Canadian News

Workers in Metro Vancouver have chiselled away about 50 tonnes of so-called "fatbergs" that have clogged the sewer system and prompted a reminder to residents not to dump grease down the drain.

The Quebec Liberal Party and doctors are asking the Coalition Avenir Québec government to include reimbursement for obesity medications in the public plan and to recognize obesity as a chronic disease. Read More

The head of the RCMP says the Mounties have strong evidence showing the “highest levels” of the Indian government were involved in orchestrating a campaign of violence and intimidation on Canadian soil.

The former student who pleaded guilty in the 2023 stabbing rampage at the University of Waterloo told his sentencing hearing Friday he apologizes to "anyone who might be affected" by his actions. Geovanny Villalba Aleman, 25, spoke on the fifth and final day of proceedings in Kitchener, Ont. He'll learn his fate in January.

The man who pleaded guilty in December to drugging and sexually abusing 13 women, while he recorded his crimes on a cell phone, is facing the likelihood of a lengthy prison sentence. Read More

Laurent Courtois has become the focal point of CF Montréal's development project, and the 46-year-old head coach will have the opportunity to continue the work he started. Read More

Anglophone Quebecers are being urged to turn out in large numbers for school board elections, with voting scheduled for the next two Sundays. Read More

Authorities in Poland have arrested four people in connection with an alleged plot to mail explosives to Canada and the United States.

A new $63-million, 13-storey affordable student housing building in the heart of downtown Montreal was officially launched Friday, with $1.5 million in seed money coming from McGill's student union. Read More

In a ruling, state District Court Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer stood by her July decision to dismiss an involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin.

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem said productivity has been a longstanding problem in Canada, which is a risk to GDP and can add to inflationary pressures.

A Canadian mother of six who was deemed a security risk and refused permission to come home by the federal government has died suddenly in Turkey, says her lawyer.

The Ontario coroner will hold an inquest starting Nov. 18 into the 2016 death of Abdirahman Abdi, 37, who died following a confrontation with police in Ottawa's west end. Read More

In August 2023, Raphaël Bots was a healthy, athletic 17-year-old about to start his second year of CEGEP. He was on the last leg of a European vacation with his family when, out of the blue, he started experiencing strange and, initially, mild symptoms. Read More

Ontario Provincial Police are investigating after a nine-year-old girl was killed when the all-terrain vehicle she was riding rolled over in a ditch near the town of Ardoch, Ont., about 130 kilometres west of Ottawa. Read More

Construction on 2 sections of the Deerfoot Trail Improvement Project are now complete with 6 more to go before its completed sometime in 2027.

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has recently released a series of political ads in an effort to continue to position himself as the politician who will save Canadians from the Liberals.  

Since becoming leader he has frequently invoked the struggles of ordinary Canadians in heated speeches and many of his policy proposals, and his new ad campaign reinforces those narratives while he tries to portray himself as an average Canadian sharing their everyday problems. But Canadian voters need to be cautious about buying into his “ordinary Canadian” charade because he is anything but that.

The glaring contrast between Poilievre’s lifestyle and that of the average citizen raises significant questions about his understanding of the struggles of the middle or working class. It has become increasingly evident, since before he became Conservative leader, that he is ensconced within the elite ranks of society, with little appreciation or true understanding of the daily realities faced by the vast majority of Canadians.

To understand Poilievre’s disconnect from average Canadians all we have to do is look at the last 20 years of his life. His first job out of university was working for Canadian Alliance party leader Stockwell Day until he was elected as a Member of Parliament at the age of 25. Since his entry into Parliament he has enjoyed a level of financial security that today places him in the top one per cent of income earners in Canada. His current salary as Opposition Leader is $299,900 per year – a substantial figure that exceeds the average annual income of most Canadians multiple times over. Additionally, in comparison to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, who both had careers outside of politics before being elected, Poilievre has never held a job where taxpayers didn’t pay his salary and benefits, thus making him a professional politician.

