Rabble

A deeply flawed argument has slipped into the national election conversation.

It goes like this: there isn’t much policy difference between front-runners Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre, so it really comes down to who can best handle Donald Trump.

True, handling the U.S. president is job one and polls show Carney more trusted on this file. But the first part of the argument — that the two men have similar policies — is fundamentally wrong and dangerously misleading.

In fact, the policy differences between Prime Minister Carney and Conservative leader Poilievre are huge.

The media is highlighting superficial similarities — both men propose cutting the bottom tax rate and cancelling the carbon tax — while downplaying the huge gulf between their very different visions for the country.

Carney’s vision fits broadly within the “social contract” traditionally accepted by Canadian Liberals and Progressive Conservatives — that taxes should be progressive and should pay for social programs benefitting all Canadians.

It’s not clear exactly where Carney stands on this broad spectrum — how much progressivity he wants in the tax system and how much generosity in social programs — but he clearly accepts the basic concept.

Carney’s views are also in line with the traditional Canadian support for strong government — although Canadian governments have been weakened in recent years due to privatization.

This trend toward privatization will have to be reversed, if we’re going to be strong enough to withstand the Trump threat. Carney’s plan to revive the postwar strategy of government building affordable housing is a start.

By contrast, Poilievre is an anti-government extremist whose views are rooted in the radical libertarian economic vision — associated with U.S. economist Milton Friedman — which favours limited government, with a greatly expanded role for the market and corporate sector.

So, in responding to Trump, Poilievre’s main solution is bigger tax cuts for Canadians — which would further weaken the Canadian government, making Canadians more reliant on the marketplace.

Poilievre’s commitment to minimalist government is profound and enduring; it’s been the central focus and defining feature of his life. Mark Bourrie illustrates this well in Ripper, his new biography of the Conservative leader.

Poilievre became immersed in right-wing politics as a teenager when his mother, conservative activist Marlene Poilievre, took him to political meetings and sent him to seminars at the radical, right-wing Fraser Institute.

And, after tendinitis sidelined Poilievre from school sports, the lonely teen spent his formative years in the backrooms of Alberta’s budding, ultra-conservative protest movement, where he stood out for his ability to deliver snappy slogans during cold calls to voters.

“Poilievre is a man who was an outlier when his intellect and personality formed …,” writes Bourrie. “Poilievre’s intellect was locked in when he was a teenager, when he read the sociopathic rants of Ayn Rand and the cruel economic philosophy of Milton Friedman.”

But Poilievre is smart enough to know that, outside Alberta, most Canadians want more from government. So he avoids the subject, focusing instead on side issues like the carbon tax.

But, every now and then, he gives us a glimpse of his true vision for Canada. If only the media would pay attention!

In unscripted comments at a campaign stop at a Vancouver gas station about a year ago, Poilievre said:

“I’m very hesitant to spend taxpayers’ money on anything other than the core services of roads, bridges, police, military, border security and a safety net for those who can’t provide for themselves. That’s common sense. Let’s bring it home.”

Not a word about health care, education or pensions. This is the harsh, austere Canada envisioned by Poilievre — government limited to policing, defence, and a bare-bones safety net for the very poor.

It’s a vision Poilievre’s mother instilled in him, that the Fraser Institute nurtured and that he’s come alarmingly close to inflicting on Canadians — who mostly have no inkling that that’s what he’s all about.

This article was originally published in the Toronto Star.

The post Poilievre wants to take the country in a frighteningly different direction from Mark Carney appeared first on rabble.ca.

Greenpeace was founded in my hometown of Vancouver in 1971. It has since become an international force, campaigning and advocating for environmental sanity on issues ranging from plastic pollution to the climate crisis. I’m a proud supporter.

Like all environmental and social justice organizations, Greenpeace has made mistakes and faced backlash over the years. That in itself isn’t a problem. Healthy debate is essential to a functioning democracy. But we’re now seeing growing efforts to criminalize and bankrupt people and organizations working for a better, safer, cleaner world.

In a new low, a North Dakota jury recently decided Greenpeace must pay pipeline company Energy Transfer US$667 million after the $70 billion company sued over demonstrations against the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017, arguing that Greenpeace incited people to protest through a “misinformation campaign.”

Greenpeace raised concerns about the ability to get a fair trial in oil and gas country (many jurors had industry ties) and stated that such corporate actions are aimed at “destroying the right to peaceful protest.” The organization plans to appeal.

“What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take,” Greenpeace senior legal adviser Deepa Padmanabha said.

The 1,900-kilometre Dakota Access pipeline moves fracked oil from North Dakota’s Bakken region to an oil terminal in Patoka, Illinois, where it connects with other pipelines to refineries. It goes through four states and under the Missouri River at Lake Oahe, less than a kilometre from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

Protests against the proposed pipeline began in 2016, when members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Rosebud Sioux Tribe gathered to defend water and cultural resources, claiming they weren’t consulted before the Army Corp of Engineers granted permits. Thousands of supporters — including more than 300 Indigenous nations, politicians, environmental and civil rights groups and celebrities — joined them.

Things soon turned ugly. Armed soldiers and police, along with pipeline company security forces, used attack dogs, tear gas, water cannons and concussion grenades to stop the land and water defenders from hindering construction — even spraying protesters with pressurized water in below-freezing temperatures.

In late 2016, the Army Corp denied pipeline easement across Lake Oahe pending an environmental assessment and consideration of alternative routes. But on taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump — who owned shares in Energy Transfer and received generous campaign and inauguration donations from the company’s CEO — ordered the Army Corp to expedite the easement. Construction was completed and oil started flowing in 2017.

Beyond its impacts on water and Indigenous rights, the pipeline carries enough crude to emit 121 million tonnes of climate-altering greenhouse gases a year when refined and burned. Non-profit energy group RMI estimates that could be 3.5 times higher if methane and nitrous oxides were considered.

Energy Transfer wants to increase pipeline capacity, driving up emissions and rupture and spill risks. A Greenpeace and Waterkeeper Alliance report found the company and its subsidiaries have experienced numerous incidents over the years, contaminating land and water throughout the U.S.

Although Greenpeace argues it wasn’t heavily involved in the Standing Rock issue, and provided assistance at the request of the Standing Rock Sioux, the environmental group is clearly seen as a threat to oil and gas interests and is a high-profile target for increasingly common efforts to silence opposition.

From Standing Rock to Wet’suwet’en territory in British Columbia and beyond, militarized law enforcement agencies are relying more often on use of force against land and water defenders, and companies are resorting to tactics such as SLAPPs (“strategic lawsuits against public participation” designed to silence opponents through costly, time-consuming legal processes). Those working to protect land, air, water, plants and animals and our future face an increasingly uphill battle.

The lawsuit against Greenpeace is an attack on the right to protest and speak freely. It won’t be the last. We should all stand with Standing Rock, and with organizations such as Greenpeace that are working for people and the planet and holding the line against the destructive fossil fuel industry.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at davidsuzuki.org

The post Pipeline company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace an attack on freedoms appeared first on rabble.ca.

Much has already been written about Sean Baker’s 2024 movie Anora. In true stripper fashion, I’m fashionably late, and want to contribute my $20 (the average cost of a lapdance). The movie won Palme D’Or in Cannes, and cleaned up at the Oscars, winning Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing, and Best Actress for Mikey Madison.

Anora is a meditation on wealth and class. It’s clear that strippers are working class. They are busy selling and giving lap dances, which is physical labour. The club itself is one of the more accurate representations I’ve ever seen—the changing room is pink, with sort of crappy locker room vibes. The girls bond over their dinners that they bring in in  Tupperware and there is both fierce loyalty and drama among them. Ani complains to the manager that the DJ is rude, and asserts that she will take as much time off as she pleases until the club starts treating her like an employee and contributing towards her workers’ comp and retirement. I’ve experienced all of this at my club.

Mikey Madison plays the titular Anora, a Brooklyn-based stripper of Russian origin with a potty mouth, going by the stage name Ani while working at the strip club. Madison did a lot of preparation for the role—learning Russian, stripper lingo, and also how to pole dance from working stripper, Kennady Schneider. Diamond is jealous that Ani meets Vanya, a young, attractive rich Russian who is the son of an oligarch at the club. He and Ani go on to have a whirlwind, tragicomedic romance, because his parents disapprove that he married a “whore”. 

Not only is Normington a working stripper, she is one of the union organizers from the Los Angeles club Star Garden, which unionised in May 2023. As a side note for you, reader: San Francisco’s now closed Lusty Lady was the first unionised strip club in the US, and Portland’s Magic Tavern unionised in September 2023, both Star Garden and Magic Tavern are a part of the Actors’ Equity union. I’m glad strippers are finally starting to get recognised by the film industry, and as Normington said in this interview: “Sex workers make great performers, or particularly actors, [because] we have all of this life experience that can be injected into a role. I’m very excited that filmmakers are starting to recognize sex workers as an underrepresented community. Literal representation by sex workers to play sex workers is important.”

Another stripper, Luna Sofia Miranda, plays Lulu in the movie—Ani’s best friend. Miranda talks about how she landed her role, admitting she  “hustled her way into” the part. She met Baker while working at the KONY HQ strip club in Brighton Beach, which was later a filming location, figured out that he’s not really there to buy lap dances, but is doing research on a film, and charmed her way into an audition. 

The movie explores both Ani and Vanya’s relationship and tension with class; Ani is thrilled when Vanya buys her a giant engagement ring and she’s more than happy to retire from the club and escape her socioeconomic reality, and become a kept woman. One of my favourite parts of the movie is when Lulu tells Ani that her butterfly adorned nails are classy, compared to hers that have dollar signs painted on them.

On the other hand, Vanya, born into a wealthy family, wants to strip away from life. He doesn’t want to return to Russia and work for his father, instead wanting to marry Ani and live in America. He and Anora fly to Vegas, and have a no frills wedding at a wedding chapel, the farthest thing from a wedding that his parents would themselves organise. Vanya seems to want to sex, drugs and rock and roll his way into independence, without thinking about consequences. 

