Reconciliation Cannot Be a Day on the Calendar

By Samer Majzoub

On Sept. 30, Canada will once again wear orange as communities across the country mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, honour residential-school Survivors, remember the children who never returned home, and reflect on a painful chapter of our history whose consequences continue to be felt by First Nations, Inuit and Métis families and communities.

These ceremonies, educational activities and expressions of solidarity are important. But they should also prompt a more difficult question: What happens after the orange shirts are put away and Oct. 1 arrives?

The National Day for Truth and Reconciliation was established in response to Call to Action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Its purpose goes beyond remembrance. It asks Canadians to confront the truth of what happened, listen to those who have carried its consequences and consider what responsibility follows from understanding that history.

Canada has become increasingly familiar with the language of reconciliation. We speak about it in Parliament, schools, workplaces and public ceremonies. Every September, we are reminded that “Every Child Matters.” The challenge is not whether we as Canadians recognize the importance of this day, but whether its meaning influences how we understand our responsibilities throughout the rest of the year.

The story behind Orange Shirt Day gives that responsibility a deeply human dimension. Phyllis Webstad has spoken about arriving at a residential school as a six-year-old wearing a new orange shirt that was taken away from her. Her experience inspired the Orange Shirt Society and the phrase “Every Child Matters.”

The history behind that message belongs firmly to Indigenous peoples and must remain grounded in the voices of Survivors and their communities. Yet the principle itself presents a challenge every Canadian can understand: if every child matters, dignity cannot be conditional; and if every person deserves respect, that respect cannot depend on belonging to the majority.

This does not mean drawing simplistic comparisons between the experience of Indigenous peoples and that of other communities. The history of residential schools is unique, and reconciliation must remain grounded in Indigenous history, rights and leadership. But we can learn from that history by understanding what can happen when institutions and societies treat cultural, linguistic or religious differences as something to control or erase rather than respect.

That lesson matters in today’s Canada, a country shaped by Indigenous peoples, generations of immigrants, dated to before the Confederation establishment in 1867, and communities with different languages, cultures and faiths. Diversity is not simply a demographic fact; it is part of our Canadian reality. Social cohesion requires more than asking people from different backgrounds to live beside one another. It requires listening, recognizing one another’s dignity and understanding that belonging to Canada should not depend on sharing the same history, culture or beliefs as the majority.

For those who did not experience residential schools or their intergenerational consequences, the appropriate response is not to speak over Survivors or place our own experiences at the centre. It is to listen, learn and recognize that knowledge brings responsibility.

That responsibility extends beyond government. Reconciliation cannot be achieved through declarations, ceremonies or symbolic gestures alone. It is built through everyday decisions in classrooms, institutions, workplaces and community, whether we choose understanding over ignorance, dialogue over division and dignity over exclusion.

This is why Sept. 30 should not be simply another date on the Canadian calendar. Wearing orange is meaningful. Attending an event is meaningful. Learning the history of residential schools is essential. But the deeper purpose is to ensure that what we learn does not remain confined to one day each year.

The real measure of reconciliation will not be the number of orange shirts worn on Sept. 30 or statements issued that day. It will be reflected over time in our willingness to listen to Indigenous communities, confront uncomfortable truths and build institutions and communities where dignity and respect are extended to all.

Truth asks us all, Canadians, to remember the past honestly. Reconciliation asks us what we will do with that truth in the present.

The orange shirt is a powerful reminder, but it is only a symbol. The greater responsibility is what we do after we take it off.

Quebec’s Political Map in Motion: What the Latest Poll Suggests

Note: This point of view is based on polling released on April 15, 2026. The source link is included at the end of the piece.

*Samer Majzoub

The latest polling conducted by Pallas Data and analyzed by Qc125 suggests a significant reshuffling in Quebec’s political landscape. According to the survey discussed in L’actualité, the Parti libéral du Québec has moved into first place with roughly around 32% support, while the Parti Québécois has slipped slightly and now trails by a few points. At the same time, support for the governing Coalition Avenir Québec has fallen sharply, placing it roughly on par with the Parti conservateur du Québec and well behind the two leading parties.