Moreover, Poilievre’s current living arrangements amplifies the economic disparity between him and the vast majority of Canadians. Residing in Stornoway, the publicly owned mansion for the leader of the Official Opposition, he enjoys the perks of a lavish lifestyle without having to pay any of the associated household costs – rent, hydro, phone, internet, gas, maintenance, etc. In addition, he has an annual entertainment and hospitality budget of $166,000, a figure that would raise the eyebrows of many financially challenged voters at whom his political appeals are directed. This lack of a personal financial burden common to most Canadians, combined with his publicly funded household staff – including a chef, housekeeper, and groundskeeper – places him in a realm of privilege and comfort inaccessible to the vast majority in Canada.

It is not only Poilievre’s financial situation that disqualifies him from truly understanding the struggles of the average Canadian, but also the systemic privilege inherent to his role. With a government-owned SUV at his beck and call, a chauffeur, and a 24-hour security detail, his life encapsulates an elite lifestyle alien to all but the richest in Canada. It shows an undeniable disconnect between those struggling under the burden of rising costs in housing, groceries, and other necessities, and a man rooted in a world of extreme privilege and financial security.  

While it’s understandable why such expenditures would be necessary for the prime minister, Canadians should ask why such taxpayer funded privileges are provided to the Poilievre when no other parliamentary democracy like Canada’s provides similar benefits and financial support to their Opposition leaders.

Poilievre’s rhetoric also often critiques what he describes as “elites” and “gatekeepers” yet he embodies the characteristics of the very segments of society he condemns. Historically Conservatives have advocated a handful of policies during election campaigns that would address the concerns of the majority, but once elected to government most of their policy initiatives often promote corporate interests along with fiscal conservatism, as well as undoing progressive policies of the previous government, which are traditionally aligned with wealthy and privileged segments of society. This proclivity of Conservatives to favour the interests of elites suggests a compulsive inability to understand the challenges faced by average Canadians.

As Canadian voters express their frustration with the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government, and with polls putting him as much as 20 percentage points behind Poilievre, many may be tempted to look towards the Opposition leader as a viable alternative. However, doing so would perpetuate a cyclical elitism that fails to significantly improve the lives of the vast majority. Poilievre’s status as a professional politician, his privileged lifestyle, and his political ideology going back to his time in the Stephen Harper government, reveals an affinity for the concerns of the privileged and powerful rather than a genuine connection to the issues and interests of Canadians far removed from his reality.

Poilievre’s ascent to political elite status and his very privileged lifestyle over the last two decades contrast starkly with the realities faced by most voters. Since he never accumulated the middle-class experiences that would help him relate to the issues important to the bottom 95 per cent of Canadians one has to wonder: how can he relate to that segment of the Canadian electorate? As voters consider their options in anticipation of an election expected within the coming year it is crucial to recognize that supporting Poilievre could be detrimental to their own interests. Those seeking to lead Canada should be able to understand the struggles of average Canadians, uplift them and address their pressing needs – qualities not embodied in Poilievre’s political narrative, his policies or the elitist life he has led his entire adult life.

The post Pierre Poilievre’s claim to understand the struggles of average Canadians is a political ploy rooted in deceit appeared first on rabble.ca.

The question of anti-Semitism, specifically who is an anti-Semite and what constitutes anti-Semitism headlines the news. And in so doing, it is treated as a more or less straightforward question. However, with the appearance on the scene of Laura Loomer, Donald Trump’s latest political paramour, we find an important twist to this story that needs exposing. 

Loomer shot to fame with her outrageous accusations that Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating pet dogs and cats. And while we may all be getting a hearty laugh because of the absurdity of such claims, this overlooks the serious danger such accusations pose because of their apparent political success. 

More importantly for us, while Loomer currently is recognized for her promotion of  such loony conspiracy theories, that are rightly dismissed by mainstream journalists, what is kept separate and sits in virtual obscurity is her prior political activism that centered around her accusations of anti-Semitism. And what gets excluded from the media conversation might be just as dangerous as what routinely gets paraded for ridicule. 

In fact Loomer’s prior activities as a Jewish activist were just as radically extremist reflecting her messianic views of a greater Israel and while pronouncing herself a “proud Islamophobe. Yet we do not see them being condemned quite as quickly or as often even though they long pre-date her pairing up with Donald Trump.  And her candidacy in Florida, as a far right Republican challenging a more mainstream liberal Jewish Democrat, resulted in a loss, suggesting that her prospective constituents, mostly Jewish, apparently rejected her extremist agenda.