It’s too bad that Vanya turns out to be spineless and runs away after his parents send goons to persuade Anora to sign annulment paperwork. They enforce class by stating that a prostitute is not good enough for her son, despite Anora’s protests that she is legitimately in love. Anora’s protestations turn physical, she too tries to run away from the goons, but they tie her up, and a slapstick comedy ensues where she tries to fight them off. I never thought that I would see a film where violence against sex workers is not immediately triggering, it seemed to me that the goons respected that she fights back and injures them. 

I don’t want to spoil the film’s explosive yet ambiguous ending, but it does end with Anora and Vanya parting ways, and Anora ending up with one of the goons Vanya’s parents send for her to separate them. It may be pity, respect, genuine attraction or a combination of all three that brings them together for the film’s last scene. Or maybe, they see the hustler in each other, afterall, both of their jobs are in the grey market and heavily stigmatised.

Anora is a great film, and I was thrilled to watch it with my fellow strippers. The only part that we thought was inauthentic is how quickly Ani announced her retirement to the other strippers. We’re much more superstitious than that, we don’t want to tempt fate and then wind up back at the club because we were disappointed by a man or because a conventional job didn’t work out. We were very grateful to the Community Impact Team at TIFF, who invited us to the movie’s viewing. 

Some of my regular readers will recall that I reviewed the film Zola for one of my first columns and argued that strippers are culture makers and we deserve credit for our work. I’m thrilled that this is slowly happening. A couple of weeks ago, TIFF put on a screening of Zola, and invited a couple members of the stripper advocacy group, Work Safe Twerk Safe, to give opening remarks. It’s a beautiful thing to see we’re finally getting the recognition we deserve. To echo what Normington said about the role of strippers and sex workers in the arts: “I also want to go a step further. It doesn’t have to be a sex worker role. I’m ready for everyone to see the value that we have in other artistic fields.”

While Anora was not written by a stripper like Zola was, it’s still a film very much worth watching. The strippers who participated in its creation did a great job of showing that stripping is sometimes mundane, sometimes glamorous, sometimes even dangerous. At the end of the day, stripping is a degree in life, and all its ups and downs. When Luna Sofia Miranda was asked how being a sex worker affected her life, she said: “I feel like I came of age in the strip club. I cut my teeth [there]. I learned how the world works and I’m able to see bullshit a lot more clearly. It’s easier to stand up for myself after working in the club for so long.”

More than anything, Anora is a cautionary tale—not about the dangers of sex work, rather that Pretty Woman is a fantasy. In reality it’s our own hard work support from the sex workers’ community that will help us step into our post-stripping life, not a rich man with empty promises.

The post Oscar and Cannes-winning, Anora, a must-watch about sex work and strippers appeared first on rabble.ca.

How big a role did the colourful image of popsicles play in the Alberta government’s decision yesterday to drop the appalling Alberta Health Services (AHS) policy of not providing frozen treats, juice boxes, water and snacks to kids recovering from cancer treatments?

Never mind the letterhead on the memo or the excuses we’re hearing now, it’s the Alberta government that owns the penny-wise, pound-foolish policy that under the circumstances can only be described as depraved. 

As a cost-saving strategy, the measures outlined in nearly impenetrable bureaucratese in the memorandum from the senior operating officer responsible for nutrition, food, linen and environmental services at AHS were both foolish and heartless.

But the United Conservative Party (UCP) had fired the AHS Board and named former senior civil servant Andre Tremblay Official Administrator to replace it, vowing to transition the agency into “a hospital-based service provider” on January 31. The memo was dated March 17.

The buck, as they say, has to stop somewhere and the calendar shows where. 

Needless to say, when contrasted with the image of Alberta’s premier racing south to Florida at public expense to help raise money for a YouTube propaganda boiler room, the optics were unimaginably bad. 

Tremblay, who has recently been rebranded Interim President and CEO of AHS, executed a screeching reversal and announced the changes outlined in the memo to take effect Tuesday had been dropped. 

This happened after the issue embarrassed Health Minister Adriana LaGrange the day before, when it was raised by a reporter during a news conference on an unrelated health care topic. And if that wasn’t enough to push the government to act, surely the harsh column by a usually understanding newspaper columnist with a big readership helped. 

So the point of Tremblay’s statement Tuesday on the AHS website and social media – assuming it wasn’t an April Fool’s prank – appeared to be both to drop the hot potato ASAP and to blame AHS for the problem. 

“In September 2024, Alberta Health Services approved changes to the way food is supplied in our emergency departments and other non-inpatient areas,” Tremblay’s statement began. 

“After media reports surfaced, the Minister of Health raised concerns about the implementation of this policy and asked me to look into reports that food and drink may not have been made available to patients,” he continued. (I’ll bet she did!) 

“The proposed policy was not meant to deprive patients of food. What was meant to change is how food is stored and delivered to patients in an effort to reduce waste that is occurring in our hospitals. I have reviewed this policy which was brought forward prior to my arrival at AHS and, after feedback from clinicians, have decided that AHS will not move forward with these changes.” (Emphasis added.)

“We are concerned by the misinterpretation of this proposed policy and are looking into reports that food and drink may not have been available to patients.”

But that dog won’t hunt. It is not at all clear the policy was misinterpreted. “Clinics are encouraged to remind patients to bring snacks, meals, and money for food purchases,” the March 17 memo said in part. “Departments must adhere to the established core lists and refrain from requesting additional items from any other source.” 

Moreover, at the time it was issued, it was no longer really a proposed policy, although it hadn’t yet been implemented. The “reports,” by the sound of it, were based on real events that had already happened. 

Did it occur to anyone that depriving patients, some of them small children, of food – and water – was exactly what such a memo would achieve? Of course that concern was raised by front line staff and, presumably, ignored. 

Sarah Hoffman, the Opposition NDP’s health critic and a former Alberta health minister, was right, if a little too alliterative to set the proper tone for a serious news release, when she observed that “the UCP government is more focused on cuts, chaos and corruption than providing care, comfort and compassion to kids with cancer.”

It’s unlikely the policy ever would have been changed if the parents of kids in care hadn’t raised a ruckus on social media. “Don’t take away this small and sweet piece of joy to these unlucky kids enduring hell,” wrote Amanda Moppett-Beatch on Facebook below a photo of her son Easton, 11. “Find something else to pick on. Us Oncology families are dealing with enough…”

But even then the policy might have passed unnoticed had it remained, in the words of the March 17 memo, a matter of a restricted list of “established core items” and “essential nourishment items.” 

I’ll bet it was the image of the popsicles, the benefits of which anyone who’s ever taken care of a sick kid understands, that shamed this usually shameless government to walk this back.

The post Alberta government reinstates snacks for kids recovering from cancer appeared first on rabble.ca.

Though abortion is currently protected in Canada, growing political movements threaten Canada’s already rocky access to abortion care. 

In the midst of a federal election, concerns are heightened on how the presidency of Donald Trump is shaping the future of Canada’s political landscape. Within hours of Donald Trump’s inauguration, the website reproductiverights.gov was taken down. Soon after, the global gag rule was reinstated and fetal personhood was proposed in federal law within an anti-trans executive order. As barriers to reproductive health services continue to grow in the US, the strong ties between politics and healthcare services are increasingly evident. 

Though Canada’s political system is quite different from that of the US, the country is not immune to extreme right-wing political movements. Abortion in Canada has been protected under the Canada Health Act as a medically necessary service since 1988. Though there are currently no legal barriers to abortion, access remains an important issue across the country. Barriers to abortion emerge in Canada through extra-legal obstacles, including territorial restrictions and policies, access, cost, and anti-choice harassment. Abortion is a time-sensitive procedure, and barriers to receiving care can lead to unwanted continuance of pregnancy and additional negative repercussions.  

Notably, concerning trends of political polarization are increasingly spilling over from the US to Canada. Abortion rights are currently being used as a wedge issue in Canadian politics. For reproductive health care to remain protected in Canada, the next elected government must be attentive to the tactics and patterns emerging in the US, as these strategies risk being replicated in Canada. 

Though the Canada Health Act protects rights to abortion, these rights have not been equitably enforced across the country. Significant gaps in healthcare services persist outside urban centres, as well as Northern and coastal communities. Restrictive policies surrounding abortion services have been present in maritime provinces. Abortion services were not offered in the province of PEI from 1982 to 2017. Until November 7th, 2024, New Brunswick did not allow healthcare coverage for abortions completed outside hospitals. These policies were in violation of the Canada Health Act for decades. Compounding factors influence additional barriers faced by Indigenous communities when accessing reproductive health care. A 2013 study found that participants who identified as First Nation or Métis were almost three times more likely to report traveling over 100 km to access a clinic in Canada when compared to white women.

In October, the NDP announced plans to introduce a motion pledging to improve access to abortion care. The motion would call on the Federal government to commit to expanding abortion access and enforce the Canada Health Act. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, stated in a press conference that this could be done in a variety of ways but would ultimately ensure that “the right to care is universal, transferable and publicly delivered.”

Since Trump was re-elected, Justin Trudeau also made statements supporting abortion rights both in public discussions and in the House of Commons. The Liberals have been criticized for not enforcing the Canada Health Act. However, they have taken action to support reproductive rights through the passing of Bill C-64, universal access to contraception, as well as proposed legislation to regulate charitable Crisis Pregnancy Centres (CPCs). 

CPCs are unlicensed counseling centres across Canada that create barriers to accessing equitable care through the concealment of an anti-abortion agenda. Though the prorogation of parliament interrupted the actions mentioned above, they still act as evidence that both parties have committed to improving the current landscape for reproductive healthcare. The Conservative Party of Canada has remained quiet. 

Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative party, has said the party “would not touch” abortion or support legislation on abortion, and that he considers himself pro-choice (ARCC begs to differ). Unfortunately, Poilievre’s statement does not ensure Canadians will have improved access to abortion or that barriers surrounding abortion health care will be removed under Conservative leadership. Inaction is not a stand-in for abortion rights. 

Additionally, members of the Conservative party are supported per the party policy to vote freely “[o]n issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia.” These free votes allow Conservative party members to vote in support of private member bills tabled by their colleagues. Though party leaders can exert some control over the type of motions their MP’s put forward, Pierre Polievre has allowed for MPs to put forward bills deemed anti-choice. 

