The Business of Sports Entertainment in the USA A Billion-Dollar Industry

This accomplishment in integrating immigrants and visible minorities is reinforced by migration acceptability results from a 2019 poll. It discovered that, among 145 countries, Canada is the most receptive of migrants, with an acceptance rate around five times that of the least hospitable countries for immigrants worldwide. Another indicator of success is the level of social peace among the majority of Canadians.The foregoing is positive. But returning to the subject of how to bring people from different backgrounds together around a common set of good ideasGiven that Canada's population will become increasingly ethnically diverse, and depending on the assumptions of incoming immigrants, traditional Canadian norms may be eroded or reinforced. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, humanity's history has been characterized by the testing and exchange of ideas. He observes that a major feature in the economic and other characteristics of a successful cohort or country is "the cultural receptivity of different peoples" to tested, true, and effective ideas on both a broad, country-wide and individual scales.It is vital for current and future Canadians to unify around concepts that promote human freedom and flourishing while rejecting inferior beliefs that can lead to the opposite outcome. That necessity offers an implicit and positive case for all Canadians to focus on admirable principles that everyone can agree on rather than unchangeable identities.Mark Milke is the president of the Aristotle Foundation, and Ven Venkatachalam is a research scholar who writes about public policy issues. 

This chapter is an excerpt from the Aristotle Foundation's 

new book, The 1867 Project: Why Canada Should Be Cherished—Not Cancelled, which features 20 authors and is edited by Mark Milke.It has become fashionable in political writing to lament our lack of state capacity, which means that our government no longer possesses the expertise to carry out difficult tasks such as adopting a new payroll system or operating a safe and efficient transportation system. We cannot even consider highly ambitious endeavors since we are incapable of performing demanding but routine tasks. We couldn't even think about creating a new Trans-Canada railway—we can barely twin an existing pipeline over one and a half provinces. But there is another political issue that is nearly as crippling as state incapacity: state impotence. Even when a problem and its remedy are obvious and the government has the resources, our leaders remain paralyzed, not unable but unwilling to act. Our ruling class, due to a mix of moral cowardice and intellectual disorientation, is hesitant to utilize state authority to protect citizens and maintain civil order. And a government plagued by state ineptitude and impotence, one that refuses or is unable to employ the power it possesses, is no better than a government devoid of power, which is nonexistent.In 1956, with the British government suffering lethargy at home and humiliation abroad, the 

Daily Telegraph seized on Prime Minister Anthony 

Eden's favorite gesture: "To underline a point, he will clench one fist to smash the open palm of the other hand—but the smack is hardly heard. "Most Conservatives are waiting to hear the sound of firm government." The expression resurfaced in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher's government was regarded as delivering an equally strong corrective when the situation needed it. It is time to renew the sentiment, if not the words. We need governments that are not afraid to use power: the capacity to enforce the law and enact new laws when needed; the power to insist on order and, when necessary, impose it This is the second of two companion pieces, the first focusing on recent French civic upheaval and the second on civil deterioration in Canada, both of which call for governments to shake themselves out of their political stupor and restore order.A Return to Order in CanadEven the shrinking number of partisans who still reject the assertion that Canada is broken must acknowledge that it certainly appears and feels that way. Life in Canadian cities has become notably rougher, uglier, and more aggressive in recent years. Victoria, where I grew up, was once recognized for its civic beauty, but now has parks and city blocks that would be considered disgraceful in the third world. It doesn't help that this street-level squalor has spread incongruously in the shadow of gleaming new glass and steel apartment towers, each of which contributes to a growing sense of social division and alienation in what was, until recently, primarily a human-scale city of wood, stone, and brick.

It's the same story in my Calgary neighborhood

where a drug consumption facility has been a magnet for crime and misbehavior since it opened in 2018.1 The new UCP government (for which I worked) vowed to close it down in 2019, but it remains, and the neighborhood has degraded noticeably, even as a hyaline forest of condominium towers has risen up around it. Last week, I walked into Calgary's Central Memorial Park, a masterpiece of urban architecture, and every single park bench was filled by a sleeping or unconscious derelict. The closely groomed grass served as a parking lot for overflowing shopping carts, while the flowerbeds were littered with abandoned squares of scorched tin foil.This problem is not limited to Canada. Cities ranging from Los Angeles and New York to London and Paris are just as terrible, if not worse. Portland, Oregon, another historically lovely city where I briefly lived in the early 2000s, today matches Vancouver as a progressive breeding ground for societal problems. However, a global problem cannot be solved at a global level; each city and province must tend to its own garden. awful policies in Portland or San Francisco do not justify similarly awful practices in Canadian cities. Imitation may be the truest form of flattery, but when it comes to local administration, it may also be the deadliest kind of inaction.