So while her wild conspiracy theories are publicly on display and routinely dismissed, her accusations of anti-Semitism, no less reckless, are hidden from view of the wider general public. And the significance of this for Canada is manifold. 

In Canada we see how the focus on anti-Semitism is framed by the creation of MP Anthony Housefather’s special Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The title/mandate for that committee reads as follows: “(Antisemitism and Additional Measures that Could be Taken to Address the Valid Fears that are Being Expressed by Canada’s Jewish Community) 

Now normally, on such occasions, where we would see an urgency to create such a committee, we’d have a debate. But in this instance the debate is foreclosed, as the entire discussion is first guarded and guided by the way the very mandate of the committee is worded. 

Second, that frame is undergirded by the long discredited definition of anti-Semitism as provided by  the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of anti-Semitism (the IHRA) that conflates anti-Semitism with criticisms of Israel. 

The third way the question is managed is through the lobbying efforts of various agencies that directly or indirectly represent the viewpoint of the Netanyahu government and claim the mantle of spokespersons for the “Jewish community”. These efforts are handsomely rewarded by the media, providing unlimited access and not a smidgen of critical pushback.

The asserted relevance of this definition has of course been heightened because of the horrific events of October 7th, 2023, with the attack by Hamas on Israeli Kibbutzim that bordered Gaza. But the definition, as well as the challenge to it, pre-dates October 7, as does the far more reasonable definition as provided by Jerusalem Declaration. 

Therein a far broader perspective that recognizes universal declarations of human rights is adopted, and where they criticize the IHRA definition for causing controversy and confusion. Most importantly, they identify the stereotypical ways in which Jews have traditionally been identified. But again, while the former definition has risen to great prominence, in the West, the latter, more well reasoned one remains in obscurity. 

And it’s not as if the acceptance of the IHRA that stubbornly persists has no ill effects. Its acceptance has led directly to incoherent policy offerings and decisions made by public institutions concerning hiring and firing of prominent academics and human rights activists, both here and in the US. But the cameo appearance in this scene by Laura Loomer should help us bring this question into sharper focus. 

A chance encounter with a right wing religious conservative Jewish colleague 25 years ago helped understand how to put into the context the public debate that has unfolded since October 7. Its concerns include the legitimacy of the state of Israel, the nature of its response to the Hamas attack, the manner in which the West has come to Israel’s defense, and finally, how we do or should define anti-Semitism. 

In my encounter with my colleague I happened to mention in passing that I felt that as Jewish scholars, the issue of the “occupation” of the West Bank needed at least a mention.  In the course of disputing my reference to the West Bank as ‘occupied’ my colleague countered that these were not “occupied” but were “disputed” territories. This was the first time I had heard such a rejoinder and while I found it quite shocking, I believed at the time that it hardly constituted either a mainstream view or the view of the majority of Jews, and in particular Jewish academics. 

But then my colleague continued recounting a sad tale of how, as a religious conservative, they were persecuted by secular “leftist” professors. While my experience was the total opposite, and while I was momentarily jolted by this rejoinder, I had little fear that her position was to be thought of as anything other than quite extreme. But far from remaining an obscure and marginal point of view, today it has risen to a point of great acceptance, both in Israel and de facto here in Canada. And there can be no better indication of this than in the wording of the Housefather’s sub committee’s mandate and its apparent reliance upon the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. 

The issue at hand is that the very wording of the mandate itself begs the question, as to what constitutes a “valid” fear and hence a valid complaint of anti-Semitism, as it seems to draw conclusions, a priori, concerning the “validity”, of the accusations of it is seemingly mandated to assess or, potentially worse, accept. For the wording of the mandate itself seems to have the implied intent of eliciting all manner of accusations, whether legitimate or wildly speculative, be they mere smear tactics, or even those politically motivated.  

