockets of oil companies.

The public will receive some benefits from the oil price shock due to increased royalty and tax payments. The Alberta government, in particular, has completely reversed its fiscal outlook for 2026. But the oil industry is still capturing the majority of these war-driven proceeds while consumers pay more.

The best option is a swift end to the war and the humanitarian crisis it has caused. The next best option is a windfall tax on oil industry war profiteering.

There is a recent precedent for this idea. In 2022, the federal government implemented a 15 per cent tax on the pandemic-era windfall profits of the financial sector. If the same tax were applied to the oil industry retroactively to March 1, it would raise $600 million immediately and as much as $9 billion over the next year.

But history offers a bolder model. In 1940, the federal government introduced a 75 per cent excess profits tax. It was explicitly intended to limit war profiteering and strengthen public spending.

If a similar approach were taken today, it could generate an extra $46 billion in public revenues over the next year, on top of regular royalties and taxes. In this scenario, the oil industry would still make $44 billion in profits. That’s hardly punitive.

There are many things the federal government could do with an extra $46 billion that would be more productive than lining the pockets of oil industry shareholders. For example, it could cover the majority of Canada’s $63 billion in new defence spending.

But the best approach would be to invest these proceeds in reducing our dependence on oil and, thus, our vulnerability to future oil shocks.

For example, $46 billion could build enough electric vehicle charging stations to meet decades of demand. Or it could make public transit free across the country for five to 10 years. Or it could pay for enough free electric heat pumps to replace every home heating oil and low-efficiency gas furnace in the country. Measures like these reduce structural demand for fuels, reducing long-term costs for consumers in a way that knee-jerk cuts to gas taxes do not.

Alternatively, $46 billion could drive significant economic diversification through investments in future-oriented industries, such as clean-tech manufacturing. Ironically, very high oil prices weaken the long-term outlook of the oil industry, as countries around the world accelerate their efforts to get off fossil fuels entirely. Doubling down on oil production now is the worst thing Canada could do.

For Canada’s oil regions, the current windfall could very well be the industry’s final boom.

Better not waste it.

Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood is a senior researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The post Middle East bloodshed shouldn’t line the pockets of oil executives first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

For interview requests, click here

As choral and instrumental music, accompanied by the soaring voice of a Polish soprano, filled the flower-decorated interior of Ottawa’s Notre Dame Basilica and wafted to its sky-blue, star-studded ceiling, Maria Knapik sat at one of the pews, listening with rapt attention.

It was the April 2 concert and musical tribute to the life and legacy of the beloved St. John Paul II, the first Polish pope in the history of the Catholic Church.

The concert, titled “In the Light of Peace” and co-hosted by the Embassy of Poland and the Archdiocese of Ottawa-Cornwall, paid tribute to the memory of St. John Paul II, who, as Pope John Paul II, was internationally recognized as the “pilgrim of peace” and canonized in 2014.

As the rays of the late evening sun filtered in through the stained-glass windows and reinforced the concert’s theme, “In the Light of Peace,” a flood of memories of her childhood in Poland and her family’s and friends’ interactions with St. John Paul II, then known as Karol Wojtyla, came back to Knapik.

Knapik is an internationally acclaimed opera singer herself who has won awards and accolades for her performances in some of the world’s most prestigious venues in Canada, the United States and Europe. A longtime resident of Ottawa, she is intimately associated with the annual concert celebrating the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II.

She was the soloist and the star of the show in 2006 at the inaugural Ottawa concert, held shortly after his canonization. Although not a performer in the 2026 edition, she has participated as the lead singer and has helped organize several subsequent concerts held each year in Ottawa to honour his legacy and mark the date when the Parliament of Canada designated April 2 as Pope John Paul Day in Canada. This was through a bill introduced by Wladyslaw Lizon, MP for Mississauga East-Cooksville, to honour John Paul II for promoting international understanding and peace.

Knapik also has fond personal memories of Karol Wojtyla, who assumed the name John Paul II when he was elected pope, during her childhood in Krakow. She remembers the time when he was auxiliary bishop, then Archbishop of Krakow, and was appointed cardinal in the late 1960s, then elected pope in 1978.

Knapik’s childhood was a happy one, when she and her seven sisters formed a musical group, not unlike the Von Trapp family in The Sound of Music, and toured all over Europe giving performances.

The youngest of the eight sisters, she remembers singing when Karol Wojtyla celebrated Mass at the Church of St. Nicolas, 60 km from the centre of Krakow, her family’s parish church, which has since then been elevated to cathedral status.

“After he became pope, he visited Poland eight times,” Knapik said. “We performed for the pope on his second visit.”

She was deeply honoured when the pope recognized her and her family personally and created for her what has become a treasured memory.

“When he came to Krakow as pope, the Curia (central administrative office of the Church that assists the pope) assigned us a place from which to see the pope’s motorcade,” she recalled. “As he drove through the streets of Krakow through cheering crowds, he saw us standing there as a family. He stopped his car, got out and talked to us.

“When he came close to us, I felt he was a holy man,” she added. “He had a special aura about him.”

She said when the pope was a young man, he was an artist with a penchant for theatre, poetry and the arts in general.

“As an artist myself, I could relate to him personally,” she said.

He was also well known for the informal way he interacted with young people, she continued.

“A friend of mine, Fr. Stefan, who I keep in touch with, is now in his 90s,” she said. “He was a professor of theology and remembers being taught and inspired by Wojtyla when he was in high school and came to give lectures to the students.”

Knapik said Fr. Stefan has shared with her some of his memories of Wojtyla.

“He had a special way with youth,” Fr. Stefan told her. “He would go hiking with us, and play sports with us, which was unusual in those times. It helped us to get closer to him and get inspired by his teaching.”

Ewa Warta, another friend of Knapik, has a touching story she shared with her.

“My friend Ewa’s mother-in-law remembers Wojtyla from the time he was a young priest in his very first parish in Niegowic (a town 50 km to the southwest of Krakow),” she said. “He was quite poor, and his coat could barely keep him warm in the bitterly cold winters. The people of the parish collected money to buy him a warmer coat and give it to him privately. But shortly after they gifted the new coat to him, they saw him wearing his old, threadbare one, and asked him what happened to the new one. He calmly answered that he had given it to a poor man who needed it more than he did.”

Knapik added that her friend’s mother-in-law remembers his generosity and kindness and his service to people in need.

The selection of music for the April 2 concert in Ottawa encapsulated many aspects of the saint’s extraordinary life, as priest, artist, mentor to children and youth and leader of the Catholic Church, that Knapik and her friends witnessed first-hand.

As Polish ambassador Witold Dzielski said: “Pope St. John Paul II—John Paul II—was a son of Poland, but in truth, he belonged to the world. Born in Wadowice, shaped by the tragedies of the Second World War and totalitarianism, he became a global voice of conscience, one who spoke to nations across continents, including here, in Canada. His pilgrimages to Canada—in 1984, 1987 and 2002—left a profound and lasting imprint. He spoke to Indigenous communities with humility and respect, he encouraged reconciliation and he reminded Canadians of the dignity of every human person.”

Susan Korah is Ottawa correspondent for The Catholic Register,  a Troy Media Editorial Content Provider Partner.

The post Our leaders lack the grit that made John Paul II a saint first appeared on Edmonton's Business.