Conservative MPs have a history of tabling bills that, if passed, would infringe on abortion rights. In 2023, conservative MP Cathay Wagantall introduced a bill that activists warned could lead to the establishment of fetal personhood and the criminalization of abortion. In 2024, Conservative MP Arnold Viersen tabled petition 441-02454 that called for a restriction on abortion access. This petition did not hold legislative weight; however, it demonstrates Conservative MPs are active in their attempts to restrict access to reproductive health care. 

A promise that the Conservative party will not legislate on abortion is not a promise that ensures Canadians have accessible options for care. A Canadian government that supports human rights and recognizes the importance of abortion is a government that enforces the rights protected under the Canada Health Act and reduces barriers to access. Abortion is an essential component of healthcare.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade is the result of decades of attacks on abortion rights in the US These political actions provide a blueprint for politicians and anti-choice groups in Canada to collectively attack abortion rights through events, engagement training, and shared funding across Canada and the United States.

Lack of enforcement of the Canada Health Act is a serious federal and provincial issue. Access to life-saving services should not change based on where you reside in Canada. Consistency and enforcement of abortion rights need to be present across all provinces and territories. This is only possible with a federal government that supports and upholds the Canada Health Act. 

In the next federal election, it is essential to recognize that though abortion is legal in Canada, significant barriers still prevent equitable access to care. As we witness the rollback of reproductive rights in the United States, we must remain vigilant to protect and advance access across Canada. Engagement is key. Attend events, sign petitions, volunteer, learn about current actions via social media, your local or national reproductive rights organization. The federal election is happening now, check the ARCC’s election toolkit to see if local MPs have a history of anti-choice actions. Connect with your local MPs via email, letters, or phone calls to demand action plans for improvements to reproductive health care. Together, we can advocate for a future where access to abortion and other essential healthcare services reflects not privilege but rather equity and human rights.

Viewpoint: Reproductive Justice is a blog by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

The post How Trump’s presidency & the loss of abortion rights in the US impacts Canada appeared first on rabble.ca.

In episode six, we feature the opening discussion of the 33rd annual Labour Fair at Toronto’s George Brown College.

Under this year’s theme, What Are We Working For? JP Hornick, president of OPSEU/SEFPO, (Ontario Public Service Employees Union), speaks on the critical need for labour education, labour organizing amid the changing nature of work and the crisis facing Ontario colleges.

Reflecting on the need for labour education Hornick says:

“These are the spaces where we learn how to organize, where we learn how to build community – it provides the critical analysis that people need to understand why there are inequities in society. Why systems of oppression such as racism, ableism, sexism, ageism, homophobia and transphobia are being used right now in this moment to try and divide workers from one another. Programs like the School of Labour or labour education are where we actually start to have conversations with workers about why we’re not one another’s enemies.

I think about this quote from Angela Davis: ‘If they come for me in the morning, then they will come for you in the night.’”

About today’s guest:

JP Hornick (they/them) is the president of OPSEU/SEFPO, one of Canada’s largest provincial public sector unions, representing more than 180,000 members across Ontario. OPSEU/SEFPO members work for the Ontario government, at community colleges, for the LCBO, in health care, and in workplaces and community agencies across the broader public sector. Hornick has been a part of many mobilizations of working people, both in unions and in social justice spaces. Most recently, they taught labour history and was the coordinator of the School of Labour and the annual Labour Fair at George Brown College. They led OPSEU/SEFPO College faculty through a province-wide strike in 2017 and another successful round of bargaining in 2022, before being elected president of OPSEU/SEFPO for the first time in April of that year. Hornick was re-elected at the last OPSEU/SEFPO Convention in April 2024.

Labour Fair Opening: Benjamin McCarthy, Labour Fair 2025 Coordinator

Transcript of this episode can be accessed at georgebrown.ca/TommyDouglasInstitute or here.

Image: JP Hornick  / Used with permission.

Music: Ang Kahora. Lynne, Bjorn. Rights Purchased.

Intro Voices: Ashley Booth (Podcast Announcer); Bob Luker (Tommy)

Courage My Friends podcast organizing committee: Chandra Budhu, Ashley Booth, Resh Budhu.

Produced by: Resh Budhu, Tommy Douglas Institute and Breanne Doyle, rabble.ca. 

Host: Resh Budhu.

The post Labour Fair 2025: The critical need for labour education appeared first on rabble.ca.

Over the past two weeks there have been dozens of stories about Canada’s F-35 purchase. But the most salient point has been almost entirely ignored. Canada shouldn’t “spend tens of billions of dollars on unnecessary, dangerous, climate destroying fighter jets.”

That’s from the No New Fighter Jets for Canada statement, which was signed by Canadian musicians Neil Young, Teagan and Sarah and Sarah Harmer as well as authors Michael Ondaatje Yann Martel, Gabor Maté, David Suzuki and Naomi Klein as well as Stephen Lewis and Elizabeth May. Prominent international figures such as Daryl Hannah, Roger Waters and Noam Chomsky also backed a public letter highlighting the fighter jet’s violent nature.

“Canada’s current fleet of fighter jets has bombed Libya, Iraq, Serbia and Syria”, notes the 2021 Canadian Foreign Policy Institute and Voices of Women for Peace letter. “Many innocent people were killed directly or as a result of the destruction of civilian infrastructure and those operations prolonged conflicts and/or contributed to refugee crises.”

Four-years old the 500-word statement remains pertinent, highlighting the economic, environmental and social downsides of Canada’s second biggest ever planned procurement. At a minimum the No New Fighter Jets for Canada position deserves some media attention. But amidst dozens of stories on warplanes in recent days Andrew Mitrovica seems to be the only mainstream voice that’s mentioned the possibility of using the F-35 resources in a more socially and ecologically sustainable manner. 

The Aljazeera columnist wrote, “I would forgo acquiring warplanes that, in a generation or so, will become obsolete, and spend the mountain of money improving young Canadians’ fast-fading prospects of buying a home on the not-so-distant horizon and burnishing the paltry pension that seniors receive every month.”

At a cost of $19 billion — $74 billion over their lifecycle — these weapons gobble up significant public resources. They could be used to build many light rail lines or public housing units.

Most countries don’t have fighter jets, let alone cutting-edge warplanes. Ireland hasn’t had fighter jets for two decades. Nor has Canada’s Five Eyes partner New Zealand while free trade partner Mexico doesn’t have operational fighter jets (Costa Rica, Iceland, Panama and two dozen other countries don’t have militaries).

It’s clear from the recent F-35 discussion that Canada’s fighter jet purchase has little to do with defence. The US controls the source code and upgrades for the F-35, giving the US an effective “kill switch” over the warplanes. In other words, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) leadership pushed aggressively for a warplane effectively controlled by the only country that could plausibly invade Canada.

The fighter jets are being purchased to enhance the Canadian military’s capacity to kill alongside the most violent nation the world has ever seen. Since the early 1990s the RCAF has conducted 1,600 offensive bombing missions in US-led wars.

In 1991 a dozen Canadian fighter jets participated in the bombing of Iraq. CF-18 Hornets joined US and British ships in destroying most of Iraq’s hundred plus naval vessels in what was dubbed the “Bubiyan Turkey Shoot.” Coalition bombing destroyed much of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure including electricity production, sewage treatment plants, telecommunications equipment, etc. Twenty thousand Iraqi troops and thousands of civilians were killed.

At the end of that decade Canadian fighter jets bombed Serbia for 78 days. In the last stage of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, 18 Canadian fighter jets participated in NATO’s 78-day bombing of Serbia in the spring of 1999.The CF 18s dropped 530 bombs in 682 sorties — approximately 10 percent of NATO’s bombing runs. Hundreds died during NATO’s bombing and hundreds of thousands were displaced in a war that contravened international law.

In 2011 seven CF-18 fighter jets participated in the war on Libya and Canadian general Charles Bouchard oversaw the entire NATO operation, which dropped thousands of bombs in a bid to secure regime change in the oil-rich nation. The assault unleashed 14 years of instability and violence in Libya as well as deteriorating social and economic indicators. (Bouchard was subsequently hired by Lockheed Martin to promote Canada purchasing the F-35.)

As Donald Trump muses about the border and threatens to annex Canada, the RCAF is pushing hard to maintain its ties to the US Air Force. They want to be part of the US’ global military machine. We must restrain them. No New Fighter Jets for Canada.

The post Let’s drop the F-35 fighter jet and build housing appeared first on rabble.ca.

Update: This panel has been changed to start at 7:00pm ET rather than 7:30pm ET to accommodate for the French-language Leaders’ Debate happening the same night.

In the midst of a US-Canadian trade war, threats to our sovereignty, uncertainty around carbon taxes, and the rise of far-right movements worldwide, Canadians will head to the polls for a federal election on April 28, 2025.

In preparation for this election, join rabble.ca and its guests as we explore the key issues and what this election means for working people, the environment, social justice and democracy in Canada.

Don’t miss this opportunity to get informed, ask questions, and understand how Election 2025 will affect you. 

Join former NDP Member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth Craig Scott; poet and activist El Jones; community organizer and political commentator Jennifer Arp; and rabble’s senior parliamentary reporter Karl Nerenberg on Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 4:00pm PT / 7:00pm ET. Register to join this free panel discussion here! 

About our guests this month 

Craig Scott is a professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University and a former Member of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth from 2012-2015. While an MP, he served as the Official Opposition Critic for Democratic and Parliamentary Reform, during most of which period the government minister for this portfolio was Pierre Poilievre. 

El Jones is a poet, author, journalist, professor and activist living in Halifax. She is the author of Abolitionist Intimacies (2022) and Live from the Afrikan Resistance! (2014).

Jennifer Arp is a community leader and non-profit professional. Previous roles include interim national president and CEO with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada and senior vice-president of the community at MS Canada. She had the privilege of representing her community on the Toronto District School Board as trustee and vice-chair from 2014-2018 where she led numerous initiatives including the Enhancing Equity Task Force. Other experience includes working at both the federal and provincial level for multiple cabinet ministers. She recently completed her Master of Arts in International and Intercultural Communications at Royal Roads University.

Karl Nerenberg is an award-winning journalist, broadcaster and filmmaker, working in both English and French languages. He is rabble’s senior parliamentary reporter.

About Off the Hill 

Since 2019, Off the Hill has been rabble.ca’s live political panel. Through this series, we break down important national and international news stories through a progressive lens.