Quite unlike other instances, where very serious matters of human rights allegations or racism are at hand, there is here no mechanism attached where one would normally expect to find due process, where we would see an effective vetting process for determining even the plausibility of the claims. So let’s look at what we’re really talking about here.  

Here, it is not a matter of dismissing any and all accusations of anti-Semitism out of hand. But nor are we talking about clear-cut cases here, such as the firebombing of Jewish institutions or gunshots being fired at Jewish schools. It’s more a question of fielding claims that are very serious in their accusatory assertions, where due diligence is, or should be, the order of the day for ensuring that such serious accusations are truly valid. And as these are potentially very damaging accusations, one would expect to find evidence gathering, and of witnesses being called, some of whom may be permitted to dispute such claims, where all this would have in fact been investigated and found to have at least some merit. Instead what we seem to have is a shorthand version of the current Israeli government’s version of anti-Semitism, that “Israel has the right to exist” or “defend itself”, and that anyone disagreeing with current Israeli policies is an anti-Semite. The point is that here we find the potential for great liberties to be taken, such as those taken by Laura Loomer. 

 And indeed this proto genuflected repetition of the phrase that “Israel has the right to defend itself” seems to have become the litmus test while this is hardly ever the essential question at hand, as if anyone officially or unofficially would question that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. Yet any opinions that contradict this now clichéd version in any way, are consequently now exclusively put into a special category of “racism”, by the Housefather committee, where this litmus test, of loyalty to one set of beliefs, is itself protected against criticism, legitimate or not.  

So let’s look for a moment at Netanyahu’s most recent allegations. First, we have Netanyahu’s accusation that the UN’s ruling that Israel must return the occupied territories of the West Bank is “absurd” on its face and anti-Semitic as, by implication it failed to recognize that the West Bank has always belonged to “the Jewish people”, implying that it was given to them by God. However, one can be quite certain, that as a matter of public policy the majority of Jews, especially in the Diaspora, but likely even in Israel, would not go along with such an extreme assertion.  

That does not prevent selective Jewish agencies and lobby organizations, all of whom are affiliated, directly or indirectly with the Netanyahu government, from asserting, when regularly called upon by the media to offer their opinions, that they are spokespeople for some fictive “Jewish community”, presumably of like-minded people in echoing Netanyahu’s sentiments.      

But in Netanyahu’s views, we find, as with Trump, Loomer and indeed Poilievre, a longstanding visceral hatred of the left.  (Poilievre recently accused Justin Trudeau of being “wokish” and a Hamas sympathizer.)  Netanyahu’s own hatred indeed extends to Labour Zionism and especially its promise of a peaceful co-existence, with many still holding the view that Netanyahu did whatever he could to sabotage the prospect of peace with Palestinians because it meant giving up territory he asserted belonged to Jews of the Bible.  In fact, many still hold him responsible for at least an indirect involvement in the assassination of then PM Yitzhak Rabin who was murdered celebrating the forging of a peace accord with Yasser Arafat.  The important point to note here is the relevance of Netanyahu’s and the others’ disdain and visceral hatred of the so-called “left”. This hatred of the left includes a hatred of left-wing Jews, pacifist Jews, Reform Jews, secular Jews, and indeed the many others who would not be in agreement with this messianic view of Israel. This has prompted me to suggest that people like Netanyahu are in fact the biggest Jew-haters on the planet, if sheer numbers tell the tale.

Given how commonly this position on anti-Semitism is now considered to be normal and reasonable, we must ask if the mandate for Housefather’s special committee on anti-Semitism will singularly elicit very similar points of view. And if so, should the entire mandate of the subcommittee be questioned, for should it ever be the case where somebody in disagreement with Netanyahu’s policies is accused of being an anti-Semite on any such grounds? 

Further, Housefather’s sub committee’s mandate will likely include making recommendations to the House of Commons, presumably with the idea in mind of enacting legislation. But then we have to ask what expertise the House has in deciding how to enact such legislation, and what indeed is their record for dealing with such sensitive matters. And if recent events in Parliament have any determination in deciding this, the answer would be zero.

