Newcomers, Nutrition, and Canadian Politicians | The Walrus

"People seem tired and want someone steady and predictable instead of another politician full of grand ideas. But comfort is not the same as inspiration. When we start valuing competence above everything else, politics can begin to feel like maintenance work instead of a space for imagination. Things might run smoothly, but the sense of possibility starts to fade. A technocrat can fix problems, but a leader makes people believe in something."

"After I read Philippe J. Fournier's " Quebec Is a Lot More Canadian Than Sovereigntists Want to Admit," I saw Doug Ford start publicly soliciting Quebec doctors who are furious with their government. I have a hard time feeling proud to be Canadian. He's not using discreet recruitment tactics-he suggests people call his personal phone number as he attempts to poach doctors."

"I disagree with Timothy Caulfield's assertion in " Sure, Ultra-Processed Foods Are Bad. But How Does That Help Anyone? " that healthy eating is a "complex" issue. It's quite simple. We know what's good for us, not to mention the planet: local fruits and vegetables. Yet we subsidize the monocropping of crops like canola and the fossil fuel-based inputs needed to transport them. Remove these subsidies, subsidize local organic agriculture, and massively increase social supports for low-income people, especially children with their growing bodies."

Many Canadians appear fatigued and prefer a steady, predictable figure whose competence promises stability, but such a technocratic approach risks reducing politics to maintenance and diminishing imagination and shared purpose. Political opportunism is evident when provincial leaders publicly recruit frustrated doctors from other provinces, undermining national solidarity and prioritizing partisan gain over patient care. Dietary and agricultural policy choices favor monocrops and fossil-fuel-intensive systems, while healthier, local produce is under-supported. A policy shift that removes subsidies for monoculture, funds local organic agriculture, and expands social supports for low-income households, especially children, could improve public health and environmental outcomes.

Read at The Walrus