This webinar series invites a rotating roster of guest activists, politicians, researchers and more to discuss how to mobilize and bring about progressive change in national politics — on and off Parliament Hill. Co-hosted by Robin Browne and Libby Davies.

The post Election 2025: What’s next for Canada? appeared first on rabble.ca.

As Canada approaches its federal election on April 28, 2025, the nation finds itself at a critical juncture both domestically and internationally. Prime Minister Mark Carney – who recently succeeded Justin Trudeau – called for this snap election amidst escalating trade tensions with the United States and ongoing global security concerns. 

The election’s outcome is poised to influence Canada’s economic stability and its role on the world stage

These developments have significant implications for Canada’s foreign policy, especially considering its substantial Ukrainian-Canadian community and longstanding support for Ukraine’s sovereignty. 

As the federal election approaches, Canadians are keenly aware that their votes will shape the nation’s response to these complex international challenges and define Canada’s position on the world stage in the years to come.

In recent weeks, Canada hosted a G7 meeting in Quebec, where global security and the Ukraine conflict were central topics. The G7 nations demonstrated strong solidarity, agreeing on a 30-day unconditional ceasefire and emphasizing the need for firm actions to establish a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in Ukraine. British diplomacy, in collaboration with Ukrainian and American efforts, played a key role in achieving this significant breakthrough.

Furthermore, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly has expressed Canada’s desire to participate in post-war security arrangements for Ukraine. She highlighted Canada’s commitment to contributing to Ukraine’s long-term stability and security, indicating a proactive approach in shaping the post-conflict landscape.

A theatre of the absurd. That is how Dr. Frank Sysyn describes President Trump’s meeting with Zelensky at the oval office earlier this month. The meeting has dispatched into protests amongst Ukranians in Canada, peace-talks, and many citizens wondering where the fate of the Russo-Ukrainian war lies.

Dr. Frank Sysyn is the director of the Center for Ukrainian Historical Research at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto. 

“It was clear [at the oval office meeting] that Vice President Vance, who has been very negative towards Ukraine and assistance for Ukraine, was in a way going to play the role of an attack dog in attacking Zelensky.” Dr. Sysyn stated. 

Dr. Sysyn elaborated on the perceived absurdity of the meeting, “to criticize the head of a state that has been at war and has had genocidal policies conducted against it of not showing proper respect by coming in military uniform to the Oval Office.” 

Canada’s large Ukrainian community, comprising over one million people, share similar sentiments in response. The Ukrainian community in Canada is quite different from that in the US.

“The American-Ukrainian community had, after all, been involved in the electoral process. Many members of that community had traditionally supported the Republicans,” said Dr. Sysyn.

Now, what has been witnessed these last few weeks has been a pivot in Washington and the Trump administration towards wanting to make a deal with Russia, to cut off Ukraine from Europe, and undermine NATO in general.

The meeting resulted in a pause of US military aid to Ukraine. Since this development, Trump and President Putin and this past Tuesday arrived at a limited ceasefire under which Russia will cease bombing critical energy infrastructure in Ukraine for 30 days.

Dr. Sysyn outlined that a division in consensus is present  amongst the Ukrainian population in the US which is nearly non-existent in Canada. 

“People of Ukrainian extraction in Canada did not have the right to vote. The Canadian government has been a strong backer of Ukraine. All political parties in Canada back Ukraine,” he said. 

Furthermore, a major difference between the US and Canada is that the Ukrainian Canadian community, and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) are used to having a seat at the table in Canadian society and government. Unlike in the United States, where Ukrainian American organizations operate in a more decentralized and less politically integrated manner, the UCC has successfully positioned itself as a key stakeholder in shaping Canadian foreign policy, multicultural policies, and diaspora affairs. Since its founding in 1940, the UCC has played a significant role in advocating for Ukrainian interests at both federal and provincial levels, regularly engaging with policymakers and influencing decisions related to immigration, foreign aid, and Canada’s stance on Ukraine-related issues. 

“After all Canada wanted to be the first country to recognize independent Ukraine in 1991,” Dr Sysn said. 

Overall, for many within the Canadian-Ukrainian community, unwavering support for Ukraine remains a deeply personal and political priority, rooted in both historical experiences and the ongoing war with Russia. On March 2, hundreds of Ukrainian Canadians took to the streets to rally in response to the oval office meeting.

“I didn’t expect one of the biggest allies of Ukraine to just put a knife in the back of Ukraine,” a protestor shared with Global News. 

The UCC expressed similar sentiments of anger and dissatisfaction.

“President Donald Trump has enabled Russia to continue to bomb Ukrainian hospitals, schools, critical infrastructure, food depots and ports that export food across the world,” said Alexandra Chyczij, president of the UCC in a statement.

 “What I would assume is happening in any Ukrainian Canadian community as with general Canadian society is the image of Donald Trump and those around him has suffered greatly in the past two months, ” Dr. Sysyn said, adding that this would affect how people perceive the Oval Office meeting. “We also see that Europe now understands that it may be left alone and of course the greatest of issues.”

In Canada’s federal election, Dr. Sysyn feels that the viability of NATO and the reliability of the US to hold up its international commitments will be an issue. 

“Whatever the outcome of the election, a Canadian government that will be, above all, upholding democratic principles, rights of international courts, opposed in any way aggression or seizure of territory will remain,” he said.

Canada is going to have to fill a larger role in international politics all of a sudden as the US diminishes much of its role. 

During his first presidency, Trump was heavily criticized for delaying $391 million in military aid to Ukraine in 2019, a move that was later tied to his efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into investigating his rival Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. This incident contributed to Trump’s first impeachment and cemented doubts about his commitment to Ukraine’s defense. Beyond this, Trump frequently expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, at times downplaying Russia’s geopolitical threats and suggesting that Ukraine’s fate was not a vital U.S. interest. His remarks, coupled with his administration’s erratic approach to foreign policy, fueled fears among the Ukrainian diaspora that a second Trump presidency could lead to a significant reduction—or even a complete withdrawal—of American support for Kyiv.

The post US pressure on Ukraine casts shadow over Canadian election appeared first on rabble.ca.

Since April 18, 2001, we’ve been sharing ‘news for the rest of us;’ offering independent, progressive journalism that challenges the mainstream. And in 2025, it seems that mandate is more important than ever. 

This year, we’ll be celebrating our birthday month by covering the federal election. And while every federal election feels historic as it’s happening, this one feels especially so. 

This time, both our democracy and sovereignty are at stake. Amid a trade war, rising inequality, and threats to Canada’s sovereignty and democratic values, this election will determine the future of our country.

Despite trying to distance himself from MAGA politics now that Trump’s aggression towards Canada is public, Pierre Poilievre isn’t the “tough guy” he claims to be when it comes to dealing with Trump. In reality, Poilievre’s politics and record show that he would be a tough leader to deal with for labor unions, women and gender diverse people, BIPOC communities and virtually every marginalized group in Canada. 

If the polls are to be believed, progressive voices like the New Democrats and the Greens could have a hard time cutting through the noise of what mainstream, corporate-owned media outlets have already decided is a two-person race between Pierre Poilievre and Prime Minister Mark Carney; however, at rabble.ca, we know that elections are the most sacred part of the democratic process, and their outcomes should never be treated as foregone conclusions. 

During this election season, we promise to provide our readers, panel viewers and podcast listeners with stories that represent and respect the full spectrum of progressive voices – the way we have for the past 24 years. 

But we can’t do it without your help! 

This April, please consider donating to rabble.ca and as we cover Election 2025. Help us provide the in-depth, incisive election coverage that empowers Canadians to stay engaged and informed. Every dollar we receive helps us provide progressive news for the rest of us – and if you are in the position to commit to becoming a monthly donor, those contributions help keep our enterprise sustainable.   

Thank you as always for your continued support! 

Yours in solidarity,

Sarah Sahagian (she/her)
Executive director / publisher

The post Why your support matters in this historic election appeared first on rabble.ca.

The latest twist in the Alberta Government’s legal campaign against former Alberta Health Services (AHS) CEO Athana Mentzelopoulos’s wrongful dismissal lawsuit is a new court filing that claims the fired executive forwarded confidential emails to herself thereby breaching her employment contract. 

AHS, The Canadian Press reported, “is looking to amend its statement of defence in light of the emails, which the agency says it only became aware of last week.” (Emphasis added.)

Now, with the important caveat that your blogger is not a lawyer, whether or not Mentzelopoulos forwarded confidential information to herself, which it must be remembered is an allegation that has not been proved in a court of law, arguing that this was so seems like a gambit that is unlikely to succeed. 

Unlikely enough, indeed, that one wonders why the government bothered to ensure the news media knew about its latest tactic. 

First of all, if Mentzelopoulos sent these supposedly confidential emails to herself when she was still the CEO and didn’t know, as she said in her original statement of claim, that she was about to be fired, where is the breach of confidentiality?

Now, it can be argued that forwarding work-related emails to yourself at home is not best practice from a security point of view. To do that, of course, one should use the Signal texting app, which, if it’s secure enough for the U.S. Secretary of Defence, should surely be safe enough for a provincial health authority in Canada! (Just remember, though, if you’re planning on doing that, don’t add Carrie Tait or Alanna Smith to your group chat! Never mind, I jest.)

Second, can the employer, whether it was AHS or the Government of Alberta, fire someone for improper reasons and then say, after the fact, we’ve just discovered that a different firing offence did take place, so our improper act was proper after all, even though we didn’t know why it was proper at the time we were acting improperly?

This too, seems to my non-legally trained mind to be, as I’m sure they sometimes say in the Court of Appeal just as they do in suburban kitchens, grasping at straws. 

Now, we need to remember that who did the firing is also a relevant question. Mentzelopoulos argues convincingly, if un-provenly, that she was not fired by AHS. 

Indeed, she says, she was encouraged by members of the AHS board, who do the executive firing around there, not only to continue with her investigations into those dodgy sweetheart contracts at the centre of this story, but to call the cops. 

No, she says she was called to a meeting and fired by a Deputy Minister of the Alberta Government – illegally and improperly, she argues. 

Be that as it may, in employment law, you can’t normally set out after the fact to change the reasons for a firing – although apparently it’s been known to happen. But it would seem that admitting you knew nothing of the firing offence at the time of the firing that you now want to use would be looked upon skeptically by a court. 