There is perhaps no better a indication of this incompetence than the recent  incident where Jaroslav Hunka, a former fighter on the side of the Nazis during Word War 2 was invited to be a guest in the House gallery on the occasion when President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, himself of Jewish descent, was to address the House. Ultimately this embarrassing set of circumstances was blamed on a poor vetting process and the speaker was held responsible and paid for this alleged “mistake” with his job. 

But what was judiciously overlooked was the fact that the recommendation to invite this person would surely have had to come from the executive of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee. That they would make such a recommendation was never called into question. 

But as it became transparently clear, Hunka was invited in the Cold War spirit of displaying opposition to the Soviet Union of old (regardless of our views on the current war). And while the entire affair showed an abysmal lack of historical understanding of the events of WW2, we were later reminded that Ukrainians who fought on the side of the Nazis were given a clear pathway to Canadian citizenship after the war.

The bottom line is that in these dual respects, the House of Commons and the government of Canada can hardly be relied upon to properly handle the question of ant-Semitism especially if a lack of a vetting process for determining the validity of accusations may similarly plague Housefather’s subcommittee.

All that said, one must question the whole manner in which the media covers this question. For when the media helps us laugh at Loomer’s racist tale of cats and dogs it completely ignores, or essentially countenances, the fanaticism and inaccuracy of equating any criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism. And therein, a great disservice is being done.

While it should be taken for granted that threats of violence and displays of support for Hitler are beyond the pale, what about peaceful demonstrations or the wearing of a Kefiyah that some Jews find threatening? What exactly does the acceptance of often gratuitous accusations of anti-Semitism do aside from aggravate hostilities, while ignoring possible remedies and amplifying and legitimizing perceptions as “valid fears” that have no basis in reality.  

What about a disagreement with a strident zealous true believer who may be a teacher or a colleague? What about the possibility that some Palestinians might perceive the Star of David as threatening? And what of the stereotypes we see and hear of an Orthodox Jew praying at the Western Wall, while Hava Nagila is playing? And why can the media only find a bellicose Rabbi with questionable attitudes towards the other to represent all Jews?  Would we tolerate this nonsense, if, for example, reactionary Priests were exclusively accessed to address accusations against Catholic church policies, not to mention if an orthodox Imam were similarly interviewed to say, defend – fill in the blank.  

And what of the many instances where Palestinian students have warm relations with Jewish professors who are empathetic to their concerns? What about Rabbis for Human Rights or more liberal reform rabbis, both male and female? What about the vast majority of the Jewish population that is neither a Rabbi, a religious zealot nor a member of a lobby group affiliated with the current Israeli government? What about the recognition that the agencies the media calls upon have no time for dissent among their ranks?

By understanding the shenanigans and racist ideology of someone like Laura Loomer, we in fact can bring what is at stake here into better focus. It should call into question the implicit bias in the coverage of such matters and the great advantage from the outset her type of reckless, racist and thoughtless ideas have over clearly more reasonable ones simply by virtue that journalists and public figures alike are intimidated, made to feel guilty and consequently cowed by any accusations of anti-Semitism because of the possibility of their be so accused? 

As a colleague reminded me, long before October 7, a Palestinian expressing a viewpoint is always placed at a great disadvantage by being associated with the accusation of being a potential ‘terrorist’. We just have to see this as morally wrong whatever other viewpoints on any related matters we may have.

But especially now that the Loomer cat is out of the bag, racist allegations and all, it is perhaps past time to call into question this entire process and interrogate in turn, the mandate of a committee purporting to investigate “valid” fears of faceless, nameless Jewish citizens that in effect is defined by circular reasoning that consequently begs the question? For here the real fear ultimately should be that wild, unfounded, irresponsible, harmful, scurrilous, gratuitous accusations, that may themselves be projections and fictional imaginations, that are racist in nature, may be “validated” in a way that costs some good and innocent person their job or well-earned career advancement.

The post Cat’s out of the bag: Laura Loomer and right-wing racial conspiracy theories appeared first on rabble.ca.

The lawyer representing a Canadian Forces corporal currently in the midst of a sexual assault trial is himself facing sex crime-related charges, and those charges involve a minor, CBC News has learned. 

The Alouettes' regular season ends Saturday afternoon the same way it began in early June — with a game against the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. Read More