From Silicon Valley to Toronto Innovations Changing the Business Landscape

The answer is, of course they do. That is why so many people do it every day.However, this does not imply that they should do it alone.When boarding a plane, flight attendants usually remind parents that, in the event of an emergency, they should put on their own oxygen masks before assisting their children with theirs. This is not ageism. It's because we need parents to be healthy so they can continue to help their children as needed. The same logic applies here. We as a society do not provide oxygen masks to our caregivers, despite the fact that they devote countless hours to giving crucial care to their loved ones. We could lose some if we don't.According to Rosalynn Carter, America's former First Lady, "There are only four kinds of people in the world—those that have been caregivers, those that are caregivers, those who will be caregivers, and those who will need caregivers."As you read this, you may be caring for an elderly family member or a loved one who has a handicap or chronic illness. You might need to rely on someone as a caretaker. Even if you do not now fit into this category, you are likely to do so at some point in your life. According to statistics, half of our life will be spent caring for others. 

So join the conversation! Check out the latest summit updates. 

Also, talk to your elected representative about what they're doing to help caregivers. Together, we can ensure that caregivers receive the necessary support to continue doing what is most important: caring for those we love. As news spread that Hamas terrorists had attacked Israel, and it became evident that Israel would have to fight back, pro-Israel activists anticipated Canadian reactions with apprehension. It should come as no surprise that Zionists are concerned about the response of progressive Canada, especially its top political representatives in the Liberal and New Democratic parties.However, it may surprise some—particularly those who oversimplify and caricature the Canadian Right—to learn that pro-Israel supporters were concerned about how conservatives and their political representatives in the Conservative Party might react. It should be easy to understand why. For at least a decade, and longer in the United States, the three-legged stool that supported a coherent, long-lasting right-of-center electoral coalition—fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and foreign policy hawks—has been knocked down. Intra-conservative ideological debates have split in two, pitting inward-looking populists against globalist elites, and leaving advocates for assertive foreign policy—such as a strong support for Israel—concerned that when the going gets tough, populist conservatives will be indifferent, or worse, opposed. 

The split response of American Republicans to the war in Ukraine exemplifies 

this dynamic. Broad-based support for Ukraine among conservative commentators, political leaders, and the party's base has been shaky since the beginning of the initial invasion, and as the conflict continues, there are growing calls, however incoherent, from some corners of the American Right for the withdrawal of all aid. Would the West's hostility to all forms of international participation extend to its approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict?However, concern over this issue was short-lived, at least at home. By and large, Canadian conservatives have responded in sympathy with Israel, supporting its right to self-defense, condemning Hamas terrorists, demanding the return of Israeli hostages, and combating alarming antisemitic rhetoric. While a decade of domestic economic and cultural turmoil drove conservatives apart, pitting social conservatives against fiscal conservatives and blue-collar populists against corporate institutionalists, high-stakes geopolitical turmoil—and all of its moral consequences—brought the conservative coalition together while driving progressives apart.

Only a few years ago, while Donald Trump was running the United States 

and the United Kingdom was leaving the European Union, young Canadian conservatives were doubting everything we had been taught about ideological coherence and political success. As free trade and new technology decimated domestic manufacturing, our intellectual forefathers' pro-globalization, anti-labor stance seemed out of date. As inflation surged as a result of poor monetary policy, and civil liberties were violated during the worldwide pandemic, our faith and trust in institutions that were so important to our traditions grew hollow.Canadian conservatives were aware that the answers did not rest in the Liberals' or NDP's big-spending, high-regulation economic policies or virtue-signaling, equity-protecting social programs, but we failed to offer a cohesive and appealing alternative. Conservatives have split along ideological lines over three leadership races, struggling to develop a unified, relevant vision in the interim. Pierre Poilievre eventually developed a persuasive synthesis: a FreeCon attack on big spending and a NatCon attack on the Left's woke cultural war, attracting libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives to his coalition while defeating his leadership contest adversaries. Poilievre's mastery of the Conservative Party, as well as the irrelevance of the right-wing PPC, demonstrate the effectiveness of his synthesising political program. It's not obvious that the synthesis was unavoidable, especially given American conservatives' inability to agree on leadership in the House of Representatives, let alone select a unifying Republican party nominee, so his broad coalition should be welcomed.However, throughout and after Poilievre's great success, a certain type of critic has persisted.