Didn’t the government first say they were dismissing Mentzelopoulos without any cause at all? She just wasn’t the right person for the new job. 

“Acute care is the most complex part of the health care system, and it’s critical that we have the right leadership in place to see this work through and make positive changes to the health care system for Albertans now and into the future,” I distinctly recall Health Minister Adriana LaGrange telling us members of the public on January 8, the day the CEO was fired. 

“I want to extend my sincerest gratitude to Athana Mentzelopoulos for the work she has done during her time leading Alberta Health Services,” LaGrange went on. Surely this is not what you say about someone you’ve just fired for cause, whatever the cause may be. 

Then the government claimed in its statement of defence that Mentzelopoulos was fired because she was incompetent.

Now they claim she should be fired because she was so sneaky that they didn’t even notice until last week that she needed to be fired, but since they’ve already fired her, they’d like to keep it that way. Or something. 

The real goal of this gambit, one suspects, is that the government is desperate to find a way to prevent the plaintiff from presenting evidence about dodgy private surgical clinic contracts in open court.

Smith-Shapiro Summit separates ‘schmucks’ from ‘allies’ – guess who’s who Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and far-right bloviator Ben Shapiro last night in Florida (Photo: Facebook/Danielle Smith).

Meanwhile, in Florida, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and creepy far-right bloviator Ben Shapiro, an “influencer,” apparently agreed that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s gotta go and Conservative Pierre Poilievre would make “a solid ally” for President Donald Trump as he dismantles environmental protections. 

Well, of course they did. 

A few snippets of their controversial chitchat at a fundraiser for a right-wing propaganda house that passes itself off as a university were published last night by the National Observer and DeSmog from a presumably unauthorized recording of the event. One hopes juicier quotes will be dropped in the days ahead. 

“It is better for the United States to have actual solid allies running in Canada than to have some of the schmucks that have been running Canada over the past few years,” they quoted Shapiro saying. 

“There is an ideology, as you know, of those who believe we have to hit net zero as quickly as possible,” Smith was quoted saying, apparently a reference to the crazy ideology of planetary survival. “Mark Carney has been behind the net-zero banking move.”

Smith proudly posted a photo of herself with Shapiro, Old Glory in the background, on her Facebook account last night. 

The post Alberta Health Services alleges fired CEO forwarded confidential information to herself appeared first on rabble.ca.

Canada’s economy has been closely aligned with that of the US for decades. In 1988 as the first free trade agreement with the United States was being presented, many of us demonstrated and campaigned against that agreement underscoring how it would negatively impact our social programs, social safety net, our economy, our culture — indeed our independence and sovereignty.

Since then there have been unfair trade practice threats made by the United States administrations related to our system of agriculture, in particular about supply management of the dairy industry, orderly marketing systems, and more. The erosion of our programs has been steady, and, if not covert, definitely not transparent.

It is heartening to see so many Canadians now understand the general impact (if not the detail) of United States tariff threats, despite signed free trade agreements.

So this spring, as we head into early April and continue to see US president Donald Trump talk of tariffs, it’s time to arm ourselves with information on our food pathways and the resources that we have at hand. We need to understand our strengths and our weaknesses when it comes to producing and distributing food in this country.

As well, we need to understand the flow of imports and exports in our food system in order to explain why we need to take buying Canadian products seriously.  Because of free trade we have often imported vegetables from the US that we could be self-sufficient in producing. Why would we import vegetables from anywhere, when with a bit more planning we could be self-sufficient and buy Canadian grown products? Are we exporting our surplus, or playing the import/export game that profits transnational distributors?

We may at times be importing because of our shorter growing season, but in many cases it is quite simply for the sake of convenience or to allow the food conglomerates which distribute food to profit by importing and exporting. For example – ask yourselves – why do we import carrots or cabbage when they are in-season? And in between harvests, cold storage keeps many of our crops fresh until the next season!  Same with apples! It is March and I am still buying Canadian apples!

Statistics show that Canada is able, and in fact does, produce enough carrots, cabbage, potatoes, onions, etc. to supply its own market. So why import this produce from the USA? They call it free trade… and it makes you wonder who benefits from the back and forth of the import/export game. Beyond the raw price of produced, consider the impact on climate change of shipping products back and forth constantly.

Yet, Canada relies heavily on imports from the United States for various fruits and vegetables. According to data from 2019, the U.S. was the top source of Canada’s fruit imports, accounting for 40 per cent of the value, with Mexico following at 17 per cent. Regarding vegetables, U.S. states supplied 67 per cent of Canada’s vegetable imports in 2022.

The Beyond project, at the University of British Columbia, has an interactive map which shows the flow from Canada of imports and exports of vegetables and fruit. The map tracks imports and exports to and from the United States as well as 149 other countries. Here you can read a summary of how the US and other countries supply the Canadian food market. And for a more specific view of a particular vegetable or fruit, Beyond provides this interactive map.

Rather than despair in the face of the tariff wars, you also need to see the positive side of what is possible in terms of food self-sufficiency in Canada. How many more jobs could be created by making our food systems more sustainable and ensuring self-sufficiency and distribution here in Canada?

These are important questions that we are only just beginning to explore.

Eating through and beyond the tariffs…

So, what vegetable and fruit crops could Canada be easily self-sufficient in?

Vegetables

1. Potatoes: Canada is already a major producer of potatoes, particularly in provinces like Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, and Alberta. The climate is well-suited for growing potatoes, and they are a staple crop that could easily support national self-sufficiency. Canada produces about 100 per cent of its domestic potato consumption.
2. Carrots: Carrots are widely grown in Canada, particularly in provinces with fertile soil such as Ontario and Quebec. They have a long growing season and can be stored well for use throughout the year. Canada produces approximately 80-90 per cent of its carrot consumption. The remaining demand is met by imports, mostly from the U.S. during off-seasons.
3. Cabbage: Cabbage is a hardy vegetable that grows well in Canada’s cooler climates. It is widely grown in regions like the Prairies and Ontario. The vegetable has a long shelf life and can be stored for winter months. Canada produces 85-90 per cent of its cabbage consumption. Imports, especially from the U.S., make up the rest, particularly in the winter months.
4. Onions: Canada produces a good amount of onions, particularly in regions like Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta. Onions are versatile and can be grown in most parts of Canada during the warmer months. Canada produces around 70-80 per cent of its onion consumption, with the remainder being imported from the U.S. and other countries, particularly during the winter.
5. Lettuce and Leafy Greens: While more temperamental than some other crops, leafy greens like lettuce, spinach, and kale can be grown in greenhouses or during the warmer growing seasons. The demand for fresh greens has been increasing, and greenhouse technology could support domestic production. Canada produces about 50-60 per cent of its lettuce and leafy greens, with the rest being imported, especially from California and Mexico. The import percentage tends to be higher during the colder months when domestic production is limited.
6. Beans (e.g., peas, kidney beans, lentils): Canada is already a major producer of pulses, especially lentils and peas, particularly in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Pulses are an excellent source of protein, and growing more of them could support self-sufficiency. Canada is highly self-sufficient in pulses, producing over 90 per cent of its pulse consumption. The country is one of the largest producers and exporters of lentils, peas, and beans, especially in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Fruits

1. Apples: Apples are one of the most widely grown fruits in Canada, with significant production in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. Canada has the climate for growing a variety of apple cultivars, and the domestic apple industry is robust. Canada produces approximately 60-70 per cent of its apple consumption. The rest is imported, primarily from the U.S., particularly in the off-season.
2. Blueberries, Strawberries, Raspberries: Canada has a good potential for berry production, particularly in the cooler climates of British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario. Blueberries, in particular, have become a significant export crop, and with more investment. Canada could easily become self-sufficient in berries. Canada is a major blueberry producer and meets about 80-90 per cent of its domestic blueberry consumption, with the remainder coming from imports. Canada produces about 60-70 per cent of its strawberry consumption, with imports from the U.S. and Mexico filling the gap.Canada produces about 50-60 per cent of its raspberry consumption, with the rest being imported from the U.S. and other countries.
3. Cranberries: Canada is already a major producer of cranberries, especially in the eastern provinces of Quebec and British Columbia. The cold climate is ideal for cranberry production, and the industry is well-developed. Canada produces approximately 100 per cent of its cranberry consumption. The country is one of the world’s largest producers of cranberries, with significant production in Quebec and British Columbia.
4. Pears: Pears are grown in several regions of Canada, particularly in British Columbia. The country could easily increase its pear production, especially given the right varieties and the existing orchard infrastructure. Canada produces about 30-40 per cent of its pear consumption, with the majority of pears being imported from the U.S. and Argentina.
5. Grapes: Canada, particularly in Ontario and British Columbia, produces a variety of grapes, especially in wine regions like Niagara and the Okanagan Valley. With increasing demand for domestic wine and table grapes, there is room to expand self-sufficiency. Canada produces about 50-60 per cent of its grape consumption. The remainder is imported, particularly from the U.S. and Mexico, as Canadian production is more focused on wine grapes (especially in Ontario and British Columbia).
6. Plums and Cherries: Both plums and cherries thrive in the warmer climates of regions like British Columbia and Ontario. Canada could increase its production to support self-sufficiency, especially with growing domestic demand. Canada produces about 40-50 per cent of its plum consumption, with imports coming from the U.S. and other countries. As for cherries, Canada produces around 50-60 per cent of its domestic cherry consumption, with the remainder being imported from the U.S., particularly in the off-season.

(Source: https://agriculture.canada.ca/en)

Challenges

There are of course challenges to our self-sufficiency in some crops. For example, oranges and bananas do not grow in Canada. That said, countries other than the US raise these crops, and others that we cannot harvest in Canada. Meanwhile, to avoid importing some foods and encourage the move toward self-sufficiency might require improving cold storage facilities or preservation methods such as freezing, canning, or root cellars, to maintain year-round supply. As well, greenhouse technologies and hydroponics could be expanded to improve Canada’s ability to grow a wider variety of crops, especially in colder regions.

Our great-grandparents had root cellars, but no freezers. Many made preserves and canned both fruit and vegetables to see them through the winter. We actually benefit from all storage methods. And if we learned to eat fruits and vegetables when they are in season, and preserve/conserve for when they are not, we could greatly expand our own individual food pathways or support local businesses doing the same. Buying local will also help our farm communities and hopefully small farmers. And growing some of our own needs in our own small gardens can also support our food budgets. My one loganberry bush has provided me with a year’s worth of jams and sauces.