Taken together, these numbers point to a broader transition in Quebec politics. The PQ remains competitive, but its slight decline suggests that some of its earlier surge may have been fueled by protest votes during the CAQ’s decline rather than a deep ideological shift toward sovereignty. Meanwhile, the Liberals appear to be benefiting from a gradual return of voters seeking a more traditional federalist option, particularly in urban and diverse regions.

The CAQ’s drop reflects a degree of fatigue with a long-governing party and a fragmentation of its previous coalition, with its former supporters dispersing across multiple parties rather than consolidating behind a single alternative. In this context, the Conservatives maintain a noticeable presence as a protest-oriented force that could influence electoral dynamics even if their seat prospects remain uncertain.

Overall, the survey suggests that Quebec is entering a more fluid and competitive political phase in which voters are still searching for a clear direction, making the next election increasingly unpredictable and potentially reshaping the balance between federalist and sovereigntist forces in the province

A look at the latest poll; Close in Popular Vote, Divided by Regions: Quebec’s Political Race Tighten

By Samer Majzoub

The latest Quebec political polling suggests a highly competitive race between the Parti Québécois and the Quebec Liberal Party, with both parties nearly tied in the popular vote. However, this apparent deadlock masks an important electoral reality: vote distribution may matter more than overall support.

The Parti Québécois continues to benefit from stronger backing in regional ridings, which could translate into a disproportionate share of seats under Quebec’s electoral system. In contrast, the Liberals are gaining significant momentum, particularly in urban centres, but have yet to fully convert that support into a clear seat advantage.

Another key variable is the internal evolution of the Coalition Avenir Québec. Its upcoming leadership dynamics, on April 12, 2026, could reshape the race. A victory by Jean-François Drainville could accelerate the party’s decline, potentially benefiting both leading parties indirectly. On the other hand, a win by Christine Fréchette might draw support away from the Liberals, tightening the contest further.

Despite the CAQ’s weakening position, it remains a pivotal factor in determining the final outcome. Its voters could ultimately decide which of the two leading parties gains the upper hand.

At its core, the race is shaping into a broader political and ideological contest: a Liberal Party advocating for stability within Canada, versus a Parti Québécois promoting Quebec sovereignty. With several months still ahead, the trajectory of voter shifts and how they are distributed across the province will be decisive.

Lutte à deux PQ-PLQ: Legault sauve les meubles avant de partir | TVA Nouvelles

OPINION | Two Mindsets at the Table: The Businessman and the Economist

By Samer Majzoub

In an era when the outcome of a single negotiation can shift the course of markets, shape public confidence, or redraw trade lines, the mindset of the negotiator often matters as much as the substance of the agreement itself. Two familiar approaches stand out in public life and private boardrooms alike: the mindset of the seasoned entrepreneur and that of the careful economist.

The businessman’s perspective is shaped by experience in competitive markets, brand building, and deal making where results are visible and immediate. This style is assertive and pragmatic, relying on direct pressure, clear leverage, and a willingness to test limits in pursuit of favourable terms. It often treats negotiation as a contest in which decisive action and a clear win can break impasses and deliver quick results.

The economist’s approach, by contrast, draws on an analytical view of how decisions echo through broader systems. Guided by data, risk analysis, and long term considerations, this mindset values balance, stability, and the resilience of the institutions involved. For the economist, the best agreements are rarely dramatic or headline grabbing. Instead, they are designed to be durable, reasonable, and unlikely to produce unintended consequences that could undermine their benefits in the years to come.

These contrasting instincts each offer strengths and carry risks. A forceful push for immediate gain can break deadlocks, but if not carefully designed, may unravel later under pressure. An overly cautious approach may safeguard stability but struggle to deliver timely breakthroughs when urgency is needed. In practice, the best outcomes often emerge when the discipline of careful analysis meets the momentum of decisive action.

When these two ways of thinking find common ground, negotiations can lead to solutions that serve all parties more sustainably. A clear drive to secure tangible benefits, balanced by thoughtful planning and risk management, can help ensure that agreements do not simply deliver short term advantage, but also stand the test of time.

As global economic challenges grow more complex, leaders in both public policy and business would do well to remember that sustainable deals depend on more than a firm handshake or a headline announcement. They require the patience to weigh trade offs, the courage to act boldly when the moment demands it, and above all, the wisdom to keep tomorrow’s consequences firmly in view when decisions are made today.