USA and Canada A Model for Business Recovery

Movendi is crucial in the discourse concerning alcohol policy both worldwide, as they formally cooperate with the World Health Organization, and locally, since its associate researchers are the authors of the CCSA report that has received so much criticism. Yes, the writers of the CCSA's alcohol report, which was sponsored with your tax dollars through Health Canada, are publicly associated with an international anti-alcohol organization whose primary purpose is to create an alcohol-free future.How do we know this? The CCSA report's writers, Tim Stockwell, Timothy Naimi, and Adam Sherk, have open affiliations to Movendi that anybody can see. For example, just two days after the CCSA study was published, Movendi's website featured an interactive summary of the report written by the same group of authors. In fact, these CSSA researchers state on their conflict of interest page that they are linked with Movendi International. While their disclaimer claims that they are Movendi volunteers, they have traveled on Movendi's dime to Movendi events in Sweden and are featured on the Movendi podcast, which raises awareness about the hazards of drinking. And how outspoken are these anti-alcohol activists and the organizations they represent? According to Movendi's own website, their members sign a pledge declaring that they "are required to lead a life free from the use of alcohol and other intoxicating drugs".

There is nothing wrong with opting to abstain from. 

alcohol and other intoxicating substances. To each their own. However, adopting one's personal opinion and passing it off as scientific at the expense of taxpayers, and then pushing the federal government for policy change, is a different story. Did taxpayers ask that their money be used to fund anti-alcohol lobbying? Certainly not.Imagine if the Government of Canada commissioned a study on the appropriate level of meat consumption, only to discover that the study's authors, after reaching what appears to be a predetermined conclusion, are outspoken vegans affiliated with anti-meat organizations such as People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Outrage would undoubtedly ensue, and the findings would be dismissed as nothing more than ideologically motivated pseudoscience. The good news for Canadians who drink is that, despite the headlines about the CCSA's study, it appears that the federal government is taking the research and the CCSA's ambiguous accounting with caution. As of now, Canada's low-risk guidelines remain at two drinks per day for women and three drinks per day for men—as they should be, given the negligible changes in absolute health risk that exist at this level of consumption. At the end of the day, these anti-alcohol advocates are simply trying to tax, ban, and regulate as much of your lives as possible. They are no more than the Fun Police.  

When Pierre Poilievre became Conservative Party leader almost exactly.

 

twelve months ago, many pundits (including me) assumed that a sizable portion of the country already had well-developed opinions about him and his policies.There was a sense that his teenage image as a so-called "attack dog" had spread beyond the parliamentary precinct to reach the general public, especially the elusive swing voters that Conservatives require to overcome the relative inefficiency of their national vote.Poilievre and his team claimed that the conventional assumptions were incorrect. Rather than confronting a hardened perception of him as a divisive political figure, the past year has seen him introduced to the majority of Canadians for the first time. A summer tour and a big advertising campaign were the most visible indications of this deliberate attempt to portray Poilievre's personal biography, principles, and political aspirations to the people. A recent sequence of polls—including ones that show his personal popularity rising—suggest that they were correct and the rest of us were mistaken.Last night's speech to the Conservative Party convention in Québec City must be interpreted as part of a larger effort to introduce Poilievre to voters. Viewed through this lens, it was a tremendously productive evening that should continue to raise awareness of Prime Minister Poilievre's developing potential.

It began with a bilingual introduction from his wife.

Anaida Poilievre, who has demonstrated some political "it" factor. Her personal tale blends so well with his own and his bigger message about what he refers to as Canada's "promise," that it was difficult to tell where her speech finished and his began. Last night, it was confirmed that she is a significant asset to her husband's political ambitions.Poilievre's speech, according to my reading, consisted of four important components. It's worth delving into each of them to better understand the concepts and messaging we can expect from him and the Conservatives between now and the next election.The first was an empirical critique of the Trudeau administration's record against the backdrop of mounting evidence of economic stagnation and social dysfunction. Poilievre used a variety of facts and proof points, such as crime rates, food bank use, housing costs, and public spending, to tell a stark but compelling picture about the country's dire status.It demonstrates his effectiveness as a political communicator. He has a unique ability to absorb Statistics Canada data releases, think-tank papers, and other primary source materials and compress them into a simple yet effective narrative—one that works in this case precisely because it connects to people's own perceptions of their personal economy and household circumstances.The second was a social mobility tale that drew on his and his wife's personal experiences. Anaida Poilievre's comments, particularly about working as a teenager at McDonald's, were a compelling indicator of who they are and the cultural and social milieu in which they grew up. It sends a message to middle-class Canadians across the country that they are truly one of them.