And as noted earlier, lessening our reliance on imported foods which we can grow ourselves would also go a long way to reducing our carbon footprint.

The Canadian and United States administrations have created a two-way dependency through importing and exporting food produce as well as other goods. It is time to move away from engaging with our southern neighbour and restructure our food systems to meet our domestic needs first!

So my friends – do not despair, just prepare.

The post Time for us to grow more at home appeared first on rabble.ca.

The federal election has begun and voting day will be on April 28. It is the most pivotal election in more than a century, which Prime Minister Mark Carney rightly framed as a crossroads for Canada’s identity and sovereignty, given Donald Trump’s trade war against Canada, and his repeated threats to annex this country as the 51st state.

Against this backdrop is his opponent, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, a troubling and flawed figure — a career politician with two decades in Ottawa’s bubble, untested by the real world, now vying to lead a G7 nation facing an existential threat from the US. As recently as three months ago it looked like he was on the road to an overwhelming victory, with a lead of 18 points or more in the polls. But that is no longer the case as recent polls show a horse race between the Liberals and the Conservatives, with some polls showing the Liberals in the lead. 

Poilievre’s campaign kicked off with a nod to Trump’s threat, but he quickly reverted to his oft repeated slogan of “Canada is broken,” a phrase reminiscent of Trump’s own rhetoric during his presidential campaign. He pins every national woe on a decade of Liberal rule under Justin Trudeau, ignoring broader global factors that created those problems. Compared to Carney, a seasoned veteran of international finance and banking, and a former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, Poilievre’s resume is paper thin.  

For his entire adult life – more than 20 years – Poilievre has lived in the insulated world of partisan politics, placing him among the nation’s elites. He has never ventured into the private sector or grappled with the real-world complexities that impact ordinary Canadians’ lives. This lack of depth is more than a career quirk — it is a major leadership liability that should not be ignored by Canadian voters. His career in partisan politics, devoid of real world experience, leaves him ill-prepared for the geopolitical and economic storms ahead. At this moment in history Canada needs a leader with major-league gravitas, something which Poilievre lacks in spades. And against an adversary like Trump, Poilievre’s lack of experience outside of politics could be a weakness that would undermine Canadian independence.

His Trump-like persona compounds the problem. With bombastic rhetoric, simplistic slogans, insults targeting opponents, and a knack for sowing divisiveness, Poilievre mirrors the US president’s style and substance. His disdain for environmental rules, antipathy towards mainstream media, and coziness with corporate interests, echoes Trump’s playbook, appealing to the approximately 20 per cent of Tory supporters who admire the man. This raises a troubling question. As prime minister, would Poilievre resist Trump’s aggression or cave to his demands and reduce Canada to a vassal state? His untested mettle and apparent fondness for the Trumpian style of politics suggest the latter, which risks Canada’s sovereignty.

Economically, Poilievre has consistently oversimplified the issues Canadians face. As people across the country grapple with a housing and a cost-of-living crises, rooted in a post-pandemic global upheaval — challenges no leader could have effectively managed — he blames the Liberals entirely for the problems Canadians face, sidestepping Canada’s strong economic performance relative to peer nations, especially the US. His fixes — ditching environmental and climate change policies, cutting corporate taxes, cracking down on crime — lack originality, are no different from Trump’s platform, and are recycled Tory promises from previous unsuccessful election campaigns.

National security offers another red flag. Since taking the Conservative Party’s helm, Poilievre has refused security clearance for intelligence briefings — a reckless choice in an age of foreign interference and rising global tensions. Carney, by contrast, sought clearance immediately upon becoming Liberal leader. Poilievre’s dismissal of this duty betrays public trust, prioritizing his political agenda over the nation’s safety. His refusal to obtain his clearance also fuels doubts about his leadership and his party’s integrity, as Canadians can’t be sure that his team is untainted by external influence.

The difference between Canadian and American values further highlight the stakes. Canadians value fairness, diversity, inclusivity, and environmental care — principles that Trump threatens, as does Poilievre’s political agenda. He has openly said he would use the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to override rights, a move straight from Trump’s authoritarian script. This isn’t abstract, it is a real risk to the Charter of Rights and the rule of law, favoring personal political gain over the public good. Poilievre’s willingness to bend Constitutional norms signals a dangerous disregard for some of the values Canadians cherish, which would be at risk were he to win the election.

This election transcends picking a prime minister. It’s about protecting Canada’s sovereignty and soul. Poilievre’s insulated political career and Trumpian leanings, is a gamble too costly to take. His leadership could falter at a time when toughness in dealing with the US is non-negotiable, potentially ceding sovereignty to Trump. Canadians need a leader rooted in reality, not one who fuels division and undermines the institutions that define our pluralistic society. Poilievre isn’t just a risk, he is someone with the wrong stuff for the job.

The post Pierre Poilievre – A leader with the wrong stuff for the job of prime minister appeared first on rabble.ca.

Under fierce attack for asking Trump Administration officials pause their tariff war on Canada until a friendlier Conservative government could be elected in Ottawa and anticipating more of the same when she waltzes off to Florida today to sit down with an unsavoury far-right commentator, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith responded with a diatribe in the Legislature yesterday targeting her many critics. 

Quoting Winston Churchill and channelling Margaret Thatcher (the lady who was not for turning), John Diefenbaker, Ralph Klein and the Bible, Premier Smith trowelled it on pretty thickly – thickly enough, indeed, methought the lady did protest too much. 

Her foes, including “eastern media pundits and politicians who favour political grandstanding to effective diplomacy” – not to mention “Team Carney,” at which she seemed particularly incensed – want her to “abandon my post, remain in Alberta, and do absolutely nothing to defend our province,” she complained. 

Her post, as she sees it, is at the side of Internet “influencer” Ben Shapiro – presumably a hero from her days as a far-right talk radio host – and she’s not about to be denied either the pleasure of the visit or the expenses she’ll need to get there.

Accordingly, she has recast today’s taxpayer-funded junket as an act of heroism. “I’m fiercely criticized for going into the lion’s den to change the hearts and minds of the very Americans that we need on Canada’s side to avoid a trade war with the most powerful economy on earth,” she averred. (Some lion’s den. Those Republican lions are likely to be as tame as the ones that failed to confront the prophet Daniel in their Old Testament den.) 

“They want this lady, and Alberta, to just sit down and shut up!” (Yes, please, please sit down and shut up, one can imagine Poilievre mumbling prayerfully.) 

“Well, here is my response to that: I will not be silent. Alberta will not be silent. We will not be pushed around and called traitors for merely having the courage to actually do something about our nation’s and province’s predicament other than merely indulging in self-righteous tantrums.” (Some tantrum projection here, perhaps?)

“And I for one will never be silenced by the party in Ottawa that has sold out our beloved province for the last 10 years, with the help of their NDP collaborators,” she continued, jabbing a finger at the Opposition benches with a sneer worthy of prime minister Diefenbaker staring down Jack Pickersgill in 1958. 

“They’re going to have to roll me off on a stretcher before I will stop fighting for our province and our people!”

Well, props whoever came up with this florid stuff. It’s pretty rich, in both the best and worse senses of that turn of phrase. And those eastern bastards on Team Carney, as premier Klein might have put it, and the premier’s western foes on Team Nenshi, will be rubbing their hands with glee. 

Smith’s kind of bombast and defensive determination to keep doing the wrong thing is God’s gift to the makers of campaign attack ads, and the Liberals under Carney appear, for once, to be prepared to use such tactics.

So allow me to close with a possibly unpopular opinion: This is a positive development because Canadians and citizens of the declining number of other democracies actually like negative political advertising and respond to it positively.

The use of negative political ads – I think that they think – indicates an actual commitment to a political party’s cause, a belief that a party’s leaders actually believe their fight is worth fighting. 

Conservative politicians figured this out long ago, and it has manifestly worked for them. Progressive politicians, not so much. 

That seems to be changing, though, and Smith is a rich vein of excellent material for anyone looking for ways to undercut Poilievre. 

Transcript of Smith’s statement in the Legislature

Just to be fair, and avoid accusations I am quoting the premier out of context, here is my transcript of what she had to say, taken from a news clip of today’s session. You can check its accuracy against Alberta Hansard when it appears, better late than never, sometime today. 

“I am now off to the U.S., yet again, to try and speak to Americans, this time, through the second largest podcaster, in the world, whose audience is made up exactly of the people we need to persuade, to convince their president to change course on tariffs against Canada. And what does Team Carney want me to do? They want me to abandon my post, remain in Alberta, and do absolutely nothing to defend our province. They want me to cower in the face of eastern media pundits and politicians who favour political grandstanding to effective diplomacy. I’m fiercely criticized for going into the lion’s den to change the hearts and minds of the very Americans that we need on Canada’s side to avoid a trade war with the most powerful economy on earth. They want this lady, and Alberta, to just sit down and shut up. Well, here is my response to that. I will not be silent. Alberta will not be silent. We will not be pushed around and called traitors for merely having the courage to actually do something about our nation’s and province’s predicament other than merely indulging in self-righteous tantrums. And I for one will never be silenced by the party in Ottawa that has sold out our beloved province for the last 10 years, with the help of their NDP collaborators. I have and I always will put Albertans first, and until this danger to Alberta and our economy is past, they’re going to have to roll me off on a stretcher before I will stop fighting for our province and our people. So, they can call me, and my caucus, whatever name in the dictionary they want, as long as Albertans know that we are fighting for them and their families, we could care less what the members opposite or Liberal politicians in Ottawa have to say about us. Because Albertans expect their premier, and government to always put Albertans first and lead them through this storm with fearless determination. As Winston Churchill once said, fear is a reaction, courage is a decision. …”

The post Danielle Smith defends trip to Florida far-right media personality appeared first on rabble.ca.

Not many in the U.S. have raised their voices in defence of Canada over the past three months – at a time when the American president has repeatedly said he will force Canada to its knees economically in order to annex it – but a few have.

One of the earliest of those was the United Steelworkers union (USW), which represents thousands of workers on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.

Back in February, when Donald Trump slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum, the American USW said, pointedly: “Canada is not the problem”. 

Canada, the USW said, “plays by the rules” – unlike such countries as China and Mexico, which “flood the market” with steel and aluminum, produced cheaply by low-wage, non-union labour.

More recently, on March 10, Steve Schmidt, a former senior advisor to the late Republican Senator John McCain, published an impassioned polemic condemning Trump’s “assaults against Canada.” 

Schmidt is outraged at the silence of his fellow Americans, especially politicians who represent border states, such as the governors and senators from Michigan and New York. 

“The overwhelming majority of Americans find Trump’s bluster around Canada to be incomprehensibly asinine,” Schmidt writes. “But they do not take his threats seriously – which is a mistake. It is well past the hour when the White House gangster should be taken both literally and seriously.”

He then adds: “The failure to fiercely object to Trump’s insanity from the first instance only encourages more of his aggression. No sane person should think Donald Trump possesses the capacity for restraint. Would Donald Trump imprison journalists and kill his opposition if he could? The answer is yes. and only a fool would debate the point.”

Scary stuff.

But Schmidt reserves much of his opprobrium for saner U.S, politicians who should know better than to cower before the U.S.’s first openly fascist leader. 

He namechecks such Democratic Party luminaries as governors Pritzker of Illinois, Newsome of California, and Evers of Wisconsin, and senate minority leader Chuck Schumer. 

Those politicians, he says, should be standing tall, shoulder to shoulder with Canadian leaders. But they’re not. 

“Canada is being squeezed by MAGA maliciousness on one side, and the pathetic weakness of the Schumer Democrats on the other. They are bound on one side by menace, and on the other with fecklessness. It is an awful situation.”

“There is silence everywhere from everyone about something every American should be shamed by, and ready to scream in the street to Trump that ‘you will dare not do this in our name.’ “

Motion in U.S. Senate to block legally dubious tariffs

More recently, at least one major mainstream Democratic party figure has pushed back – however mildly – against the Trump tariffs that target Canada. That figure is Virginia senator Tim Kaine. He has introduced a measure in the Senate that would block the “unjustified tariffs”, to use Kaine’s words.

Since a U.S. president does not have the power to impose tariffs for normal economic reasons – that’s Congress’ prerogative – Trump is relying on the 1977 International Emergency Powers Act (IEPA). 

The IEPA does not specifically mention tariffs or trade, but does give the president the right to “regulate commerce” in the defence of national security.

That’s why Trump has resorted to the ridiculous ruse of fentanyl and migrants to target Canada. Kaine notes that the president has cavalierly betrayed his true motives for punishing tariffs by constantly blathering about annexing Canada. 

The Virginia senator is relying on U.S. legislation passed a year prior to the IEPA. It gives any senator the right to force a vote in the senate to block a president’s “abuse of emergency powers.”

Tim Kaine is making such a vote happen. In addition to his Democratic colleagues, he has the unlikely support – so far – of one Republican, libertarian and isolationist Rand Paul of Kentucky.

The Republicans have a majority of 53 in the Senate, meaning Kaine would need three more Republicans to defect from their party for his measure to pass. That is not likely.

In a normal world, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul’s Kentucky colleague, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine – all of whom have expressed disapproval of much of what Trump has done – would be on Kaine’s side.

But this is not a normal world.

When push has come to shove, the handful of Republican critics of Trump have proven to be even more supine than their too-often-cowed Democratic colleagues. So don’t hold your breath waiting for three additional Republican defectors this time.

On the other side of the coin, while the American USW has defended Canada, the giant U.S.-based United Auto Workers union (UAW) shows little international working-class solidarity when it comes to this country.

UAW gets in bed with Trump; Unifor resists

The UAW is 100 per cent in favour of Trump’s auto tariffs, with no exceptions or qualifications.

The UAW states that profitable mega-corporations have used low-cost labour in Mexico to undercut unionized American auto works. That practice has resulted in the closure of many U.S. auto plants and the loss of thousands of jobs.

In the UAW’s words:

“Every time an autoworker dares to ask for fair pay, a decent retirement, healthcare, or work-life balance, the automakers threaten their job by exploiting a broken trade system that is set up to intimidate and threaten workers on both sides of the [U.S.-Mexico] border.”

The American auto industry union goes on to say it is heartened by Trump’s recently-announced auto tariffs, but never once mentions Canada. 

In Canada, most auto workers are unionized. They enjoy similar pay and benefits to their U.S. counterparts. 

Corporations do not locate in Canada because of cheap labour and weak legal protections for workers. Canadian workers do not, in any way, undercut their fellow workers in the U.S.

In Canada, Unifor represents the majority of auto workers. Decades ago, Canadian workers were represented by the U.S.-based UAW. 

In 1984, the Canadian branch of the UAW declared its independence, to become the Canadians Auto Workers (CAW), which, in 2013, merged with other Canadian unions, to become today’s Unifor.

Unifor’s position on tariffs is miles apart from that of the U.S. union of which it was once a part. Unifor explains the Canada-U.S. auto relationship this way:

“Trump has included Canada in the U.S. auto tariff despite having the most highly integrated and tightly woven supply chain between any two countries in the world; and a trade relationship that is in near-perfect balance.”

Unifor’s president Lana Payne adds: “President Trump fails to understand the chaos and damage this tariff will inflict on workers and consumers in both Canada and the United States.”

UAW also upbraids Trump’s attacks on free speech

Ironically, while the UAW is cozying up to Trump on tariffs it is expressing firm opposition to the president on another big bone of contention: Trump’s attacks on academic freedom.

In addition to auto and aerospace workers, the UAW represents workers on some U.S. campuses, including that of Columbia University in New York City.

That university just fired the Columbia local UAW president Grant Miner, in what the national UAW describes as “an assault on freedom of speech.”

Miner is a PhD student who took part in campus demonstrations against the war in Gaza. He was among a number of students who briefly occupied a Columbia building. Miner’s local also went on strike at the outset of the last round of bargaining.

The UAW connects Miner’s firing to the Trump administration’s attacks on Columbia and other world-renowned U.S. universities. 

Trump threatened to withhold $400 hundred million of federal funds if the university did not accede to his demands, which included strictly limiting protests and effectively muzzling the department of Middle Eastern studies. 

To the chagrin of at least some in the U.S. Columbia gave in to the president’s demands.

For the UAW, Miner’s firing is part of the university’s new kow-tow-to-Trump policy. 

“The shocking move,” the UAW says, “is part of a wave of crackdowns on free speech against students and workers who have spoken out and protested for peace and against the war on Gaza.” 

The union adds, ominously: “If they can come for graduate workers, if they can arrest, deport, expel, or imprison union leaders and activists for their protected political speech, then they can come for you.”

And so, a major U.S. union thinks it can support a president who is in the process of installing an authoritarian regime – because they believe that same president’s tariffs narrowly serve some of their members’ interests.

History has shown it can be fatal to think you can cozy-up to dictators to get some economic benefit – all the while rhetorically opposing their anti-democratic policies. It does not work. 

When it comes to authoritarian leaders, fence-sitting is a painful, untenable position. 

Need for a progressive defence of sovereignty in Canada 

Here in Canada, the election campaign proceeds apace. 

Opposition leaders try to stick to their messages, with little success.

Jagmeet Singh, for instance, had an event focused on affordable housing at the end of the first week of the campaign. But neither he nor any other opposition party leader can make much headway in the shadow of bully Trump.

Of all the opposition parties, the NDP is in the most danger. Its voters seem to be rushing, lemming-like, into the arms of the reassuring, solid and competent new Liberal leader, Mark Carney.

But what if New Democrats were to consider a new approach, one which, if it did not win them votes, might at least have some impact on the national conversation about Canada’s sovereignty?

Nobody with any clout has yet raised the idea of aggressively using the federal state, and all of its financial power, not only as an enabler of the private sector, but as an engine for Canadian economic innovation and increased productivity.

There was a time when federal Crown corporations manufactured airplanes, vaccines, nuclear reactors, and military equipment. There was also a Crown oil and gas corporation, a Crown airline, and a Crown railway.

All were owned by the Canadian people, not by any private interest, which cared only about its profits and not the public good.

Maybe it is time to reinvent that model. 

NDP MP Niki Ashton once proposed a Crown corporation for the development of green energy. That would be a good place to start. But there is much more the federal government could do.

Business-oriented Mark Carney will not be thinking in that way. Nor will free-enterprise fundamentalist Pierre Poilievre. 

But it might be time for Jagmeet Singh and his New Democrats to get off their rhetorical left-populist, “we’re on your side” message track. (In any case, that pitch does not seem to be breaking through in the current political climate, despite the NDP’s best efforts.)

New Democrats should seriously consider trying something outside-the-box. 

They should adopt an approach that would be, in its way, bolder and more original than the usual campaign talk – even if such a strategy is not what professional consultants tend to recommend. 

The NDP could put some solid, credible and progressive economic innovation and growth policies on the table, policies to confront the new and unprecedented challenges this country faces. 

Those policies should focus on how to fully harness the power and wealth of the Canadian state, not only to resist the unprecedented existential threat we now face, but to build a more prosperous and egalitarian society for the future.

The post Lonely U.S. voices support Canada in its fight to endure as a free country appeared first on rabble.ca.

The dissolution of the cabinet position for the Ministry of Women and Gender Equality and Youth has some feminist not-for-profits worried about their role in combatting women’s issues. 

Upon taking office on March 14, Liberal leader Mark Carney eliminated various roles. One of these included Marci Ien’s previous position in the cabinet as the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, which has existed in different iterations since 1971. 

The abrupt move came as a shock for various feminist organizations. Executive Director of Women’s Shelters Canada, Anuradha Dugal, said she was made aware via a press release.

“We had no prior warning, considering that we had a very close relationships with the Ministry and the minister over the last four years, and for some of us much longer. There was no communication from the government,” said Dugal.

Women’s Shelters Canada advocates for issues related to gender-based violence, violence against women, and the shelter sector.

The relationship with the previous minister was mutual, where Dugal sat on the Minister’s Advisory Council on Gender Based Violence. That council was disbanded before the cabinet position for Women and Gender Equality and Youth was eliminated.

“We did activities where we brought the news from the front lines to the minister and to the department. We gave advice on things like the budget, and on how it can be spent to address the issues for women and gender diverse people and how it relates to gender based violence,” she explained. She also noted that that was ‘not everything’ that the Ministry and her organization worked on together.

Dugal’s fear is that crucial matters will no longer be a priority for the current government. 

“I don’t think gender equality and justice for all genders will be at the front consideration at the cabinet table. To do such complex work, we need dedicated leadership and accountability. We need to see our government working on this, and it can’t be achieved through work that is done within a much larger and unrelated ministry,” said Dugal.

Debbie Owusu-Akyeeah, director of policy and advocacy at Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, agreed, saying that there is an underlying message behind the moves.  

“The message is that this government is focused on the economy. But the other message, the one that’s not being said out loud, is that the issues pertaining to gender equality, LGBTQ inclusion, disability rights, seniors, issues, labor, these things were nice to haves that we had over the last 10 years under the previous iteration of the Liberal government. And the message it also sends, is that these are no longer a priority, especially when we’re in this situation where our economy and our sovereignty is under threat,” said Owusu-Akyeeah.

Owusu-Akyeeah also explained that her organization has had a ‘collaborative relationship’ with the government, and that the government is to be ‘held accountable’ for its choices. 

“One of the things that we are doing now is to remind people in Canada what they have the power to do and to control, as people who can hold decision makers accountable, she said. 

Owusu-Akyeeah explained that losing this voice in cabinet meant that important social programs were under threat.

 We are up against…a far-right populist backlash that is actually trying to frame what are really popular policies like our public health care system, like PharmaCare, dental care, child care, they’re really trying hard to frame these as unnecessary. It is our job to remind people that they’re actually necessary for us to have the strong economy that we are talking about,” she continued.

In order to remedy the potential harm that the removals may cause, Dugal demands the return of the ministry to cabinet.

“I think the Prime Minister could sit down with some of the groups who created the joint statement. It would be great to hear what the Prime Minister’s plan is for this role in future cabinets. I would like all parties to tell us what their plans are, and then I would like to see some clear statements on what this role means to the government,” she explained.

Owusu-Akyeeah agrees, noting that people across the country are paying attention to the developments. 

“People are upset and are willing to hold this government in particular accountable to ensuring that our issues don’t disappear because all of a sudden the boys are back, quote, unquote,” Owusu-Akyeeah said.

Editor’s Note 2025/03/28: This article was updated to more accurately reflect the work that Women’s Shelters Canada is involved in.

The post Feminist organizations fear loss of representation because of cabinet cuts appeared first on rabble.ca.

The Ontario government has been underfunding the education of special needs students and that affects all students. The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario has released a report about the situation and what can be done. An interview with ETFO first vice president David Mastin. The LabourStart Report about union events.

RadioLabour is the international labour movement’s radio service. It reports on labour union events around the world with a focus on unions in the developing world. It partners with rabble to provide coverage of news of interest to Canadian workers.

The post Why Ontario’s special needs students need to be treated specially appeared first on rabble.ca.

On Friday, March 14, 2025, Prime Minister Mark Carney was officially sworn in at Rideau Hall, and with that, he revealed his selections for the new cabinet. In a significant move, Carney has reduced the cabinet size from 37 members under former prime minister Justin Trudeau to just 24—a notable trim. This reshuffling means that several former ministers have lost their roles, some portfolios have been consolidated, and certain positions have been entirely eliminated.

One such casualty of this restructuring is the cabinet position for the Ministry for Women, Gender Equality and Youth.

This marks a departure from Trudeau’s cabinet, which was intentionally designed to reflect a commitment to progressive values, including a strong feminist agenda. Trudeau’s cabinet also had gender parity between men and women; Carney’s cabinet does not. With this change, Carney appears to be charting a different course for the government’s priorities moving forward.

Today on rabble radio, rabble editor Nick Seebruch sits down with Jacqueline Neapole, the executive director of the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. The two discuss what this removal means for gender equality in Canada and what’s at risk for women and gender diverse people heading into a federal election.

About our guest this week

Jacqueline Neapole is the executive director of the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW). Jackie has been with CRIAW since 2013 working with community and academy-based researchers to conduct feminist research for action. A feminist activist for over 20 years, she has previously worked and volunteered in various capacities with other social justice organizations to advance women’s rights and equality, including the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action. She currently serves on the board of the Women’s History Project.

Since 1976, CRIAW-ICREF has been researching and documenting the economic and social situation of women in Canada. Using intersectional frameworks, they have developed and undertaken a variety of important, ground-breaking research that is women centred. CRIAW-ICREF is a not-for-profit member-based organization.

If you like the show please consider subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you find your podcasts. And please, rate, review, share rabble radio with your friends — it takes two seconds to support independent media like rabble. Follow us on social media across channels @rabbleca.

The post Women and gender equality: Not a priority for Parliament? appeared first on rabble.ca.

Labour organizations are calling on workers to widely mobilize for the upcoming federal election, citing it as one of the most important elections in Canada’s recent history. Amidst an escalating trade war triggered by the US, thousands of jobs remain at risk. The issues facing workers stretch beyond tariffs, though, with many families suffering due to a health human resource crisis, stagnating wages and the rising cost of living.

Employment Insurance amidst tariff threats

The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the country’s largest labour organization, launched their federal election platform on Monday. It included demands for expanded Employment Insurance (EI) coverage to protect workers who may experience job loss due to American tariffs. These calls were echoed by Canada’s largest private sector union, Unifor, in their election platform. 

“This isn’t just another election – it’s a crucial choice about who will support Canadian workers in these turbulent times,” said CLC national president Bea Bruske in a statement. 

Labour organizations have long been advocating for expanded EI coverage. In 2022, the federal government began a two-year review on Canada’s EI system, but the CLC says unfair rules remain. This election, the organization is calling for the end of the deductions to EI benefits that result from severance, vacation entitlements, and other separation payments. As well, they want an end to the 50-week limit on combined special and unemployment benefits. 

As Canadian jobs face an uncertain future, the CLC, Unifor and other labour organizations say EI can ensure Canadians are not left to suffer in this economic upset. 

“Workers deserve a safety net they can rely on,” the CLC wrote in their election platform. “By fixing our broken EI system, we can ensure that job loss doesn’t mean economic devastation for working families.” 

Improved tax system to bolster public services

The CLC is also calling for reforms to Canada’s tax system. Increased tax on capital gains, corporate income, windfall profit and the country’s richest would generate revenue which could fund public services. 

A recent report by Canadians for Tax Fairness showed that tax breaks for Canada’s richest has resulted in a loss of thousands of dollars for each working Canadian family. The Canadian economy has seen growth in recent years but the fruits of this growth have been captured by the top one per cent. Canadians for Tax Fairness report that Canada’s bottom 50 per cent of earners would have made more than $6,000 extra dollars in 2022 if their income had kept pace with economic growth. 

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents a large number of federal public servants, has raised alarms over potential cuts to public services. On Wednesday, PSAC in the National Capital Region (PSAC-NCR) rallied to stop job cuts at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). While the rally mainly focused on IRCC jobs, protestors were also calling for job protections in Canada’s broader public service. 

“We’ve all seen what happens when public service jobs are cut — and it doesn’t end well for anyone,” said Ruth Lau MacDonald, Regional Executive Vice-President for PSAC-NCR. “PSAC-NCR is demanding the Government of Canada halt these reckless job cuts and focus on alternative strategies for managing the federal budget that don’t impact the services Canadians rely on each day.”

Protecting public health care

The ongoing health human resource crisis has also become an election issue. As many families are left without health care, the CLC is calling for an enduring solution to the crisis. 

A recent survey by the Canadian Federation of Nurses’ Unions (CFNU) has highlighted the gravity of the situation. A quarter of respondents rate their work environment negatively, with more than a third of respondents having worked involuntary overtime in recent months. 

These conditions are having negative impacts on workers’ relationships to their families and friends which harms morale. As well, one in three respondents say the quality of care in their workplaces is “fair” or “poor” and half of respondents say the quality of care has deteriorated in the last year. 

“When it comes to health care, the conditions of work are the conditions of care. Still, in 2025, nurses are having to fight for better working conditions so they can provide better care,” said CFNU national president Linda Silas. “With far too many patient assignments, nurses face the impossible task of being in several places at once. There is nothing more demoralizing than being ill-equipped to perform your job in the way you were educated to do it – with safe patient care always at the heart.”

As the federal election fast approaches, the CFNU wants the health human resource to be addressed not only for patient care but also for worker health and safety. 

“Federal parties and candidates must not look away,” Silas said. “Nurses are counting on you to invest heavily in concrete solutions for our public health care system.”

The post The workers’ agenda for the federal election appeared first on rabble.ca.

No doubt about it, Canada is at war and lives and livelihoods are in great danger. 

Most people know the Great Depression started in 1929 with the stock market crash. However, many will not know why the world economy collapsed for 10 lost years. In 1930 US President Herbert Hoover passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raising already very high tariffs another 20 per cent to 40 pe rcent on incoming goods. The Act was signed into law by president Hoover on June 17, 1930. Countries responded with their own tariffs. Trade and the world economy collapsed. Homeless encampments became known as Hoovervilles.

Many ask why is Trump imposing tariffs?                                                                 

No mystery here, with great chaos comes great opportunities for the uber wealthy. 

Canadian author Naomi Klein’s 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism describes the situation perfectly, how power profits from disaster.

There are some very disturbing similarities between Hitler’s rise to power as a dictator and Trump’s rise to power. Hitler came to power and stayed in power because of the support of wealthy industrialists. The Nazis paid very well. Companies that made gigantic fortunes from the Nazis and the effects of that accumulation of wealth can still be seen today. Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Siemens and Audi to name just a few of the many companies that did business with the Nazi government. 

Billionaires, and their corporations greatly contributed to Trump’s first term as president and he paid them off with a trillion dollars in tax cuts. They clearly financed Trump’s second term and Trump has promised more of the same, tax cuts for billionaires.                                                                                            

Our leader’s war planning needs to seriously consider the very real possibility that the deliberate world chaos created by Trump is to profit his billionaire friends. This planning needs to be done in cooperation with other world leaders to take them on directly.

The post Trump is crashing the economy for profit appeared first on rabble.ca.